Disturbing story about Wesley Clark

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:oiDFG3JC3AIJ:www.nwaonline.net/pdfarchive/2002/august/16/8-16-02%2520C2.pdf+Acxiom+%22wesley+clark%22+privacy&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


<snip>

The Little Rock-based data software provider has on more than one occasion
bragged about clandestine meetings it has had with very important people
in the Bush administration, all the way up to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Those whispers became stronger in December when retired NATO Commander Gen.
Wesley Clark became a member of the company's board of directors.

Clark, of course, still has connections with influential decision-makers
at the Pentagon, the State Department and other government agencies associated with
the military and foreign affairs.

The former military commander is reportedly leading a team of Acxiom executives
in high-level meeitngs with to procure some type of partnership that will make the
company a load of money in the future.

<snip>

Earlier this year, Acxiom was singled out for the "Big Brother Awards" by
Privacy International, a London-based activist organization made up of privacy
experts and human-rights organizations from several different countries.

Along with Attorney General John Ashcroft and database billionaire Larry Ellison,
Acxiom was named as one of the corporations, government officials, or private
individuals that allegedly have done the most to threaten personal privacy.

more...

---------------------

Then, more recently:

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/homelandsecurity/focusareas/infosharing.html

Homeland Security Information Sharing Conference Lacks Solutions

<snip>

Current and former political and military leaders, as well as industry officials, spent the first two days of the Second Annual Government Symposium on Information Sharing and Homeland Security offering up more obstacles than solutions to greater information sharing, according to reports by Government Computer News. The conference, being held in Philadelphia from 30 June - July 2, heard retired General Wesley Clark list funding difficulties for new ideas and "turf wars" between federal agencies as two obstacles. He blamed the federal procurement process, especially its procurement officials, for keeping unsolicited industry ideas from getting into the procurement pipeline.

more...

The conference, being held in Philadelphia from 30 June - July 2, heard retired General Wesley Clark list funding difficulties for new ideas and "turf wars" between federal agencies as two obstacles. He blamed the federal procurement process, especially its procurement officials, for keeping unsolicited industry ideas from getting into the procurement pipeline.

So he suggesting some sort of end run around the aquisition process so his company (or the one he sits on the board of) can get their foot in the door?

This does stink....Cocoa, thanx for posting this.

... that the government exists to serve the corporations, as if the procurement process is supposed to fulfill the needs of the corporations rather than the needs of the government.

this suggests that those who have been warning of the "military-industrial complex" wrt Clark, are barking up the right tree.

In the federal government, employees are constantly being asked to suggest process and product improvement. You get money if your idea is good enough. What Clark's saying is that the government has no good way of evaluating anything that's out there that doesn't fit a specific set of specs. It's not treason; he's probably right. America has always been a society of scientific and commercial progress, and inventors and developers have always been going up to the government hawking goods. Some of those goods changed the world, and allowed us to become the power we became in the last century.

Frankly, the whores in the system are the ones on the receiving end of procurement, the Thomas Whites of the world, who weasel in from the private sector and use their positions to procure things that don't work.

Somewhere in the Reagan Administration, there was a drastic change in the way Federal Procurement was handled. I don't know all the regs but I have read about the procurement programs from the time of the SR-71 through the F 117A which shows a remarkable difference.

up through the SR-71 project, defense contractors basically pursued a project and then tried to sell it to the military. They risked a lot of their own capital. The design specs were generally done by the contractor to meet perceived military objectives. Sometime either before or after the F-117 Stealth Fighter program, the DOD started drawing up its own specs and sometimes even engineering documents and then passed them along to the contractors. The problem then became a bureaucratic nightmare partly because of federal contract administration regulations and also because the military engineers aren't usually the cream of the crop types that the private contractors have available to them. I read the book by Ben Rich who was the project engineer for the stealth program and it all becomes pretty apparent in his words. The entire process is a nightmare which is costing the taxpayers millions, maybe even billions. It needs to be cleaned up.

Does that mean that the military-industrial complex will be given a free hand? I don't think so. I think it will streamline the process and force contractors to take some risk but it will also ensure, I hope, that there won't be billion dollar boondogles because the contractor has to provide "proof of concept" before the military buys in.

As far as Clark is concerned, I don't know if this was the same issue he was addressing but my ex-militaary buddies all say that the system is a joke.

this suggests that those who have been warning of the "military-industrial complex" wrt Clark, are barking up the right tree

At first I wasn't so sure about that, but after reading the above line I see the connection now....Clark is pushing to grease the skids for his company, which while maybe not conventional, could be seen as a potential "defense contractor", if we subsume "homeland security" under the rubric "defense".

I think I responded to you on another thread, but Clark's appearance at a brainstorming industry conference is not a big deal.

This would be as disturbing as an ex-Secretary of the Interior appearing at an forestry industry conference to give his (or her) views on how well or badly the dialogue process works. No impropriety there, whatever you feel about the creepyness of forestry companies.

I think it's the first part that's of more concern and Clark's connection with Acxiom does deserve scrutiny, although simply saying that Acxiom does work in homeland security : Clark got hired to the board : Clark is using his contacts to further the mil-industrial complex isn't sufficient to impugn him.

What he is saying is that the procurement process is so cumbersome that innovation is stifled and he is right. This has been true since forever and pretending it is something ominous is nothing more than silly.

it makes you wonder, is his concern here mostly about our security, or more about corporate profits?

I don't see why it's necessary that our govt. be dominated by people in with ties to the oil and defense industries. Can't for once we be represented by, say, a doctor or a ketchup man?

show Dean is the anti-christ and Kerry a hot headed skull-and-boner with too much money and not enough sense. But that would be an inaccurate portrait of either.

Wesley left the employ of Stephens Inc which is, in the city it is headquatered, nothing more than just another company. The young Stephens is a supply-side dickhead but the old man, Witt, dabbled in Democratic politics for decades. He managed to associate with some pretty damned progressive pols in the House and Senate.

Boo!

alternatively, Google on "acxiom wesley clark privacy"

I am surprised at the seemingly triger happy reaction toward supporting Clark. I personally don't know nearly enough about him. Frankly, the military experience he has scares me off, regardless of his views toward BUsh,

Oh brother! Thirty-four years of service to country definitely is frightening. Makes me wonder who he works for......:eyes:

What is it about ex-military that scares people on this board? Every President up until Clinton had some kind of military experience. I won't count Bush because he's not an Elected President and besides, he deserted. Washington, Jackson, Grant and Eisenhower were all generals and the Republic seemed to survive them. I'm not frightened of ex-military, what I'm frightened of are people that have no sense of honor and duty and who their boss is (the People of the United States) like the current resident occupying the People's House. When a person is first sworn in in the military, they take an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They take it seriously.

agree with just about all you said, but just correcting a minor error. but it adds to the point, reagan with no military background was a supporter of the military industrial complex, so why assume it can only be a problem with military guys ?

:dunce:

Jimmy Carter....military and nukes...how scarey can you get?

recall........

I've asked my father about Clark -- as said before, my dad's career military, retired, a few years ahead of Clark at West Point

He did *not* have nice things to say about him as a potential politician--and more importantly as a military figure. Of course, that is ONE man's opinion. I just happen to trust my dad's judgement and will learn more before I knee jerk support or object to *any* candidate.

The military should not be a litmus test in any fashion-both pro or con

Perhaps including your Dad's political orientation for reference?

Thanks!

Am working on the details=--
As for my Dad-- he's a passive Republican (though he states he's independent) He voted for Bush in 2000, but won't in 2004

My brother, who is retired career military, and was with the pentagon, thinks Clark is wonderful. On the surface, I have no problem with him being military, but I will listen carefully and see what shakes out. I like Clark and think he is eminently electable, but will reserve judgment. I imagine a lot of things will be "coming out" as his candidacy threatens a lot of people. It behooves all of us to withhold judgment until we know more.

the seemingly trigger happy reaction towards supporting Clark, I am especially surprised (concerned) by one of the most outspoken supporter, who is neither a United States citizen, nor can vote in a United States election.

trying to divide the vote between Dean and Clark.

It is no secret, once a gov't/military official retires he shows up as a president or board member of a government contractor. This is the standard operating procedures of companies. And the only reason they are hired is to get access to critical decision makers.

Lets see:
1. While I was at McDonnell Douglas they hired Reagan's former Secretary of the Air Force to be the General Manager of my division.

2. The president of OAO (bought by lockheed) was the former commander of the USA Information Systems Command, Ast. Chief of Staff for C4I, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense for C4I (this one under Clinton).

nice catch :toast:

I had just read this article about a retreat for some of the more liberal leaning powerful- an annual event called "Brainstorm".

snip>
Among the guests: significant CEOs, select foreign heads of state, various U.S. governors and members of Congress, at least one prospective presidential candidate (Wesley Clark), one former president (Bill Clinton), and a queen (Noor). Even the assorted journalists here—Slate’s Michael Kinsley, CNN’s Judy Woodruff, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, Time’s Joe Klein—were of the type who had left the sidelines and become ever so comfortable with, and indeed a part of, the power elite.
snip>

Called Brainstorm, the conference had been launched three years ago by Fortune magazine and its influential technology writer David Kirkpatrick (separate from the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick, who covers AOL, which owns Fortune) as an effort to be part of the then-lucrative technology-conference business. But then the bust came. Brainstorm quickly repositioned itself to include, in addition to technology wealth, all sober and serious people of high position and great net worth with liberal leanings (the conference, by invitation and with no costs to its guests, supports itself on corporate sponsorships).

While this was, homogeneously, a liberal crowd, it was not an ironic crowd, or a contentious one, or showbizzy in any sense. These were not social liberals, or cause-y liberals, or polymorphous liberals. There was not even a hint of gayness. These were just overachieving liberals. (They were not just achievers but the arbiters of achievement.)

The opening panel at the first evening’s dinner featured several estimables, including Madeleine Albright, a Singaporean diplomat, and a token (and not too bright) member of the Bush administration, but everybody on the panel was irrelevant except for Wesley Clark. The vibe was as powerful in the room as if you had a panel of B-listers and then, say, J.Lo. The intensity was of one mind. Clark was the romantic figure here. He held the collective crush.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/columns/medialife/n_9121/index.html

When I read it, I momentarily felt reassured that *somewhere* some special people were having a lofty, principled good ol' time. Then I just became curious about whether any political plans were being made- I mean look at the line up- heads of state, a Justice, MONEY and the press, off duty of course. And it's all bankrolled by Corps. I ended up more skepticle than soothed.

There is a good riff on Clinton at the end. I enjoyed it.

I know that we all read and see what we want to through our own filters, but when I read the comment about federal procurement, my first reaction was to be puzzled by what the issue might be.

Public sector procurement, except when it comes to FOB's and Iraq, has got to be one of the most tortuously bureaucratic processes for the lowest value-added of all time. In fact, a good and honest partnership between the public and private sectors involves the sharing of ideas, many of which do originate outside the walls of the Pentagon and other government buildings. Many procurements assume a solution without getting the benefit of competing ideas.

I didn't read anything sinister into the comment, other than the normal frustration with how the government frequently does business.

Clark doesn't work for Acxiom. Are you sure you want to slam everyone who's on the Board of Intel, which was also chided?

If Clark is so bent on procuring government contracts above principal he is sure harming himself by calling Tom DeLay a rat and Bush a liar.

The investment bank he works for, Stephens in Little Rock, might be the only investment bank not brought into the recent scandals. Clark has been working on alternative energy projects. Finding fault with the government procurement process would not necessarily distinguish him from anyone inside or outside the government.

Being prejudiced agaist someone because they became a general is a little strange. George McGovern rose pretty high in the Air Force, I think. Would you rather limit criticism of the military to thosr
e who don't have the most expertise?

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see any slam. Each should be closely scrutinized throughout the primary season.

This is just a single story, and I couldn't find anything else about it. I found it disturbing, that's all, especially since I find him to be such an enigma, so far at least.

wholehearted support and money.

I think we have a runaway Pentagon with an ENORMOUS budget that is much bigger than many countries. Whether or not Clark is legit....can we really afford the risk right now?

Not ALL Dems are equal.

Pentagon/armed forces. I, for one, will not discount his potential, particularly if he gains traction through the primaries. He may be an even better VP for someone like Dean, Edwards, kucinich to innoculate them from a preceived weakness on the military issue.

However, I don't think Clark is interested in being a VP of anything. This man has serious connections and his potential candidacy has been played expertly. If he's everything we are being led to believe, he could very well be the best answer to *. It's up to us to ferret out any reasons why this isn't so. For now, if he enters, I personally think he will mow down the competition. We will be looking for a proper VP for him.

Dean would get roasted on national security, and he would get roasted if Patton got out of the grave and was his running mate, MacArthur became his Sec Def, and Creighton Abrams was his NSA. Nobody much cares about the second guy on the ticket.

… Wes Clark and the Clintons are ALL tied to Acxiom. And they aren’t going to like you knowing this:


Why Quit, Henry? Is It Acxiom?

By Jim Rarey
Deember 18, 2002

When Dr. K (Kissinger) withdrew as co-chairman of the commission to investigate the 9/11 terrorist attacks after refusing to make his client list public, he bitterly asserted his consulting business represented no foreign companies or governments that would constitute a conflict of interest with his duties on the commission.

SNIP…

But it doesn’t stop there. The person who controls Acxiom/Alltel/Systematics is Arkansas billionaire Jackson Stephens. Stephens, and those working with him, have been involved in myriad shady operations too numerous to cite here. We can only hit some of the highlights.

At Systematics, one of the lawyers Stephens hired to represent the company was a bright young attorney named Hillary Rodham. After she joined the Rose law firm (then Hillary Rodham Clinton), Stephens employed the firm (mainly its partners Hillary, Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell) in several of his ventures.

SNIP…


Our final example is perhaps the most important unfinished investigation of the last 40 years. The Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) was started by a Pakistani banker ostensibly to service Arab clients in the Middle East. It quickly became a money laundering mechanism for various terrorist organizations in the area. It then branched out to London and other locations and became a repository and laundering channel for a broad spectrum of organizations, including the terrorists as well as Mossad and the CIA.

BCCI established a branch in Florida and took over the largest bank in Washington, D.C. (First American) with the assistance of Stephen’s Worthen bank and the Rose law firm (Hillary, Foster and Hubbell). When the Florida branch was exposed, it was shut down, but the investigation was limited to Florida.



http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/22.htm

I knew some of this, especially the Barry Seal and Stephens connections and the Clinton's involvement. Some say that our pug as well as dem presidents are carefully elected to maintain this "Complex". I have never wanted to believe it. It makes my support of Dennis Kucinich make even more sense. However, can anyone ever be elected without the powermongers, and what candidates do you think are not involved? Very interesting article. I'm glad you posted it.

The MI-Complex wanted a war and got it in Vietnam. These same stooges wanted war in Iraq and got that, too. Twice.

DUer blm knows Kucinich and states he is an honest broker. Based on his record, I agree. Same goes for Graham, Edwards, Gephardt and probably all of the DEMs running. However, the guy who can bust the Bush Organized Crime Family is John Kerry.

Kerry is the only candidate running for President to have actually gone after them. For those who weren’t around: GOOGLE Kerry and BCCI, Iran-Contra, Ollie North and drugs. Kerry, almost single-handedly, investigated BCCI and how the crooked bank was used by everyone from the CIA to Abu Nidhal to the Saudi rOils to Pakistani Intel. The bank even, illegally, owned an American bank, fronted by Democratic elder statesman attorney Clark Clifford, the same guy who co-authored the National Security Act of 1947, the bill that formed the CIA and the National Security Council.

Ollie the Traitor was so pissed his office (and, by extension, the National Security Council and Vice President Poppy Bush) was associated with drug running, he sicced the crack FBI counter-terror squad on Kerry, claiming he must be a commie because he shook hands with Manuel Ortega, democratically ELECTED president of Nicaragua, the target of the then-illegal Contras, secretly armed by North and his Iranian business connections and several of the the world's leading narcoterrorists.

So, as President, Kerry would tie BCCI, Iraq-gate, contra-cocaine to Bush Crime Family — for starters. Imagine what someone with a mandate from the American voters, backed by the rank and file of the intelligence community and the men and women in the officer and enlisted ranks in the military and the union members of the US would do. Certainly a heck of a lot more than W’s smarmy attempt at covering up 9-11 by naming Henry Kissinger to head the commission.

Back to Kerry: Here’s what the Federation of American Scientists have to say about Senator Kerry and the investigation of BCCI. The CIA and President Poppy Doc Bush did everything possible to stonewall Kerry and buy time to shred away. Sounds familiar with 9-11, where the GOP Congress (backed by their toadies in the Conservative DEM Caucus) has unquestioningly picked up Bush’s bloody laundry.


BCCI, THE CIA AND FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE

Introduction

Excerpt:

On May 14, 1991, Senator Kerry wrote CIA Director Webster to again request the briefing paper on BCCI prepared by the CIA, as well as information on the CIA's own use of the bank. No reply was received in response to this letter from the CIA for over two months, during which BCCI was closed globally following its seizure in the United Kingdom by the Bank of England on July 5, 1991.

In the meantime, cleared staff requested a formal briefing from CIA staff concerning the CIA's knowledge of BCCI's activities. The CIA provided an oral briefing at its offices in June, 1991 at the "secret" level, consisting of very general information concerning BCCI's use by drug traffickers, material which was by then already largely a matter of public record. The briefer provided by the CIA to Congressional staff was unfamiliar with other basic information about BCCI, such as the names of BCCI's shareholders, including former Saudi intelligence chief Kamal Adham, the key figure in BCCI's secret takeover of First American, and the CIA's former principal contact in the Arab Middle East. Further, the briefer also appeared to be ignorant of the principal analytic documents concerning BCCI previously prepared by the CIA and disseminated to Executive Branch agencies, which contained this and other more important information about BCCI.(4)

On July 23, 1991, CIA director Webster replied to Senator Kerry's May 14 request by letter, admitting to the existence of two documents concerning BCCI, which were described as "extremely sensitive" and therefore restricted to being held by the Senate intelligence committee.(5) On reviewing these memoranda, Senator Kerry recognized that the earlier of the two documents, created in early 1986, contained startling information -- that the First American Bank in Washington was secretly owned by BCCI. The distribution list attached to the memorandum indicated that the CIA had communicated this information at the time to the Treasury Department. These was no indication that either Treasury or the CIA had ever advised the Federal Reserve, the primary regulator of First American, of this critical information.

Senator Kerry asked Judge Webster to declassify immediately the fact that the CIA had known as of 1986 that BCCI owned First American, and to begin the process of declassifying the entirety of both memoranda. On July 31, 1991, the CIA advised Senator Kerry that he could reveal the information concerning BCCI's secret ownership of First American, but no other information from the memos. The CIA had not yet acknowledged its own use of BCCI to the Subcommittee, or provided access to any other materials prepared by the CIA concerning BCCI.

CONTINUED…

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/11intel.htm

eom

Kerry is an honest man, too. Not that Wes Clark is a crook. He's a good man, from all I know and from those who know him here on DU say.

But, John Kerry knows who's who and what's where when it comes to the Bush Organized Crime Family.



Kerry in 1992 presided over a Senate probe of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The inquiry had led him to call 84-year-old Clark Clifford to testify, angering fellow Democrats.

why did the inquiry which led to clark clifford testifying anger democrats ? was it because he is 84 years old. i don't even know who clark clifford is. i admit i don't know much about the bcci scandal. i was 13 in 1992 so wasn't paying attention to all of this and am just starting to kind of look into it in recent years.

He was truly a grand old man of Dem politics, and there's way too much to the guy to post here.

Jim Rarey ("medium rare") posts most of his stuff on The Free Republic. The conspiracy theory here seems to be that Clark was on a board of a company associated with the Stephens family.

It would be helpful if you were more specific in your allegations. It seems like you're trying to create guilt-by-association with Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, it's with BCCI, which is more reasonable, but the link is one of those many-degrees-of-separation, over decades, and I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean, other than everyone's part of some big conspiracy. That's partially true, but Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton served their country honorably, even though they, too, were bankrolled by the Stephens empire.

HAHAHAHEHEHEHOHOHO!

If this, and the tenuous ties to mean old Jack Stephens (what about ol' Wit?) is the worst the Clark bashers can come up with, Wesley will be EASY to vet.

:eyes:

I know very little about Clark, and I want to know more.

I am serious. This is absolutely nothing to those that know much about Stephens and Axion.

We don't need another haliburton on our hands.

I feel refreshed.

He "reportedly" was working on "some type of partnership" that would "supposedly" make Axciom money.

In the second piece, we don't even have a direct quote beyond "turf wars"--so I am unable as some to wildly speculate as to what exactly he was talking about.

I'm not particularly thrilled about the connection to the company, but I do need a little more than that to disregard Clark.

I'm sure at least one of his fellow candidates will give the Axciom business the attention it deserves.

Military insider who spoke out against invading Iraq.

Social liberal.

Looks good to me. He completely cuts the chickens head off if he runs. They can't attack him on very much.

Thought you might be getting on about this little editorial, but it was much different, thanks for the background.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html
'THE GUY WHO ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR III'

In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) wrote, "No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War."

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, "Kosovo clash of allied generals," that "General Sir Michael Jackson told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato's forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999."

If General Clark had had his way, we might have gone to war with Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War and we certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an ill-conceived ground war
(snip)

He indeed loyally served the United States military for many years, but he is in no way an objective commentator on this issue.

As for the "almost started World War III" quote, it's worth noting to things:

1) Clark's order was for troops to block the airport, not storm it.

2) A couple days after the initial incident, both Clark and Jackson authorized British and French NATO troops to attempt to enter the airport. They were refused access by the Russians. They sort of eyed each other for a bit and then the soldiers left to figure out another plan. No one got shot. No war started. Sheesh--there's empirical evidence right there that Gen. Jackson's comments were completely hyperbolic.

Please keep in mind that there are many pro-KLA partisans that post regarding this issue on DU. Serbia is a sovereign nation with territorial rights to Kosovo and NATO should, frankly, get the hell out of there. The attacks on Serbs continue while the deal-making KFOR did with the KLA has produced an environment where the islamic radicals are running rampant and engaging in TRUE "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo.

Also, be aware that the WWIII "incident" with General Jackson is not the only time Clark has blown his top. I have said many times that there are a lot of people SHOCKED at the thought of a Clark candidacy because he has an awful temper and is playing the people like fools now. The nice pearly smile and pretty silver hair is covering up a smoldering, angry tinderbox inside Wesley Clark.

We should maybe ask Robert Novak if he knows more about this incident he reported in 1999 on CNN:

ROBERT NOVAK: Members of Congress who, during their spring recess, met in Brussels with Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander, were startled by his bellicosity. According to the lawmakers, Clark suggested the best way to handle Russia's supply of oil to Yugoslavia would be aerial bombardment of the pipeline that runs through Hungary. He also proposed bombing Russian warships that enter the battle zone. The American general was described by the members of the congressional delegation as waging a personal vendetta against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. "I think the general might need a little sleep," commented one House member.

wife as a CIA agent to intimidate other CIA agents.

We should Novak if the congressmen were named Tom DeLay and Dick Armey?

MANY Democrats were worried that Clark was beginning to maybe "lose it." The truth about Yugoslavia WILL become an issue if the good General gets in the race. This issue is one that naturally belongs to the Democrats! But, because Clinton....yada, yada.....you know the rest. Let's wake up! Want to know about Kosovo today? Want to know why Milosevic is doing so well defending himself in the Hague? Want to know the TRUTH?
http://emperors-clothes.com/reports/index.htm

This will all be discussed in due course.

Somebody is defending Milosevic??? MANY people see that whole thing for what it was: another attack on a country with leftist politics that was standing in the way of American hegemony and the new American empire. Milosevic was demonized by monopoly capital in its drive for complete world conquest. Milosevic is STILL the leader of the Socialist Party of Serbia!

The trial is in recess now (has been since mid-July). When it resumes, you can WATCH for yourself the lies being exposed at the Hague. ALL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS are on the following site:
http://www.milosevic-trial.org/trial/index.htm
Any conviction on ANY of the charges would be a travesty to the word, "justice."

-JB

are less numerous than the small clique of nutty neocons who are causing all of the current chaos in the White House.

The UN--and even Serbia's erstwhile ally Russia--retroactively gave the Kosovo mission approval under a UNSC resolution that included a Chapter VII mandate authorizing the use of force. The ICC--which Bush and the neocon clique hate so much, under their retrograde invocation of absolute national sovereignty--has more than enough evidence to convict Milosevic on many, many charges. Even the majority of Serbians are glad that Milosevic is gone and don't seem terribly bothered by his trial--indeed, they mourn Djinjic's assassination far more.

Finally, to call the Socialist Party Milosevic "left leaning" is a joke and to connect it with NATO's intervention even less credible. Milosevic started privatizing Serbia/Yugoslavia's (I'm giving in on that one :P) national industries as soon as he got the chance in 1991.

Almost no one is with you on this, Jason. Not the vast majority of the Western world and the majority of the liberal democratic countries that joined the intervention, not the Muslim world, not anybody in the Balkans who isn't Serbian, not most Marxists who are able to see Milosevic as the evil, murderous man that he really is.

But that's OK. Score as many points as you can by defending Milosevic's trial as a travesty of justice. Maybe the International Criminal Court is yet another shill of the imperialist West, a bourgeois tool of domination that the First World is foisting upon the Third. Maybe Bush's neocons are just playing some sort of weird "bad cop" by claiming to repudiate it.

As a student at Yale, I am surprised that you would be so accepting of the "majority" opinion and also of the United Nations! The UN today is not the same as 1999. Thankfully they have seen all too well how the propaganda machine of the United States and the west works in promoting the new world capitalism.

Milosevic was not a perfect leader. He was also NOT a murderous man! That's not washing in the Hague and if you say otherwise - you're not paying attention.

Here's just ONE story from Agence France-Presse from just last week that might help you realize that all is NOT well in Kosovo and the SERBS are the victims of more "ethnic cleansing" than anything that happened pre-NATO.
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/ci/Qkosovo-serbia-un.RKgc_DaJ.html

ON EDIT:
This link is the latest on the trial from the Hague from TENC - it's a view anybody who has watched the trial would have to agree with. Milosevic has destroyed the prosecution and it's been clear for all to see.
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/defensecenter.htm
To read the lies about Yugoslavia and the farce the trial in the Hague really is, this is a good starter piece:
http://www.tenc.net/gilwhite/ranta.htm#a

There's more of us than you realize. It is VERY hard for most people that KNOW the truth to want to discuss it. The corporate media brainwashed the entire country about "genocide," "Murderous Milosevic," and on and on. The reception I get when I discuss this issue is a case in point. But, I WILL discuss this and fight for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia! (Which, DOES still exist.)

The UN today is still structurally the same as it was in 1999.

Indeed, I'm always amazed as to the degree of misunderstanding about the UN on both the left and right. The UN might have a very significant administrative bureaucracy, but "the UN", insofar as it is a decision-making body that gives the imprimatur of legitimacy to international actions through its resolutions is nothing other than the representatives of all of its member nations in the General Assembly, or, in the case of security issues, the 15 members fortunate enough to be members of the UNSC.

So I find your attmepts to justify radical progressives' support of the UN now but not previously to be rather strained (on the other hand, I also find right wingers support of the WTO and IMF but dismissal of like all of the other Bretton Woods institutions to be pretty silly). The reason "the UN" didn't support the U.S.' invasion of Iraq is because enough powers on the UNSC--especially Russia and France--realized that the "coalition's" normative case for invading in March was weak enough that there was more to gain than to lose for them in opposing it. Maybe a few countries actually would have voted along with their beliefs (or those of their people who were mostly opposed to it). In 1999, on the other hand, that calculation went the other way, not in small part because Milosevic's government was so obviously respoonsible for so much evil.

I may be a Yalie but I'm also a Democrat. Majority opinions don't guarantee justice, but if backed by good reasons, we must presume that they hold the day without sufficient countervailing evidence. The UN is very, very far from a perfect body for adjudicating international disputes and crimes, but I submit that the ICC is one of the UN institutions that gives me the most hope for global justice in the medium run.

No one says everything is going perfectly Kosovo. Indeed, I will top the article you cite and say that the moment after Serb forces were ejected from Kosovo, NATO and KFOR peacekeepers had to shield the Serb minority there from revenge attacks. Disarming the KLA has been a big challenge. Analogous reprisals and so occured in the rest of the Balkans. But, as Human Rights Watch and just about every other reputable human rights NGO notes, the KLA's atrocities do nothing to mitigate the fact that Milosevic and his gang were the primary instigators of large-scale killings. The best available evidence indicates that Milosevic was a murderer.

P.S.: And although it doesn't horribly offend me, but I think your dislike of threads attacking individual bloggers should extend to divulging my personal information (even that which is accessible several steps after clicking through my profile) in public on this board. It may not be against DU rules, but I don't think it's part of the shared norms of a largely anonymous forum.

P.P.S.: Not that I have especially strong views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but any site that admits that it "used to support the PLO" because it was "swayed by emotional arguments" but now posts stories linking the PLO's support of terror to its Nazi roots seems rather unpromising.

You have a link for your blog in your profile. Also, you stated in an earlier post that you had posted about yourself in prior posts. So, based on that, I assumed your being a Canadian citizen, going to Yale, etc. was not anything you didn't want known. If it was, I apologize. However, if you want to be anonymous on DU, then I would remove the link to your blog in your profile. I could understand that.

Milosevic has not been tied to a SINGLE death of an Albanian civilian. Period. Not one. They have tried - and failed. By their own admission! I would strongly urge you to read this:
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/defensecenter.htm which talks of the trial progress and this:
http://www.tenc.net/gilwhite/ranta.htm#a
about how the United States, DynCorp, and others worked with the KLA (linked to Osama bin Laden) to FABRICATE the entire "genocide" fantasy to justify the bombing. Big surprise to read of the involvement of DynCorp. Honestly, I know it's long, but ANYBODY wishing to learn the other side of the story should read these two articles.

I've heard everyones stances on the issues and watched them interviewed. Clark is by far the most impressive.

This is from Salon Premium. I researched him on the web because I was undecided whether Clark or Dean was a better candidate. It may be guilt by association, but I don't see backing someone who actually "likes" the nuts who are in power now.

Q: Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

Clark: I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index2.html

I liked the way Clark presented his views and respected his views. I thought with him on the ticket, that would squash the Republican strategy of painting Democrats as anti-military (absurd as it is, when Dems in office have served just as often as Republicans, and none of the candidates went AWOL like theirs did.)

But this remark of his is disturbing. OK, so he's a gentleman and all, and he's being gracious about past colleagues. But how can one like smarmy people like this "a lot"?

~

before", Insiders like to work with insiders, what could be simpler?