What so great about Wesley Clark?

Now, I know there are Wesley Clark supporters here. So, I'd thought I'd ask this. I've heard the guy speak a few times, and I've tried to find out where he's at on the issues. I looked at http://www.draftclark2004.com/issues.asp

Although I agree with some of his positions, there is a huge amount lacking, is there not? Where's he stand on health care? (the statement on the site was anything but definite when he referenced health care in the military ... does that mean he's in favor of national health care, and if so, why doesn't he say it?) Where does he stand on "globalization" and trade? What's his position on NAFTA and the WTO? Where does he stand on big corporate money in politics? Campaign finance reform? Corruption by Corporations? Privatization? Deregulation? Will he consider cutting the funds for defense? (based on all the statements re foreign policy and homeland security, I'd bet he won't.) Israel-Palestine?

Clark has all the rhetoric about how great America is and all it principles and virtues that it extols. It's just more BS.

Is the Democratic Party that desperate that they have to get a big move afoot to draft a military guy? And, from everything I've seen, some of the supporters of Clark are Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe. That's scary. Is Clark the DLC's man?

Take a look at this line of rhetoric:

"What I learned during my time in Europe was that the strongest force in the world is an idea whose time has come. In Europe, and in much of the rest of the world, freedom, human rights, international law, and the opportunity to 'be all you can be' are those ideas today. For the most part, these are our own American values. And they are ideas whose formulation and dissemination owe much to American example and leadership in the past. Because we live and extol these values, the United States enjoys a solid ethical basis for its power, a supportive community of like-minded nations and international institutions, and a moral force that extends our influence. Preserving these ideas and projecting our values should therefore be ranked among the most important American interests."

What kind of statement is that? It sounds like more of the same BS. I think someone ought to recognize that America hasn't always lived and extolled these values in the past (in fact in many instances it has done the opposite and subverted and overthrown democracies and replaced them with dictatorships). It seems to me that what is needed is to get back to those values and principles. (Kucinich seems to me to be much better and has a vision for the future.)

This military guy that no doubt has all kinds of connections to the military, pentagon and defense industry is the best that the Dems can come forward with?

Perhaps, I'm wrong in being skeptical. But, if so, please tell me about Clark. Tell me what is so great about Wesley Clark and why a progressive should take a look at this ex-military general. thanks.

I think the DLC likes him but so do many Dems who are more left-wing. They see him as someone who has a very good chance to beat Bush.

he's another Dean, but with less political experience.

He's dedicated his life to service and is an American hero? hmmmmmmm

Almost every major city has a county or two or four bigger than Vermont with far more problems and far more diversity. Clark's led a multinational coalition successfully into battle. First in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, humble beginnings in Arkansas, wounded in Vietnam..... I could go on but it's obvious to all but the most partisan that his biography dwarfs Dean's.

comes off as misinformed and disrespectful.

that good generals make good presidents?

Only two generals have become President in the past, Eisenhower and Grant. Eisenhower didn't do anything concerning domestic policy, and a president like that is not what we need. Grant was too stubborn, and his presidency was full of corruption.

I don't see how being a general is so great.

Other Generals who became President include Washington, Jackson, "Tippecanoe" Harrison, and Zachary Taylor, in addition to the named Ike and Grant.

:shrug:

Winning the WH is the name of the game.

All kinds of info on Clark

http://www.prorev.com/indexa.htm

WESLEY CLARK, THE PERFUMED PRINCE

JOHN CHUCKMAN YELLOW TIMES - The Perfumed Prince declared himself a Democrat. Many Americans may not recognize the nickname bestowed upon Wesley Clark by British colleagues as he strutted around Serbia with his set of platinum-plated general's stars carefully repositioned each day to a freshly-starched and ironed camouflage cap, wafting a thick vapor trail of cologne. His lack of judgment demonstrated in Serbia -- including an order to clear out Russian forces that British general Sir Michael Jackson had to ignore for fear of starting World War III -- should be enough to utterly disqualify him as a candidate for President. But this is America, land of opportunity.

The former general scents, through the mists of his musky cologne, an opportunity for service. Hell, we're at war, and any real general is better than a former male cheerleader from Andover who cross-dresses as a combat pilot. Dreams of being the hero on a white horse beckon. A fatal attraction in the American people to used-up generals is how the country managed to elect some of its worst presidents - Grant, Jackson, and Garfield, for example.

NY POST PAGE SIX - The last thing the Clintons want is for a Democrat from Arkansas to defeat Bush next year," says our spy about the ex-general who is expected to announce his candidacy next month. . . Our source adds, "The Clinton master plan is for a Hillary candidacy in 2008 and they will subtly sabotage the Democratic candidate in 2004.That's why they insist on keeping their personal operative, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic committee."

THE END OF LIBERALISM
WASHINGTON MONTHLY RUNS PRO-CLARK PIECE



WESLEY CLARK ARCHIVES

PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, JULY 1999 - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton writes, "The Branch Davidian siege was clearly on Foster's mind. He was 'drafting a letter involving Waco' on the day of this death, surely a point of some significance. He kept a Waco file in the locked cabinet that was off limits to everybody, including his secretary. His widow mentions Waco twice in her statement to the FBI: 'Toward the end of his life, Foster had no sense of joy or elation at work. The Branch Davidian incident near Waco, Texas, was also causing him a great deal of stress. Lisa Foster believes that he was horrified when the Branch Davidian complex burned. Foster believed that everything was his fault.'"

Evans-Pritchard makes no claim that Waco was a cause of Foster's death. After discussing other anomalies, such as his ties to the National Security Agency, the investigative reporter notes, "The point is that Foster was involved in activities that belie the carefully drawn portrait of a bemused country lawyer, and that have clearly been obscured on purpose."

These comments are worth reviving because of Counterpunch's revelation that two key Army officers were involved in the Justice Department planning for Waco and that Clinton had abrogated an longtime American principle of not using the military in domestic law enforcement.

We now also know that NATO chief Wesley Clark, then Texas-based, at the very least approved the seconding of logistical support from his command. We know that important records in Foster's possession were removed. And we know that a military intelligence group moved in on the White House following his death for unknown purposes.

This all, however, merely adds to the mystery of Foster. What remains true is that the existing facts argue strongly against Foster having died in a park of his own hand. Put directly, if he did kill himself, someone moved him afterwards, or else he was murdered. Under what circumstances and for what reasons, we still don't know.

PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - According to an must-read report by Ken McCarthy at Brasscheck, the military was far more deeply involved in the Waco massacre than is generally realized. Behind the military's part in the operation was now NATO commander General Wesley Clark. Among the points McCarthy makes are these:

- The military's involvement in a domestic law enforcement matter was illegal.

- Used in the Waco massacre operation were 13 track vehicles, 9 combat engineer vehicles, 5 tank retrieval vehicles, and a tank.

- The military equipment and personnel came from the US Army base at Ft. Hood, Texas, headquarters of III Corps. According to an account from attorney David T. Hardy, who filed a freedom of information action in the incident, "The operation required mustering approximately a hundred agents (flown in from sites around the country), and who received military training at Ft. Hood. They traveled in a convoy of sixty vehicles and were supported by three National Guard helicopters and one fixed-wing aircraft, with armored vehicles in reserve."

- Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. The arson-murders occurred April 19. Clark had been Commander of the National Training Center and Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC, where Clark was Deputy Chief right before becoming an armor commander at Ft Hood, has as its primary mission to "prepare soldiers for war and design the army of the future." Item number one from the TRADOC vision statement: "...enable America's Army to operate with joint, multinational and interagency partners across the full range of operations."

- President Clinton said, "The first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military be consulted because of the quasi-military nature of the conflict."

- Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to explain away the FBI use of US Army tanks as being equivalent to an innocuous "rent a car" arrangement.

- From early in the siege, "Operation Trojan Horse" became a popular destination for special forces officers both from around the United States and from its closest ally, the UK. They came to observe the effectiveness of various high tech devices and tactics that were being tested against the Branch Davidians. -- Two unnamed high ranking Army officers personally presented Attorney General Janet Reno with the final assault tactics for her, as chief law enforcement officer of the US, to sign off on.

- General Clark's last assignment before taking over NATO was as Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was "responsible for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests in Latin America and the Caribbean." i.e. the support of repressive Latin American military and police operations and a phony war against drugs.

Meanwhile, Dan Gifford, producer of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" writes that "Secret anti-terrorist U.S. Army Delta Force and British SAS soldiers were present at FBI invitation as 'observers.' But reports of those troops illegally killing Americans on American soil persist from sources that have provided accurate information in the past. So do reports of classified weapons testing on the Davidians that was being micro managed, along with everything else, from Washington.

FULL BRASSCHECK ARTICLE
WESLEY CLARK'S CAREER
ROBERT NOVAK, 1999: 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.

RULING BY GREEK COURT, MAY 1999 - Greece's Council of State, the country's highest administrative court has an extraordinary ruling on the war against Yugoslavia:

1. NATO's offensive against a sovereign European state, unprecedented in the post-war years, is an affront not only to the ethical principles of Greek and European civilization, but also to the fundamental precepts of international law. . .

2. This inexcusable attack is taking place in flagrant violation of articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, which expressly prohibits the use of violence in international relations, and designates the Security Council exclusively competent in international crises. . .

3. But this attack even violates the NATO Charter, the exclusive purpose of which is collective defense of the area defined therein that coincides with the boundaries of its member states, and which has expressly committed itself in its international relations to refrain from the threat or use of violence in any way whatsoever that is incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN. . .

4. In addition, both the United Nations Charter and all generally recognized precepts of international law safeguard the equality and sovereignty of all peoples, irrespective of their numbers and power, and do not recognize any jurisdiction on the part of powerful nations to intervene in the internal affairs of weaker nations or to dictate solutions to their own liking. Consequently, however serious the crisis in Kosovo may be, it remains an internal Yugoslav affair and belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign Yugoslav state. Any humanitarian or other interest on the part of the UN, other international organizations or third countries may be manifested only in a peaceful way and by diplomatic means within the context of the UN Charter.

COUNTERPUNCH, 2000: With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, "a horse's ass." Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the NATO command two months early.

WILLIAM BLUM, ROGUE STATE - Beginning about two weeks after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began in March, 1999, international-law professionals from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, and the American Association of Jurists began to file complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and officials of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had issued indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges filed were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including "willfully killing, willfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences." The Canadian suit names 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark, and Jamie Shea. The complaint also alleges "open violation" of the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions, and the Principles of International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

Hyperbole if not bullshit:

"...including an order to clear out Russian forces that British general Sir Michael Jackson had to ignore for fear of starting World War III"

Complete Bullshit: Nato Supreme Commander having something to do with WACO!!!

You embaress yourself Terwilliger

Educate yourself.

If I wrote a rag on you and someone googled your nick, whatever filth I wrote about you would show up. Does that make it true? You Googlers embarrass yourselves. You go to the web and google sources that you cannot vouch for and present the info as facts. You don't know who the authors are or what their agenda is. Yet the FACT that it's on the web (not even on Google as you claim) makes it true.

You embaress yourself Terwilliger

Not possible!

I could never pull a BillyBunter!

Your best line of the night!

:hi:

and then kindly shove it up your arse

Have a nice day :hi:

up your own arse

Nato Commander/Waco....

cant stand up to scrutiny

Yeah, I always rely on a Murdoch-owned rag for reliable political info. After all, they've been right so many time before :rollseyes:

then there's nothing to worry about

its just information

.....to clear out Russian forces

Stopping planes from landing by putting tanks on the runway is a long way from clearing out.

How is Karl these days?

of war crimes while NATO commander ?

I know, I know, and Kerry committed murder in Viet Nam and is covering up for Bush's grandfather's Nazi connections.

Some people here are really sick.




Kerry/Clark 2004

So he was in charge of a military base and was requested to supply logistical support?

Military people say "yes,sir" to their superiors. They don't sit around and debate.

So I say BFD to that story.

He was probably told to kill a few viet cong in Vietnam too.

My point is that he's a typical Democrat...why is my above post negative

All you folks have all this "BFEE propaganda" figured out, so you can glean the good from bad

right??

You're going to credit a report that bashes Clark for wearing perfume and a crisp, snappy uniform...which is required under the military rules?

Please tell me you're better than that.

DTH

but you can look at it that way if you like :shrug:

The other BS has been debunked many times. And I know you're enough of a critical thinker to question sole reports with definite agendas.

DTH

and by whom? Your man, the Hammer of the Serbs has got an ugly history that has been recorded. Deny it all you like, it's still there.

yeah I see all over that shit

I'm talking about Counterpunch, which has an agenda against anyone not "pure" enough for them. I'm talking about Zpub, which is about as right-wing as they come. I'm talking about all of the pro-Serbian publications. I'm talking about George Will and all of his cronies.

Read BBC. Read Washington Post. Read NY Times. Hell, read Fortune and Esquire. Those magazines all show Clark as a good man, and none of them are as whorish as the RW vehicles like Fox, NY Post, WSJ, etc.

DTH

then everyone should end up with a fairly balanced picture of Clark

thats a good thing, right?

I don't expect you to drink the Kool-Aid. I would just prefer it if you got the info for yourself, from both pro- and anti- sources (and moderate ones too).

DTH

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,480208,00.html

Clark, then, would not be an "antibusiness" Democrat should he run. His economics are garden-variety, centrist, conventional. He doesn't like budget deficits, says the recovery underway is "jobless," and of course is critical of the Bush tax cuts. Like most of the other declared candidates, he is maddeningly vague about which parts of them he'd roll back, and when. Asked about health care, Clark goes into a disquisition about the backwardness of the incentives when it comes to health insurance. The other candidates would have their press people fax you their 14-point plan, along with seven studies on why it's the best thing for America since the lava lamp. Clark, on domestic policy anyway, is trying out lines as he goes along, seeing what works, what doesn't.

It doesn't really matter. If Clark goes, he's not going because he's all worked up about those damned deficits. He would run as general, the former NATO commander coming to restore order and reason to an American foreign policy run amuck, one that has made, he argues, the country less secure, not more, since George W. Bush took over. Iraq would be exhibit A.

And there, possibly, lies a problem. As we've seen, in politics things change. Iraq, one year from now, is not likely to be the unmitigated disaster that currently seems possible, nor the stable democracy of neoconservative dreams. It will probably be either slightly more or slightly less of a mess than it is now. For Clark, no less than for the other Democrats, the issue then gets complicated.

(snip)

Clark doesn't handle that question as deftly as you'd expect. Not even close, actually...

(snip)

At some point during this answer, the image of gravitas that a general and NATO commander has begins, shall we say, to fray a bit. It's fine to argue that the Iraq invasion was wrong. Clark may be right about that, and whoever's elected next year will have to pick up the pieces. We'll see. But a lot of people well to the left of George W. Bush—led by Tony Blair—would argue that the statute of limitations stuff is dubious. And suffice it to say that the "guys" running China now are not the same leaders who killed the students in Tiananmen Square. The recently departed General Secretary Jiang Zemin, to take but one example, was promoted from mayor of Shanghai to succeed Deng Xiaoping in part because he avoided bloodshed during Tiananmen. Yes, China's still more or less a police state. But have you ever heard of Saddam promoting someone because he avoided killing somebody?

thanks for the info there. sounds like he would fit right in with past presidents. I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to Clark to date, as he's never announced. So, I'm just starting out and trying to learn about his positions and background. From everything I've seen, I don't see why I would even consider this guy. Is their a lot of difference between him and Joe Lieberman?

I guess some don't care about Clark's positions and/or background as long as they think he is "electable" and "has a chance to beat Bush".

You call this Internet pap research? Google this: Mother Teresa is a subversive, NATO is Illuminati, Rhodes Scholars are Illuminati Satanists,Bill Clinton is an illegitimate Jefferson slave child or Rockefeller spawn, Kucinich is a nut and Gen. Wesley Clark is the devil’s toe jam. You can find horrible things about anyone on the Internet – this is not research – it is disgusting. If you and others are going to use this specious crap to trash one of the most courageous men of a generation at least get the definition right.
perfumed prince(s) n. - military policy maker and decision maker located far from the field of actual combat. Phrase popularized by Col. David Hackworth
Clark was anything but a perfumed prince:

"It is not until one reads Holbrooke's book, To End a War, that one finds out that after the APC went off the road, Clark grabbed a rope, anchored it to a tree stump, and rappelled down the mountainside after it, despite the gunfire that the explosion of the APC set off, despite the warnings that the mountainside was heavily mined, despite the rain and the mud, and despite Holbrooke yelling that he couldn't go. It is not until one brings the incident up to the general that one finds out that the burning APC had turned into a kiln, and that Clark stayed with it and aided in the extraction of the bodies; it is not until one meets Wesley Clark that one understands the degree to which he held Milosevic accountable." The General http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_6.html Read this article and tell me this man is a perfumed prince.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur was a perfumed prince – read about it.

Maybe none of this means anything to you – maybe it’s all just a big joke to you – but if you want to do something valuable, and if you really do think there is something to worry about concerning Clark, try submitting a FOIA request – a trusted method among serious researchers for years.
Making a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Request
FOIA requests must be made in writing. There are no special forms needed for making a request. You can mail or fax -- but not e-mail -- your request.
Fax - (202)261-8590
Address - Margaret P. Grafeld, Information & Privacy Coordinator
Office of Information Resources Management Programs and Services,
A/RPS/IPS, SA-2
Department of State
Washington, D.C.20522-6001
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Write "Freedom of Information Act Request" on the envelope or on the subject line of your fax.
Include a daytime telephone number in case we need to contact you.

Cheers! :P

what makes your article more legiitimate than the scads of articles that were listed in the Progressive Review?

because you say so? Richard Holbrooke? Are you fucking kidding me? The grand master of Bosnian death showers praise on his murdering minion and that's credible? Where is this Junod on other articles? What other puff pieces has he published? How many pro-Dem pieces?

Sounds like internet pap to me :eyes:

Takes about 3 weeks to get a reply. Real information, real debate. Comprende?

Why do you so admire Milosevic? Or have you so convinced yourself that each and every person connected in any way with the any of the international institutions is somehow of absolutely no value. Only Milosevic is capable of the truth, of virtue and honor.

So let's all rally around those who would spread disinformation and fear. Let's all parrot a disperate fact wrapped in a shroud of lies so that we may distrust even those who have lived with a code of honor. Oh_Clark wore a uniform of this country...then fill up with hatred. We are to cheer for that other guy...

Milosevic! Milosevic! We will blindly support your actions no matter how bloody because they were only muslims corpses.

I have read this twisted trash too many times; posting a link does not make it the truth.

Signed

Danica

A second generation Serbian American

because it will be REALLY HARD for the media whores to paint a GENERAL FROM ARKANSAS as a pansy-ass LIBERAL FROM THE NORTHEAST.

eh, Skittles?

but swing voters will (whether or not it's true). You do realize that most DUers are more liberal than 85 or 90 percent of the population. You can't win a presidential election with just Democrats and liberals.

and with that...you lose

good luck on your future endeavors!

if you actually believe a Dem can win without getting a decent share of swing voters you're living on another planet. I'm interested in winning elections, not in being perpetually out of power because my party runs candidates who can't attract enough votes from the center.

Lessee!!!!! *ready to tally DLC inspired wins*


Bill Clinton.....ummmm.....

Then we have....hmm...well no

maybe....no

oops! yeah, we lost control of both the House and Senate...

lost it in 2002...


hmmmmmm.........

I guess your argument falls apart doesn't it

Do you actually think liberals make up a majority of the electorate? (BTW, before Bill Clinton won two straight elections and his VP won the popular vote in a third, the Dems lost four of the previous five presidential elections, so YOUR argument falls apart.)

the ones that don't vote see people like modern day Democrats and say "I'm glad I'm not voting"

and, uhhhh, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA the VP won the popular vote? By ONE-HALF of ONE PERCENT?! Whatta mandate!

and I truly doubt the results of 2002.

it's COMMON SENSE

As long as you think he can beat Bush, the Dems will back him? So, if anyone just says he's Dem (no matter his positions), and they think he has a chance to beat Bush, the Dems will support him.

Geez, maybe they should go out and get Stormin Norman to declare himiself a Dem.

And, people wonder what is wrong with the Dem Party.

IS TO GET RID OF F***ING BUSH. And if it takes Clark running to beat him then HELL F***ING YES I WILL BACK HIM.

:shrug:

All I see is a uniform. He only said he was a Democrat last week. He still has not said if he was running. Sounds very indecisive to me.

But most importantly, in my heart of hearts, I believe a uniform is the last thing our country needs at this time in our history.

Especially his uniform.

Clark seems to be intelligent, liberal, is friendly, and was the supreme commander of NATO at one time.

When we compare him to other candidates, I'm not certain where he stands out. Supposedly he is 'the only one that can beat Bush,' or 'beat Bush in a landslide', etc., but realistic arguments are never provided explaining by what *process* this is accomplished.

Clark has a broader appeal than any of them, but it all remains to be seen, doesn't it? He hasn't even declared yet, and it'll probably be another few days before he does. If he does, then we'll have to see how he does in an actual campaign and in debates. He'll have to present his actual proposals for domestic as well as foreign policy. If his supporters have him sized up correctly, he'll have his ducks in a row on all the issues when and if he declares. If he gets into it and if things continue to go as they are, it'll probably come down to him and Dean. I think Clark pretty would pretty much cancel out Kerry. If that's the way it comes down, then let the best man win and let the second best man be offered and accept the VP spot and we've got a great shot.

He can bring the DLC and liberals together. He is unafraid to call himself a liberal, as he did on Bill Maher's show the other night. And just once, wouldn't it be nice not to constantly be on the defensive and playing the rear guard when the other side and the corporate media say the Democrats can't be trusted with national security? Clark will make such charges impossible, while still offering a different vision than the Bush Administration.

A retired general who's a liberal/progressive is quite a combination. I, too, am tired of being on the defensive on security issues.

and neither are any of the other Democratic candidates and that's what makes them all so great.

Second- he won't be on the defensive about being "soft on defense" which is Dean's soft white underbelly.

Dean would be yet another Democratic President desperately trying to prove his manhood by giving the Pentagon ever more money with no way to account for how it gets spent.

He already said in a debate he wouldn't cut the Pentagon budget.

Clark, by virtue of his Military Credentials, just might be able to bring desperately needed reform to the Pentagon.

question. Do a search and read the old threads to find out. Nothing new is going to come from this thread, although it will give people the opportunity to trot out their ultra-left wing, Pristina-Illuminati-MIC-babykiller war criminal-cum-agent of the Republicans conspiracy theories. I'm sure it would break your heart were that to happen, though.

and in the next breath talk about how he will win the moderate Republican votes. It is interesting. I notice the best response people tend to give to your question is that he is "electable." Not a very factual answer. It is based completely on conjecture, as is my belief that if he wins the primary he will not get enough votes to beat Shrub and will be ushering in the finish, not a new start, for the Democratic party.

I am much more liberal on matters of race and gender than the majority of DU. I am moderate (vis-a-vis DU standards) on economic issues, and more conservative on foreign policy issues.

Yet I also recognize that Clark is -- despite his military background -- more liberal than most of the field. I recognize that because I know politics.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. But look for yourself, without being blinded by the four stars like so many are; I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

DTH

I would vote for him IF he declares and IF he wins the primary. I am made suspicious by how many of his supporters seem to think we need to act like Republicans to win. They seem ashamed to be Democrats. And I am not the only one who thinks that his supporters on DU are of the more moderate persuasion (Conservative by DU standards.

I've noticed that some members with the Clark avatars use "left-wing," and "radical" as if they were epithets just like the O'reallys and Hannities of the corporate media do.

Suspicion is a problematic trait ..... its good when reasonably considered: ... but its a symptom of paranoia when based on irrational and unfounded fear .....

If that's not enough to throw your support...shit, then I don't have a clue.

You testified to eventually arriving and taking refuge in the abandoned house of Mr. Memic. I want to now ask you several questions regarding what happened in the Memic house. Can I ask you to begin by telling us how many people were in this group and what was its composition?

A. When we moved from the new hotel, when a Serb policeman told us to go to Pionirska Street, we arrived in front of Memic's house. There was a group of some 70 people, mostly elderly men and children and young girls. We were wet from the rain. We changed. Somebody had tea, somebody had coffee. And in the meantime, Mitar Vasiljevic and Milan Lukic arrived, as
well as Sredoje Lukic and Milan Susnjar, also known as Laco, and they told us to go to one room. Then Milan Lukic put a cloth on the table telling us to put all our jewellery on that cloth. We did that, and then we were forced into another room where Milan Susnjar was, and he stripped us naked. We had to dance. They were giving instruction, move forward, move backward. Skip this way and that. After that, we put our clothes on. And then they took out Jasmina Kurspahic, and Jasmina Vila. I don't know where they took them. When we asked them what happened, they wouldn't tell us anything when they came back as to what had happened to them.

Q. Did there come a time when the group was forced to move from this house to a house very close by, to a house owned by a family by the of name Omeragic?

A. After that, when they took all this from us and mistreated us,



Page 25599

then they -- then Milan Lukic who was standing at the door of Jusuf Memic's house, and Vasiljevic at the other house, and then we were escorted to Omer Memic's house. And at the end, we were burned shortly after that.

Q. Can you please describe what happened in the Omeragic house.

A. When we reached this Omeragic house, the carpets had been -- some oil or fuel had been poured on the carpets. And that is when they set fire to us. Amongst us was a two-day-old baby. The children were screaming. The women, the old men, were trying to help. I was right next to the window, and I threw out my 13-year-old son out the window, and then I followed him a couple of minutes later. Then I was wounded in my left
arm and left leg. I went into the stream and the sewage canal where I stayed for three nights and three days.

Q. From where you were in the sewage canal, could you see what happened to the people in the house?

A. It wasn't far. It was about 50 metres away so that I heard
screams, cries for help. It was unbearable. When I think about it, I start dreaming. I feel distressed and awful. It was terrible. It was
painful.

Q. How many people are you -- can you estimate for us how many people died in the house that night.

A. There was us from our village, and others from the neighbouring villages, so there were about 70 of us. And then there were people already in that house when we arrived, so there may have been 75, maybe even more. I didn't count those people that were already there when we



Page 25600

arrived.

Q. How many members of your immediate family died that night?

3 A. Six of my family members died. My mother-in-law and onwards from that.

5 Q. After you threw your son out of the window of that house, did you know whether or not he had survived the events of that night?

A. I didn't know. I had no contact with him for five years. We met

8 five years later in Zenica. And this was a terrible experience and a shock to see him five years later. We had parted when he was only 13 and a half.

Q. Did your son know that you had survived that night during the
course of that five years?

A. No, he didn't know. He didn't know anything about me, nor did I know anything about him.

Q. Can you please briefly describe to the Chamber the injuries you sustained that night.

A. That night, while I was in the sewage canal, there were worms all over my wounds. I had wounds in my left arm and leg. When I reached the Gorazde hospital, I was in a sorry state.

Q. And finally after escaping from Visegrad, did you learn that this group had perpetrated a similar crime to another group of Muslim civilians in a house in Visegrad, without going into the detail of that event?

A. Yes, at the Bikavac, about 80 people were burnt by this same
group. Again, these were civilians, elderly people and children.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have no further questions.

While this link may not meet the exulted standards of the above posted material, this snip from page 25,600 of the World Court transcripts might throw some light on that hero Milosevic.

http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/

Personally, I am glad General Clark and Richard Holbrooke were able to remove him from power. The rightwing and all of their slimy minions are about to throw everything they have at our fading democracy, how sad that there are those who would spend their time rushing to denigrate someone who put his credentials and honor on our side by chosing to speak out.

""What I learned during my time in Europe was that the strongest force in the world is an idea whose time has come. In Europe, and in much of the rest of the world, freedom, human rights, international law, and the opportunity to 'be all you can be' are those ideas today. For the most part, these are our own American values. And they are ideas whose formulation and dissemination owe much to American example and leadership in the past. Because we live and extol these values, the United States enjoys a solid ethical basis for its power, a supportive community of like-minded nations and international institutions, and a moral force that extends our influence. Preserving these ideas and projecting our values should therefore be ranked among the most important American interests.""

... to enlightenment values and ethos ....

You didnt get that ? ....

There is NOTHING militaristic or malignant in those words ....

I must say: ... I find such rhetoric inspiring and refreshing from an american politician .... WE respect Europe for its adherence to democratic and humanistic values: ... Freedom, human rights, an internationalist worldview, .... and opportunity ....

You found something objectional with these sentiments ? ....