OK, let's see if this works, then..this is about Clark (reasoned, I think)

I was getting ready to add this post to seventhson's "weasely Clark" thread. I was reading the above...went to get a cup of coffee, and when I came back the thread was locked. So...guess I'll start my own thread. I hope the mods don't mind. I tried to post on the other thread.

I've been stewing about this for quite awhile. So here goes..

First of all, in the event that anyone here thinks I might be a disruptor or worse, I have been a registered democrat ever since I was old enough to vote (a long time). Truth be told, though, I have little use for my local democratic party. I live in a very conservative community, and what passes for a democrat here is simply "republican-lite" as far as I am concerned. I'm much too far to the left for any of them, and I don't need any more frustration in my life right now.

I have liberal/progressive credentials that go back before some people on this board were even born (30+ years). I was intimately involved in a long, long-term battle to keep a nuclear power plant from being built in my community in the late 70s. I was in Washington protesting the Contras (remember them?) way back. I was in Washington in January 1991 when Bush the Elder was making mischief in Iraq the first time. I was in Washington this past Feb., freezing my butt off but lending my voice.

I have been on this board since before 9/11 (lurking) and registered shortly after. My post number is not high. I don't post a lot. You will probably see that I don't have a star after my name. They took my star away. <sniff> I'm not complaining. I haven't donated in awhile. Hopefully, in the next week or so I can send another modest donation and get my star back. I guess you might say I'm "income-challenged".

That I should have to preface my remarks with the above disclaimer really pains me. But I have been reading these Clark threads for several weeks now, and it seems to me that anyone who is not 100% in Clark's corner is called a disruptor or worse.

My sense is that the more those who are trying to raise honest concerns about Clark feel that they are not being heard, the more they redouble their efforts and the uglier things get when tempers flare.

Brian Sweat said, in the above referenced thread, #86, "There is nothing in the new rules preventing you from posting honest criticism of Clark or any other candidate."

Well, lets see if that's true.

There is something about Clark that makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know what it is. Call it a sixth-sense. But I've learned, over the course of my life, to listen to what my inner voice tells me.

Laugh if you will. Some of you will say that a simple feeling is not a good reason not to vote for someone. And my inner voice could be wrong. Granted. I would not send someone to death row on the basis of a gut-feeling. I know the difference. But we are far from the 2004 election. It's possible that I may change my mind. I don't know. I'm watching, reading and thinking. For now, I can't shake the feeling that something's not right.

Now, here's the "war-criminal" question: This is from, Rogue State by William Blum. 2000. Page 68, Chapter 8. Titled "War Criminals: Theirs and Ours."

Blum lists a number of those he considers war criminals. Included in this list is, among others, Bush the Elder, Powell, Kissinger, Wesley Clark and yes, Clinton.

Blum says Clark directed the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia "with an almost sadistic fanaticism"..."He would rise out of his seat and slap the table. 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign - now!'" (Source given for Clark's quote, Washington Post, Sept. 21, 1999, p. 1)

Given that many of us here were rightly appalled on hearing that Bush pumped his arms in the air and said "Feelin' good" before one of his Iraq speeches, how are we to understand what Clark is said to have done? This is an honest question.

Oh, and I didn't go digging for this. I had Rogue State on reserve at the library for over 2 months. It came in about a week before Clark announced.

I'd like to know what others think. And BTW; as to who I support. Everything else being equal, in some fantasy world, I'd like to see Kucinich. But realistically - Dean.

Flame-on! But don't call me a disruptor.

I havent been called a disruptor yet but I feel your pain.

:loveya:

not a disruptor! Your sincerity is heartwarming.

Julie

I know. Its just I have my problems with Clark as well, I had them before lol it was "cool".

People jump on Clark because he has no real clearly articulated positions.

"There is something about Clark that makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know what it is. Call it a sixth-sense. But I've learned, over the course of my life, to listen to what my inner voice tells me."

That's not much different.

The current Esquire magazine covers the Kosovo issue well. I have to say that 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign - now!'" (Source given for Clark's quote, Washington Post, Sept. 21, 1999, p. 1) sounds like a lot of fantasy. I'd like to know who the source was for that Washington Post quote - who said it? Clark had a good number of enemies within the Pentagon at the time.

I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if I could find the entire article online.

That is rather the essence of warfare: the greater the speed at which damage is inflicted, the greater the shock; the greater the shock, the more helpless the enemy to respond coherently; the more incoherent the response, the more certain is success, and the shorter the duration of the conflict.

The idea that something criminal was done in destroying Butcher Slobo's campaign of murderous ethnic cleansing in Kossovo is laughable. It will certainly achieve no political traction with the people of the country.

The idea of a general pounding a table and bellowing, 'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign - now!' sounds like something from Star Wars or Dr. Strangelove.

But we do not know what kind of a lunk-head he was arguing with.

The thing does not bother me at all.

somebody translate..

Thanks ;)

Everyone should recognize this.

Everyone should recongize that... or start a thread about. :)

Do you remember the way Sen. James Inhofe exploded and said about Clark and Kosove: "We have lied to the public as to the atrocities that have taken place." ?

You know where I worked at that time and it was no secret that Clark was waging that war as if he had a personal vendetta.

I believe he was even called on that.

I will tell you as a military person that no one is humiliated by being brought back 3 months early from an assignment without DAMN good reason... and certainly not at that level.

Hugh Shelton is a man of the highest honor and truth- an irreproachable and honorable military General. Officers do not break ranks and speak ill of each other. Scratch your head on that one a little... Also, you still have contact with some of the guys at Vets for Peace- ask them what they think about him running and what they thought about the war in Kosovo and the manner he waged it.

They protested that one the same way and for the same reasons they're protesting this one. The only difference is that back then, no one was paying attention and swallowed the spin hook, line and sinker.

There were no more mass graves than there were babies being thrown from incubators or WMDs.

Do you know why the Europeans didn't jump on the "Pulverise Iraq band-wagon"? It's because their media is a lot freer than ours and not an extension of the Department of Propaganda. Last time I was in Europe- their version of Scott Ritter was making the rounds. Check this out (I had this for another post but will use it here instead):

General Bo Pellnas says the US "fabricated evidence" against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic during clashes between Serbia and Bosnia in the mid-1990s. Seems he got burned in Yugoslavia with the US's faked evidence and warned to world not to fall for the same trick when it came to Iraq. Very strange that this never made the news here- it was all over French TV last time I visited.

Bo Pellnas isn't just anyone- he's a prominent and experienced international peacekeeping official who served there

((Monitors begin mission on Serbian border
Former Swedish General Bo Pellas has confirmed that he will head a 135-strong monitoring mission along the border separating rump Yugoslavia from Bosnia-Hercegovina. Pellas stated that the mission, which will monitor the flow of humanitarian aid, will eventually have a total force size of 270. Serbian sources have expressed optimism that the missions deployment may lead to ending the UN sanctions imposed against the nation for the last 28 months.

+Reference: 940919.067
INTER PRESS SERVICE INTERNATIONAL NEWS
Friday September 16, 1994
http://csf.colorado.edu/dfax/ipn/ipn02.htm#T-0043 ))

Retired Swedish Brigadier General Bo Pellnas, who was head of UN Military Observers (UNMOs) in Croatia, is currently making a bit of noise in the Swiss, French and German media about how he couldn't trust the information coming from the Americans. He is being very clear about this

now says that the US should not be trusted. Pellas says that he learned to distrust the US-provided evidence during peacekeeping service in the former Yugoslavia.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/boards/milosevic/issue_milo_discussaug29-3103.php

A Swedish former Brigadier General Bo Pellnas, who was head of the United Nations Military Observers in Croatia, explained how he had developed doubts over America's veracity during his service in the former Yugoslavia. During an interview he gave to a Swedish news agency, he described how Madeleine Albright, then secretary of state, accused the Yugoslav authorities of importing illegal weapons. Pellnas contends that fake aerial photographs were produced to back up the American claim.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/opinion.asp?ArticleID=77029

From this week's Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet.

Here is an English-language translation of this article:

In an interview with Sweden's leading news-wire TT, retired Brigadier Bo Pellnas claims that the US "faked evidence to suit their own interests."

"If the US were to present evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the countries of the Western world would have no way to substantiate these reports due to the technical superiority of the US."

These are the words of retired Brigadier Bo Pellnas, who says he witnessed the US "fabricating fact to suit their own needs." Pellnas says he witnessed this first-hand when he led an international force which safeguarded the borders between Serbia and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, where he gained a very good insight and understanding of US operations. "The technical superiority of the US gives their politicians the option of bringing forth fake evidence, in this case in front of the United Nations Security Council."

Pellnas served in Yugoslavia during a time when US efforts, led by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright, presented evidence to the UN Security Council that Milosevic's Belgrade government ran unmonitored arms shipments. Pellnas claims that Albright's staff presented manipulated satellite photos to document false allegations, leading the Security Council to act in accordance with the US hard line against Milosevic.

"There might be a possibility that Albright thought the pictures to be true," says Pellnas, "but several incidents pointed towards the fact that the US lied." The US stood firm by their claims, refusing to show supporting evidence to Pellnas and other members of the peacekeeping crew.

<snip>

Pellnas said he hopes that nations of the European Union make it their responsibility to build their own intelligence agency which has the capability to act as a counterbalance to the US. "It would be great indeed if the EU could act as a balance to the world's only true superpower, which acts alone these days."

<snip>

http://www.unknownnews.net/fis020603.html

Sen. James Inhofe, republican sentor from Oklahoma - oh yes, very trustworthy and fair statements and positions regarding Clinton and Clinton's administration. Bet he voted against conviction too.... So fair and balanced that I bet he issued a statement "exploding" over the outing of a CIA agent by the Bush Adminstration? Not likely

And Hugh Shelton, now we know Hugh Shelton recently smeared Clark - in public statements completely unprovoked by anything Clark said or did (except running for President). And for those unprovoked vague slams against a fellow general, Shelton "is a man of the highest honor and truth- an irreproachable and honorable military General" Okay, well why then did Shelton smear Clark in such a vague mysterious way? Is that honor, is that truth? Why no reference to details? Your comment about officers not breaking ranks and speaking ill of each other seems to support Clark, not Shelton. If Shelton knows something about Clark - say it already or retract the vague statements.

<I will tell you as a military person that no one is humiliated by being brought back 3 months early from an assignment without DAMN good reason... and certainly not at that level.>

Excuse me, I know tons of military people who would strongly disagree with this statement.

not the same at all Will.

The word "amusing" was used, friend.

on your part. Kind of like apples and oranges, friend.

Actually yours is one of the most amusing posts I have seen today, I am laughing my ass off here.

(sorry, just doing my Pitt impersonation)

Guess I missed the point of that post, Will.

You were saying I don't seem to have a clearly articulated position re: Clark.

I was really put off by his statement that he would have gone with the republicans if they had called. Something like that. Then I think he said it was a joke.

Dean was taken to task on one of the Sunday shows (This Week (?)) for changing his position on various issues and he said that changing one's mind over time is a sign of growth. With which I totally agree. Entirely different, IMO, from saying you would have gone with the Republicans. If it was a joke, it was lame.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on Clark. Never said I was. :-)

in fact, my "inner voice" has been screaming "don't let Dean get it" for a while.

Making a caricature of Clark as a "maximum violence" fanatic is ridiculous, in my opinion. Dean has already sounded plenty of hawk themes, and he'll be under a lot of pressure to show he's not afraid to use the military.

Fact is I trust a former soldier to be commander-in-chief more than I do a wealthy aristocrat who has never and will never serve, even though they gain arguable the most from our activist, imperialist foreign policy.

btw, I'm a Kucinich fan too - and realistically - Clark.

It's mine. Can't account for how anyone else feels. As has been said YMMV.

I do however dont have the most positive feelings about Clark, this stems from my opposition to Kosovo and I think Dennis would agree with me there. Plus I know someone who had family there. I am not condoning Slobodan Milosevic if you must know. Yes the GOP opposed that but you know why, to oppose the Clintons. Veterans for Peace opposed it as well they are hardly your average right wing GOP group. Sorry for the rant. I dont mind military veterans at all though, I am sick to my stomach when people insult McGovern and my grandfather is a vet too. Trust me I am not an anti military far leftist.

For one thing I don't believe for a second that Milosevic was any worse than the KLA, and whatever ethnic cleansing was going on seems like it was going both ways.

Why blame Clark? He was following orders from a Democratic president, with the blessing of the UN and NATO - legal in every sense of the word, and a very "Democratic" war. If opposition to the bombing of Serbia is a big deal, as you said the Republicans were all against it.

I'm from a family of vets too, granddad was at Iwo Jima, my Dad's lifelong Navy and served in Korean War. I may be far left, and anti-war, but I'm not anti-military.

Thats the cause of my views on Clinton.

and that's what it says. I thought I typed it wrong. Guess Blum misquoted.

but see...this is how we work through these things; by hashing it out. Would hate to see Clark threads (or any other candidate) banned from GD.

It scares me too - because I've been right too many times before - I would rather NOT be right about him.

And I would rather not have a chance to be.

feeling, whatever it may be. It slapped me up side the head when the clark supporters hit this board en masse several months ago. While the feeling wasn't altogether new, since I felt it when I heard whistle ass might throw his hat into the ring in 1999, I still wanted to search for a reason.

In my search, I found many reasons for it and since my original search, I have found many more.

Like you, I have been an activist to one degree or another for 30+ years. Beginning w/the Viet Nam War, NO Nukes, NOW, then on to others, all have been for liberal causes.

My feelings of what clark represents go against the path I have followed. That representation is not a liberal way of life.

I believe, fervently, our country must begin following a much more liberal path if our democracy (what there is of it) is to survive.

I was thinking maybe I should have posted this in the Meeting Room.
:-)

Oh, yeah. I forgot about No Nukes. Those were the days. I was in Harrisburg, PA. 3/28/81. Just dug out my old t-shirt. It says "They Lie". It's very small. I was much thinner then. <sigh>

with the addition that I served in the military and in some of the same places Clark did. Clark was never known as some flaming Liberal and I don't know where people are getting that garbage. Not that many at the Pentagon admired the way he waged the war in Kosovo and that's exactly why he was brought quietly home and deprived of all the gala ticker tape parades and such. This had nothing to do with politics or party affiliation or jealousy- I mean, Command Sergeants Major aren't jealous of Generals to the point of smearing them and Clinton would have given Clark one hell of a coming home had there not been good reason to keep it low-key. For Shelton, a high-ranking officer and General to say what he did should be cause for at least perking ones ears.

People who admire Kucinich might want to google "Wesley Clark" Kucinich Kosovo or variations there of with the words Serbs, Serbians, Yugoslavia instead of Kosovo and without "Wesley Clark".

http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm (Article Kucinich wrote long ago)

http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2003/09/17.html

All the people burying their heads now are going to get a rude awakening when files start getting opened and more people start speaking out.

Clark's campaign and the brouhaha on internet boards are being run with the precision of a commando raid.

Why would Shelton make vague statements about Clark but not support them with specific details? Don't you think that speaks poorly of Shelton rather than poorly of Clark?

Shelton was given an opportunity to provide specifics, but was "not available" Great.

I'd like to hear what Shelton has to say. Hope he has the courage to say it.

He has the courage. It might have to do with honor though as well.

He stated his point. He may not desire to belabor it, or roll in the muck of politics on a regular basis.

We'll have to see.

So often people write off critiques of Clark by career military as jealousy, personal vendettas. Could be the case in some cases--but just as much it could be that there is something to their critiques.

I have heard enough and read enough on Clark that make me question the vetting process he went through. The reason I ask is that few if any of his supporters provide any strong rebuttals to the critiques mentioned beyond mentioning his position as a General, his being in Vietnam, and the jealousy of colleagues.

These are not enough to lend support for his candidacy.

In the spirit of the true democratic process, one hopes that he comes through with a clear series of issue statements, and a full explanation of his past stances and his career. To date--that has not happened.

I'm too wary to be sold a bill of goods at this point. Too much is at stake.

Gen. Clark was known as a friend and supporter of President Clinton in the military. This institution is become increasingly politicized, and in favor of the Republicans. Not only must this be corrected, it is the explaination for the whisper campaign by some reactionary officers against him.

The use of that term is a key point tied to my original post.

What exactly makes them reactionary?

I should clarify that I have addressed this in the past--having spoken with my father, career military, etc. about Clark months ago, he explained to me the various views concerning figures like Clark.

The issue raised in our discussion was that of management style.

The my way or the highway method does wonders for one's career at times--but it tends to create difficulties in the morale system as a whole. The reports mentioned in this thread, as well as others on Clark on this board, (The WP report the day after his announcement for example) refer to these issues.

Some may view those within the military who might have problems with Clark as being motivated by political ideology, jealousy, or sincere questions concerning Clark's ability to lead and manage (connected but different issues)

We should not lump all detractors together as being "reactionary" or "jealous."

More needs to come out.

Is the standard left usage: persons attached politically and emotionally to the ideals of reaction, that are today predominant in the Republican Party.

My point however, is that we should not speak of those questioning Clark's ability as reactionary, even in part, without further investigation.

We cannot ignore the fact that some may be sincerely questioning his ability to lead and manage.

By politicizing these concerns and thus potentially writing them off as partisanship in some fashion--we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Although you refer only to "some" of them as possibly being reactionary--the result is the same, unfortunately.

Such is the give and take of these discussions.

Gen. Clark was clearly identified as friendly to "liberals" in the military culture, and there is no reason to take seriously any criticisms of him emenating from that quarter.

His command of NATO and of the Kossovo campaign were sufficiently successful to remove any need for doubt of his competence, in my view.

That reminds of the MASH episode where they were treating soldiers who were upset with their colonel for "getting that last hill" at the expense of those under him.

This is not to say that Clark did this in any way in Kosovo.

Rather--it is to point out that success on the battlefield is not the same as leading a country, and does not address the issues of how those who worked for the successful officer felt about his capabilities or treatment of the process.

In fact--many have mentioned that the "success at any cost" is a potential achilles heel for the candidate in question.

I reiterate that we all need to look at each candidate, warts and all--and address those warts in a serious thoughtful manner. Litmus test criteria do not lead to good choices in the long run in my experience

What Shelton said was very vague and fuzzy -- an easy cheap shot in my book. Making broad negative conclusory statements about a person is not right - I don't care if you are otherwise a noble, fine, respected person.

What I am saying is - if Shelton has something to say, say it - give the factual details, let me make my own conclusions. If he doesn't want to give facts -- be quiet.

who have praised Clark. If Clark did not have some detractors in the military then I would consider him nothing more than a toady "yes man" which Clark certainly isn't.

This was quite some time ago. My immediate response was to research everything I could on Clark.

I sure hope Kucinich is nominated. Or maybe Dean.

But for me it started just listening to him playing analyst on TV.

Enough other questionable things have bubbled up to make that impression seem validated. I don't have a problem with him becoming a Democrat, the more the merrier.

I don't support Dean for more concrete reasons primarily for his lack of decorum. The questionables bubbling up around him only serve to reinforce my base impression. But I realize that is what most of his supporters like best about him. To each his own.

Look at a Clinton, Carter or even Reagan for that matter, they all spoke with a sense of inate leadership that infused you with a sort of confidence (clearly there were those for whom this did not hold true but it worked on enough to get them elected).

Obviously everyone has to take in what facts and impressions they might and plot their own course relative to the future nominee of our party. And I wish you all luck in coming to this most crucial descision.

As for me, IM4EDWARDS.

I am afraid people are tossing their weight behind a man we know very little about. I think many may be 'blinded' by the 4 stars?

My gut is telling me something too. I dont quite know what it is? And, in all fairness I could be wrong, :shrug: I know I was wrong when I thought Bush* wasn't all that bad for a Rethuglican. :evilfrown:

But I DID get that uneasy feeling in spades about Bush before he was selected. And I had NEVER felt it so strongly before.

Let's face it, we ALL use our gut/intuition to make decisions every day...usually quite unconsciously. The more we learn to trust and rely on that remarkable inherent "muscle" the stronger it gets.

But you actually seem to have specific reasons for not trusting the man or his campaign. Nothing wrong with that.

In for a penny,in for a pound I suppose.

While I have given up hope that Mike Ruppert is ever going to post Part II of his July 1 article "Beyond Bush", (I know he's been ill), this has been on my mind since I first read PartI:

"Is the 2004 election already being rolled, like soft cookie dough, away from the issues? Already there are signs that some candidates who speak the truth are having their campaigns infiltrated by expert managers who might dilute the message. There are signs that others, looked upon as likely winners with strong progressive credentials, may be nothing more than different dogs from the same kennel that brought us the Bush Wolf Pack."

www.fromthewilderness.com

edit> scroll down to 7/1/03 "Beyond Bush"

And I trust my feelings because they have served me well in the past. I share the uneasiness that you have articulated so well, but I am not saying that I will not vote for Clark if he wins just yet because we have a way to go, and my feelings could change.

Here are some quotes from Clark who is eminently capable of reforming the Pentagon budget and dealing with the PNAC'ers.

Please feel free to compare and contrast with Dean, who knows NOONE in the Military or the Military Industrial Complex and has no clue who can be worked with and who is dangerous and who has shown no inkling whatsoever to even tackle the issue.

1.General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's
tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.
Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more
familiar with — the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to
develop want."

2.In a searing critique, Clark accuses the Bush administration of carrying out a wrenching turn in U.S. foreign
policy away from traditional American principles. He cites what he says has been an overemphasis on
unilateralism and overreliance on the U.S. military to pursue the notion of "a new American empire."


By the way, what does your "sixth sense" tell you about DEAN'S UNWILLINGNESS TO CUT PENTAGON SPENDING AND HIS USE OF THE "WAR ON TERRORISM AS AN EXCUSE?

Very PNAC of him if you ask me... unless he is afraid of called "weak on defense" especially since he never served.

The facts are:

1. TRILLIONS are missing from the Pentagon. There is no way that their budget can be justified in light of this fact. If Dean were truly willing to take on the Cabal, why won't he cut their spending?

2. The "War on Terrorism" is here at home where we need to fund our FIRST RESPONDERS and INTELLIGENCE ... NOT THE PENTAGON. Only PNAC'ers want to "kick terrorist ass" over there as opposed to fighting it here on home turf. Kicking terrorist ass in Iraq only serves to gets Halliburton large amounts of money.

what you said

That sounds like a strange quote, which makes me wonder if it's more of a common military term than something sadistic (the morality of particular wars, or war in general, notwithstanding). I did a google search on ("Maximum violence" + military) and got an awful lot of hits, only a few of which referred to this particular quote.

From skimming through some of the links, I'm wondering if "maximum violence" isn't a common reference to something like the peak of a battle.

Maybe someone with a military background can weigh in on this, but I'm thinking that if Clark said that, it was used as miltary jargon, which would be vastly different from the "Feelin' good" arm-pumping of our current pretender.

For the record, I'm not a declared supporter of any Dem candidate yet (although I've donated to Dean's campaign in the past). I'm still registered Independent, since I pretty much know which way I'm voting already (unless the Democrats somehow nominate John Ashcroft).

(Or did I join in late, and everyone else already KNOWS this is jargon or something?)

rabid_nerd (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-30-03 03:41 PM
Response to Original message

12. "Violence" QUOTE NOT FOUND



That said, I don't like Clark, but this is definately false.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/18846

I found the above after googling for similar text from the
Post's actual own snippet (have to pay for full text)

REALLY LONG URL for exact search: (Have to copy and paste)

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WP&p_theme=wpost&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(NATO%20and%20the%20Kosovo%20Liberation%20Army)%20AND%20date(09/21/1999%20to%2009/21/1999)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=09/21/1999%20to%2009/21/1999&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("NATO"%20and%20"the%20Kosovo%20Liberation%20Army")&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

Rabid_Nerd

Draft Gore | Draft Gore MeetUp | LeftWeb.com Internet Service | Charlie Crystle for U.S. Senate/PA | His Blog | Me 4 Council | My Blog | About Me
The un-Hyped Draft Effort!


Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



truth2power (630 posts) Tue Sep-30-03 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #12

19. I just checked my book


and that's what it says. I thought I typed it wrong. Guess Blum misquoted.


Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-30-03 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #19

21. So did Blum pull a Coulter?

Edited on Tue Sep-30-03 03:49 PM by WilliamPitt

So I wrote this book...


Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



truth2power (630 posts) Tue Sep-30-03 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #21

26. Maybe he did


but see...this is how we work through these things; by hashing it out. Would hate to see Clark threads (or any other candidate) banned from GD.

I think we're both on the same side here, but I'm not sure I understand how that those posts relate to mine (I saw them earlier).

It looks to me like that series of posts decides that the quote is false, or at least inaccurate.
(The links in post #12 did not appear to use the phrase "maximum violence".)
It's entirely possible that the quote never happened.

What I was wondering was, if it's determined that the quote is accurate, then what was the context?
I'm speculating that it was military jargon (it was a military campaign, after all), and not some sign of a sadistic love of violence.

That's all I was trying to get at.

Am I missing something here?

(On edit: like I said in my first post, a google search of
"maximum violence" AND "military" yields a lot of hits --
so it looks like that's not an uncommon phrase. Oh, and
just googling for "maximum violence" brings up a lot of
pages about some band...)

I was reading your post in the wrong tone of voice :toast:

From my googling, it's a term to describe total warfare, oldschool bombardment and such. Sometimes it's used by the military to describe ethnic cleansing campaigns or terrorist tactics. Basically it seems to mean going beyond select hard targets and killing people with relative indiscretion. It would be in contrast to a police strategy of applying "minimum force."

The call for "maximum violence" was part of the basis for the war crimes charges against NATO leaders (including Clark) for the war in Kosovo (link), but according to this document it was another General, Lt. Gen. Michael C. Short, who apparently uttered the call for "maximum violence." However, their citations seem off--they transposed dates apparently. And they may have misread it. The Washington Post story indeed attributes "maximum violence" to Clark. In the context of that story, Clark seems bellicose. After the air strikes began he wanted to expand the list of targets and increase the intensity of bombing.

I don't know how a call for "maximum violence" jibes with the geneva conventions or other international law, or how military leaders justify it, but they do. For instance, the use of "maximum violence" was a strategic element of the invasion of Iraq. I happen to feel many laws and conventions were eggregiously violated in that phase of OIL, but of course, the jury's still out so to speak.

Anyone who thinks you can compare the liberation effort on the behalf of the Muslims in Kossovo to the conquest of Iraq is tripping on robitussin.

That doesn't transfer to others.

And the war crimninal stuff is bunk. Clark SUBMITTED himself voluntarily to the World Court for review after Kosovo so this couldn't be said. Unforunately, it is said anyway.

That the powers of the earth assembled in Geneva after the Second World War and concocted an accord that outlawed the ordinary practice of warfare, without quite noticing they had done so. The powers of the earth did not do this, and there was nothing done by NATO forces in the Kossovo War that violated the Geneva Accords in any particular.

there was nothing done by NATO forces in the Kossovo War that violated the Geneva Accords in any particular.

The bombing of the Serbian TV and Radio station was a clear and admitted war crime. See my post below.

Thanks for calling me on this. That was a poor choice of words. I think "non-inflammatory" would have been better.

I was really concerned that nobody would read my post - lately here it seems that any time someone says "Clark" all hell breaks loose. People saying they don't even read Clark threads and all.

Guess I was trying to do a little preemptive calming of the waters.

my response wasn't inflamatory.

:D

Peace to you.

The World Court did not have jurisdiction over the FRY, the UN mandated (and NATO funded and controlled) ICTY did.

The ICTY refused to even INVESTIGATE these charges, let alone cleared him of them. See my post below.

So, have you got a link to back up your assertion?

.

have our own "inner voices" that we are listening to...that we have done our homework and REALLY feel that Clark is the one candidate that speaks to our concerns. I am tired of being told that I am blinded by four stars, etc. I am a full grown adult in my mid '50s, not a star-struck teenager. As to my progressive credentials...my mother had me out campaigning when I was still in kindergarten. My family are Roosevelt/Kennedy Democrats.

I'm only 50, Gramps. :D

And you are quite right. I sense something good of historic proportions in the man.

I'm only 52. I am almost as excited about Clark as I was about RFK, and yes, there is certainly a whiff of greatness about the man and that is what draws me.

BTW, I'm a Grammy, but to granddogs only, so far.

:bounce: Use it in good health! :toast:

I'm putting it to good use as my email sig, so a great big :toast:

I have about 20 anti-Bush bumperstickers on my van. Lately, I've been getting lots of thumbs-up signs and applause...even had people waiting in the parking lot at the grocery store to thank me and ask where to get the stickers. Today, I was sitting at a light, when I heard someone blowing the horn. After we went through the "where did you get them" spiel, I yelled to the guy to check out Wesley Clark and he said that he was already signed up to work for him.
WOO-HOO

How's that for grassroots?

Sounds like a good day :kick:

Intuition, that inner voice, played a huge part in my aversion to Bush in the 2000 campaign. It hit me as a stunning slap in the face. It was borne out as true in the past few years. Intuition also drew me to Dennis. Reading and research of him and the other candidates over the past year has also brought me to the truth that the only Dem candidate I can trust is Dennis.

I was raised a Dem in a long line of Dems, became independent after so many disappointments. One candidate and one candidate ONLY brought me back and that was Dennis. The rest of this field is the same old slick-suited, well-heeled, business as usual crowd.

No selling out on this one. I'm sticking with my inner voice on this one and voting my conscience. ;)

My gut instinct, or what you call your inner voice, told me Dean was a phony and Clark is the real deal.

In my prior profession, the assessment of an individual was an important part of the job (were they trustworthy or did you have to question every statement they made). My gut instinct has never been wrong so I feel confident about my decision to support Clark.

This is not a pro or con candidate reply. I am going to support the democratic nominee, so I want to stay on the good side of everyone. Here in MY problem. One of the candidates looks a lot like someone I know who I don't like. Everything the candidate says is something I agree with. But every time I look at him I see XXXXXX. That is my problem. I need to get over it but it's not easy.

I say this having seen my share of republicans, military people, and military people who bolt the GOP. My father was all of those.

While never having been in combat, I've certainly read up enough about history to know that commanders get quite excitable during battle, even when removed from the immediate front.

As to war criminals, the use of force in defense of oppressed peoples is never clean. We've been fortunate to learn in the last 50 years or so that there are ways of countering oppression without force, but it still seems to work only when the oppressors are somewhat democratic, have a free press, and have a visible point at which continued oppression's hurt to their self image exceeds the benefit to their baser interests. As it was in Dresden, so it was in Belgrade.

I'd say keep an ear out for what Clark says, how he says it, and what he wants to do. I find it significant that the trash stories seem to be coming more from the GOP and their tools (Novak, Sullivan, Drudge) than from people friendly to our goals and not emboiled with the understandable conflict of interest in primary campaigning.

If Reagan was an FDR/Truman voter, and if Bush could nearly win an election by calling himself compassionate, I think it might be high time to run on a conservative look to enact progressive change. It might not appeal to many of us, but it's the old addage regarding fishing, that you don't put bait on the hook that you like, you choose bait that the fish will like.

A French Biracial East-Bay self employed mother of two....who says, I trust Clark to become my President. After I saw what happened during the election of 2000, I was ready to head back to Paris...or at least Montreal. I was enraged and felt powerless. My mind was saying, How can this be? Isn't this the land of Democracy??? Has everyone lost it here.

As we know America sells Fear and Consumer goods.

I am tired of the fear manipulation tactics...they don't work on me, but they work on Joe Blow six pack Nascar guy and his Betty Crocker soccer wife.

With this man in charge, I will not be afraid. Period...no question marks!

correction: I have only been afraid of American Terrorist President...not the conveniently timed alerts.

With Clark at the helm, Joe Blow Six Pack Nascar Dad and Mommy Soccer Crocker will also feel safe.

Clark directed the attack on Serbian TV that killed anywhere up to 20 civillian reporters and technicians. The following quote comes from the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia prepared for the ICTY:

78. Assuming the RTS building to be a legitimate military target, it appeared that NATO realised that attacking the RTS building would only interrupt broadcasting for a brief period. Indeed, broadcasting allegedly recommenced within hours of the strike, thus raising the issue of the importance of the military advantage gained by the attack vis-à-vis the civilian casualties incurred. The FRY command and control network was alleged by NATO to comprise a complex web and that could thus not be disabled in one strike. As noted by General Wesley Clark, NATO "knew when we struck that there would be alternate means of getting the Serb Television. There’s no single switch to turn off everything but we thought it was a good move to strike it and the political leadership agreed with us" (ibid, citing "Moral combat, NATO at War," broadcast on BBC2 on 12 March 2000). At a press conference on 27 April 1999, another NATO spokesperson similarly described the dual-use Yugoslav command and control network as "incapable of being dealt with in "a single knock-out blow (ibid)." The proportionality or otherwise of an attack should not necessarily focus exclusively on a specific incident. (See in this regard para. 52, above, referring to the need for an overall assessment of the totality of civilian victims as against the goals of the military campaign). With regard to these goals, the strategic target of these attacks was the Yugoslav command and control network. The attack on the RTS building must therefore be seen as forming part of an integrated attack against numerous objects, including transmission towers and control buildings of the Yugoslav radio relay network which were "essential to Milosevic’s ability to direct and control the repressive activities of his army and special police forces in Kosovo" (NATO press release, 1 May 1999) and which comprised "a key element in theYugoslav air-defence network" (ibid, 1 May1999). Attacks were also aimed at electricity grids that fed the command and control structures of the Yugoslav Army (ibid, 3 May 1999). Other strategic targets included additional command and control assets such as the radio and TV relay sites at Novi Pazar, Kosovaka and Krusevac (ibid) and command posts (ibid, 30 April). Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air-defence coordination network while the other supplied power to the northern sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system (ibid, 23 April 1999). The radio relay and TV transmitting station near Novi Sad was also an important link in the air defence command and control communications network. Not only were these targets central to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s governing apparatus, but formed, from a military point of view, an integral part of the strategic communications network which enabled both the military and national command authorities to direct the repression and atrocities taking place in Kosovo (ibid, 21 April 1999).

79. On the basis of the above analysis and on the information currently available to it, the committee recommends that the OTP not commence an investigation related to the bombing of the Serbian TV and Radio Station.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#Vrecommendations

Now let me explain this a little better. This report was prepared by the ICTY in response to allegations of NATO war crimes brought before it. This is NOT an investigation of the charges, but a report as to whether investigations should be carried out.

There were no investigators sent to the scene of the alledged crimes, there was no interviewing of witnesses. The only thing this committee did was to review relevent PRESS RELEASES and decide whether there is any indication that any of these allegations needed to be investigated.

Remember, we are talking about a NATO funded, NATO controlled, organisation determining whether NATO actions should be investigated.

Now read that quote again and see that the committee always ASSUMES that NATO doesn't lie about its actions. Yes, that's right, the committee takes the alledged perpetrator at its word. It NEVER took Milosevic or any other accused war criminal at his word, but apparently NATO funding of the ICTY confers it a level of trust that no one else is allowed.

But in the case of this incident, EVEN assuming that NATO isn't lying doesn't suffice because NATO admitted in press releases that this particular incident actually constitutes a war crime. For an attack to be justified, it must be against a military target, that target must contribute DIRECTLY to the war, and civillian casualties must be proportionate to the desired outcome. None of the above is true in regards to the attack on the RTS.

So how does the NATO funded, NATO controlled ICTY committee overcome this little obstacle? Well, even though there is already prima facia evidence of a war crime, and thus an investigation is called for, this committee adds a NEW requirment to the criteria of what constitues a war crime, that any action be a stand alone action rather than part of an otherwise legal strategy.

In this case, because NATO was targetting LEGITIMATE TARGETS in the form of Serbian military communications centres, the fact they targetted an ILLEGITIMATE TARGET in the form of a civillian TV and Radio station does NOT constitute a war crime.

So, the entire case against ANY war criminal MUST be thrown out. Why? Because all that criminal has to say is "we were targetting legitimate military targets AS WELL"! Therefore, if there was ONE terrorist in a town, it was not a war crime to flatten the entire town and kill everyone in it in order to kill the terrorist.

Remember though, this report is NOT an investigation nor a trial, it is a report that relies solely on media and NATO accounts to try and find reasons NOT to INVESTIGATE allegations of NATO war crimes.

This is what shoots down those Clark supporters who say he was cleared of these allegations. It is NOT TRUE. He not only WASN'T CLEARED of the allegations, they were NOT even INVESTIGATED!

Read the rest of the report. You will see that they all amount to the same thing:

"The accuser says this happened, NATO says this happened, we decided to agree with NATO and thus no investigation is required."

Is THAT what Clark supporters call cleared? If that is the kind of investigation of war crimes Clark supporters think is valid, then I suggest Bush will come out of this CIA leak issue untouched, and all you Clark supporters will have to say "He was cleared!" because what happened with this report is the same as the DOJ saying:

"Wilson said that someone in the White House leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative. The White House says they didn't do it. We believe the White House and thus no investigation is necessary."

My gut feelings about Kucinich are clear....I trust him and have no sense that there is some big dark mystery there about his intentions. And if you need facts...he's got a long public history and record one can refer to.
Why people continue to parrot the media and convince themselves that he is unelectable indicates to me that even people who have become cynical about our media, trust it over their own gut feeling and good sense. Now THAT's sad.
I think the media's endorsement of Clark makes him MORE suspect.

I don't have a good feeling about Clark either, and I DO trust that.
Plus, I would not want someone in the military leading this country at this time....with the Pentagon's bloated budget that places it on par with some countries, it seems on the brink of becoming a dangerously autonomous law unto itself. And I don't like the corporate relationships that Clark has...nor the relationship that corporations have with the defense dept. The Pentagon seems to be working to further their interests over national interests. Too risky....particularly since there are some good, less hawkish choices.

one of it's purposes is to keep you from harm...as in "sensing" danger.