Clark supporters & opposers needed for refutations or confirmations

My brother listened to some rightwing hate radio to get "balanced" after listening to Democracy Now (Amy Goodman's show). These are the memorable parts of the Smear on Clark, from his perspective:

> Some of the stuff I've heard
> suggests that General Clark is pretty fucked up. A suggestion
> that he lied about the white house pressuring him to link Iraq
> and Al Quaida, a suggestion that he was somewhat responsible
> for the waco mess, a suggestion that he ordered the british to
> attack the russians in the bosnia-serbia mess, and a suggestion
> that he was responsible for the bombing of the chinese embassy,
> are the things that stuck in my mind.

So right off the bat, it's vague and suggestive, with little actual fact retention. This is, IMHO, due to the sources, who'd prefer that there be little fact retention. It's easier that way, right?

So I'd like to help set him straight. Pointwise, the allegations are

1) he lied about the white house pressuring him to link Iraq and Al Qaida

This is probably based in a blanket denial by the white house. Now I know this is an involved story, only some of which I've retained. Does anyone have the full thing summarized down to a short paragraph?

2) he was somewhat responsible for the waco mess

My understanding was he worked for NATO at the time, not ATF, FBI, or Texas police. So anyone who knows the details on the origin of this "suggestion", go ahead and brief me. It could, of course, be complete baseless fabrication and it wouldn't surprise me one bit. Waco is like a second Pearl Harbor to the right wing.

3) he ordered the british to attack the russians in the bosnia-serbia mess

News to me. Anyone have a line on the incident in question?

4) he was responsible for the bombing of the chinese embassy

As I understand it, this is because the NATO command acted on faulty CIA reports that the embassy was vacated. Did Clark himself order the bombing? What's the backstory on this?

Let me make it clear that my post is NOT intended to smear Clark, quite the opposite. I'm asking for an assist in clarifying this for my brother, and I think he's asking for clarification, too. This is what the radio haters were saying about Clark last week, whether you like it or not, and it deserves a succinct, forthright response.

As best as I've read, these are the things the right will throw at Clark. That and he's an egotistical nut according to some military people. But there will be as many saying the opposite and we can always bring up 'this is exactly what they did to Max Cleland'.

If memory serves, he was the base commander that supplied the military equipment for Waco. Something like that. Actually, I kind of think he should have said no. Unless there's more to the story.

He did make a strong comment about the White House contacting him right after 9/11. It seems he backtracked a bit, but not completely.

I'm sure others will have more, I'm really trying to encourage a solid rebuttal. Clark will need it if he gets the nomination.

Link to http://www.clarkmyths.com/ To answer # 2, 3 as well as some others.

Also for more War Criminal/Nearly Started WWIII CLARK ATTACK.....see additionally: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/politics/03CND-GORD.html


This answers #1 -
Pundits won't stop spinning Clark's phone call
By Ben Fritz
September 3, 2003

The story of who called retired general Wesley Clark on September 11, 2001 won't seem to die, with pundits left and right continually getting their facts wrong. Clark's story, while ambiguously phrased at first, has actually been quite consistent.

In an interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" on June 15, Clark, who is widely believed to be considering a run for president as a Democrat, asserted that some in the White House tried to connect Iraq to the attacks of September 11 and also that he had received a call that day urging him to make that connection:

for the rest of the story: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030925.html http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/ look at left column and pick your favorite Clark Attack to debunk. Makes sure to read Clark Defense article


This answers #5.....not on your list, but just in case!
Clark and Acxiom; Or: Why Privacy Is A Myth

****Update: It's always nice when someone shares your opinion. Timothy Noah of Slate addresses the "JetBlue scandal," where JetBlue provided a government contractor with the names, addresses and itineraries of former passengers. The contractor, Torch Concepts, paired this with financial and social security data it had purchased. Like this blogger, Noah points out that the government already has this information so nobody's privacy was actually violated.****
read the rest of the story:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/


This is for #6 - The one that's been beaten to death with a stick:
Is Clark Democratic Enough? Redux

****UPDATE Once again, Clark confirms this Blogger's analysis of his character: "I'll never put the interest of the party above the interest of the country." Clark's positions on social, military, and economic issues are in keeping with core democratic values, so it is natural that he would identify himself as a democrat and yet emphasize that he is not extremely partisan and can appreciate the value of individuals in both the republican and democratic parties.****

It's become clear that conservative media attack dogs (the term journalist would be a misnomer here) like Drudge will regurgitate every thing Wesley Clark has ever said in his past and try to impeach his character.

Read the rest via link....See Sept 25th Blog Date - Salon Blog by Cat M.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/

if so, which one?

since you posted from a "blog" i assumed you would know what a "blog" is...and i don't.

squeeze it together..we(blog)

:shrug: sorry...i am clueless :D

gets some space on the web and just puts down whatever they want. It can be personal stories, political comments like "Talking points memo", which is one of the best, or my daughter who talks about band trips and what she did in choir.

posting this for others who are clueless too.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20021115.html

Dear Yahoo!:
What are blogs, and how did they become so popular?
Befuddled by Blogs
Madison, Wisconsin

Dear Befuddled:
We knew that "blog" was short for "weblog," so we searched on "history of weblogs" to answer your question.
A weblog is usually defined as a personal or noncommercial web site that uses a dated log format (usually with the most recent addition at the top of the page) and contains links to other web sites along with commentary about those sites. A weblog is updated frequently and sometimes groups links by specific subjects, such as politics, news, pop culture, or computer issues.

many of us are far more clueless on subjects involving the internet than you. My personal philosophy has always been "screw 'em if they can't take a joke!"

I learn something new almost every day and I'm not entirely sure thats a good thing....Steve

i did figure out what a "blog" is...with the help of OKNancy :D

blogs are apparently a pretty big deal on the internet... i had no idea.

The source that I have cited that are weblog sources were written by progressive writers on the web...... writers who, as news reporters and authors do, tell a story or comment on issues citing known facts, full transcripts, printed publications, etc....

The journalists that I have linked in debunking Clark Attacks are Journalists too loyal & committed to their craft to write for Corporate propaganda right wing news outlets.

because i didn't know what the hell a "blog" is :shrug: if you are citing "blogs" as sources, someone may ask you this question again. perhaps you can simply answer the question next time...rather than get defensive.

_Pretty much like I kept as a teen. Different people interpret it in various ways, but its still basically, in essence, a diary.

Most blogs are a jumping off point--they provide a 'story' or a 'capsule' of a situation and collect links to many other places on the internet to save interested parties the trouble of having to find them all on their own.

I excel at finding sources on the internet and decided to use this "talent" to construct a blog. While most of my pieces are somewhat op-ed--*my opinions based on the facts*, I link to some of the places where people can read information to make their own decisions. Of course I can't link to all places since some are books or magazine articles that do not appear on the internet.

Some blogs are one-paragraph fluff, others--such as "Talking Points" aspire to emulate a real publication as much as possible, with quality writing, in-depth research, and interviews with people.

I would not call it a diary. It can be USED as a diary but most of the blogs I read are in no way diaries. In fact, I now try to go out of my way not to write in the first person to avoid this impression.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/

Some of the best info during the Iraq War came from people blogging who were inside Iraq.

n/t

I am a Kerry supporter- but I will delight in posting this when anti-DEM Clark accusations appear at DU.

Goodmorning

1) he lied about the white house pressuring him to link Iraq and Al Qaida

This is probably based in a blanket denial by the white house. Now I know this is an involved story, only some of which I've retained. Does anyone have the full thing summarized down to a short paragraph?

You can get info on this at www.theclarksphere.com and spinsanity.com

He made a comment, it was taken out of context, but was accurate. The person at the "middle eastern think tank in canada" said that Clarks statements were accurate.

2) he was somewhat responsible for the waco mess

My understanding was he worked for NATO at the time, not ATF, FBI, or Texas police. So anyone who knows the details on the origin of this "suggestion", go ahead and brief me. It could, of course, be complete baseless fabrication and it wouldn't surprise me one bit. Waco is like a second Pearl Harbor to the right wing.

Clark was base commander at Fort Hood. There were supposedly two officers involved. Clark was not one of them. The right wing will argue that you should look at the method used to end it. Something about a decapitation strike. Heard that before? The military likes that method, we used it in Iraq 2. The righties will also argue that Clintin suspended Habeus Corpus. As far as I know, that's not true either. There was no military personell involved.

3) he ordered the british to attack the russians in the bosnia-serbia mess

That's complete BS. The Russians weren't at the airport yet. They lied and then showed up there. Their arrival delayed the end of the mission. There is more info on this at www.theclarksphere.com. You can also search the internet on articles about Russia and pristina airport. You will get some stuff saying Clark tried to start WW3, but you will eventually find out more about how Russia lied to the USA.

News to me. Anyone have a line on the incident in question?

4) he was responsible for the bombing of the chinese embassy

Faulty intellegence of the CIA. You think were going to just bomb the Chinese? Why would we do that?

Hope this helps. There is a lot out there. You should also read the pristina airport chapter in his last book.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/

Go to George Will should apologize. THe Canadian think tank story looks to be varified by the Toronto Star.


Edit to add quote from blog:

Hecht confirmed to the Toronto Star that he did telephone Clark, although he said it was September 12 or 13, not September 11, and that he "passed on information he had received from Israel which drew a purported link" between Hussein and September 11. Hecht's sister is the friend Clark referred to in Belgium and Clark's depiction of his caller as "very well connected to Israeli intelligence and he follows Middle Eastern events very closely" was accurate.

Hecht says he has no ties to the White House, but this is not surprising since then the notion that Clark said the call came from the White House was a mythic media wildfire, flamed by Will rearranging the order of Clark's comments to make them appear more damning. Despite several people reporting that they contacted Will and the Washington Post about these errors and shoddy journalistic practices, neither Will nor the Post appear to have issued any retractions, content once again to allow misinformation to supplant truth.

The feds could have gone into town and picked Koresh up on the street.

He didn't hole himself up in the compound.

Clinton inherited a botched job... one wonders if it was intentional.

Just 'low me to put on my red-blooded conservative steel pot for a sec.

"Clark's my man. He was brave enough to at least try to take the Rooskies head on when he had the chance to teach them a lesson. Only a sissy Brit 'officah' interfered and blocked him, just like they've always helped their commie buddies in Europe against us. Clark would have taught them their place, and instead we are made to look weak before the world, which is a step in the commie plan for world domination.


And, thank God he bombed the damn Chinese, the yellow horde is our main enemy for the foreseeable future, and a warning shot across their bow is just what we needed, not Bush's nambypamby apologies for letting their plane run into ours, then giving them our sensitive technology without a peep (I smell a rat!). Clark is the best thing since Gen Curtis Lemay.

So what's wrong with burning out a buncha criminals? We used to do it out West all the time, back when we had real law and order, and women felt safe to walk down the street. It would have helped to string up a few of them in public to be sure the message got through: here's what you get when you go against law and order and kill cops. Not Janet Reno's endless, bleeding-heart negotiations for weeks; typical, what should I expect from a woman as head cop?

Lying about this White House? Who says? Do you mean we're supposed to trust that AWOL, eastern establishment, mama's-boy? The one who gazes deeply into the commie Putin's eyes, and does who-knows-what else with him down on that 'ranch' they bought him for the election? I smell another commie rat, and we know how they love disinformation and propaganda, hell, they invented it. I'll take the word of a 4-star Army general over these commie sympathizing eye-gazers any day.


So, any red-blooded American who will stand against commies, whether Russian or Chinese (they're all the same), and against comsymps, and stand up for law and order is AOK in my book. Hell, yes, I'd vote for Clark. Who wouldn't? Say, whose side are you on, fella?"

:toast:

While some of what it is being said about Clark is easily debunked as smears, some of the stuff about Clark is true, including the war crimes by NATO in the Kosovo conflict and the incident at the Pristina airport. We have British press sources, as well as a DUer who was at Pristina when he was serving with the British army. We also have Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as sources regarding the crimes committed by NATO in their bombing campaign.

Here is but one example:

Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/docs/nato_all.pdf

Of course, the Clark supporters can always go and complain about the criticism aimed at their candidate and try to shut off debate in this board by getting Admin to agree with their undemocratic views, but if they were to succeed in this endeavour, they will only reinforce our views about Clark's unsuitability for higher office and the suspicions that some of us have about Clark's campaign and some of his followers.

That Clark wanted to use ground troops to minimize civilan casualties but the rest of the Top Brass
in the Pentagon didn't want the troop losses...

Funny how you will take the word of those very people as gospel in slamming Clark....

Well, maybe not FUNNY.... just really sad.

By the way IndianaGreen, would you like to flesh your statement here out a little?

"Of course, the Clark supporters can always go and complain about the criticism aimed at their candidate
and try to shut off debate in this board by getting Admin to agree with their undemocratic views,"

believe any civilian death in war is a war crime. Civilian deaths are horrible, but the man was running a war and I don't think the General can be held personally responsible for any deaths that occur.

Other military experts say that if Clark had been able to use ground troops like he wanted (but was denied by the Clinton administration), the civilian deaths would have been fewer. Precision bombing is not perfect.

Far fewer civilians died in the 78 days of the Kosovo operation than in the "Shock and Awe" visited upon Baghdad:

"As many as 500 civilians were killed in some 90 NATO attacks during the air siege of the former Yugoslavia last year, according to a report released Monday by Human Rights Watch. The figure is lower than the 1,200-5,000 civilian death toll estimated by Yugoslavian authorities but much more than NATO believes possible from its 78-day bombing campaign to drive Serb forces out of Kosovo."

Compare that to the thousands killed in Iraq and you will see that Clark took precautions to avoid civilian deaths. Meanwhile, in the short time of the war, Serbs killed thousands of Muslims. How many thousands more would have been killed if the US had taken no action?

I hate war and I'd like to believe there was a diplomatic solution possible but that is up to the president to find one, not his generals.

or not as electable as his supporters tend to think.

*They tout the "Clark is the only electable candidate" mantra quite often without regard to the 'dish' on Clark.

is that it assumes Clark would only be elected by anti-war democrats. Only 17 percent of the population self-identifies as liberal; 40 percent as moderate, 35 percent as conservative.

If the general is the only choice against Bush, he will certainly get many votes from the liberal population (even if it's not you) because too many hate Bush and remember how voting for NADER may have tipped the election that way and don't want a repeat of that.

Moderates who did not oppose the war will be more accepting that there are casualties in battle. Since Bush caused many more casualties than Clark, that still makes Clark the better alternative.

Not sure where you get he's "unelectable." Maybe he would be if only liberal democrats voted, but he will easily peel off far more moderate and conservative votes from Bush than Dean could.

Problem with your theory is you dont really understand my theory.

Clark's closet is full of skeletons. Among those on the left, he is a potential war criminal, and on the right, he's a Clinton apologist, and in the middle, he is inexperienced at best.

Most voters don't know or haven't heard the 'dirt' on Clark yet, like they have on the other candidates. So, I dont think Clark is a shoe in by any means, and I think his supporters assume he is.

I don't feel that because he is a 4 star General (who was incidentally dismissed) he is qualified to lead our nation.

Dean is electable because he has been elected 5 times in Vermont as Governor. Dean is actually a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Thus, he is a moderate, who has been deemed as 'liberal' because he spoke out against the war and had the courage to sign a civil unions bill in Vermont.

You may also want to note that Clark (coincidentally) shares Deans positions on most if not all the issues.

At anyrate, I have been a Democrat for the past 20 years (since I was old enough to vote) and have ALWAYS voted accordingly *unlike Clark*

Additionally, Dean has brought many new people into the process and great has appeal across standard party lines.

http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/September2003/September_26/News/reg_pol_0926b.asp

Also, your assumption that I will be staying home on election day if Dean doesn't win the nomination is false. I am firmly ABB, but I prefer a bit of experience in my Presidental candidates.

"Governor Clark" (sounds just fine by me.)

I don't recall making the assumption that you'd stay home during the election if Dean weren't nominated and you've exemplified my point perfectly.

The so-called skeletons in Clark's closet are mostly manufactured by his conservative detractors. Dean has his own closets, and his democratic opponents are taking great advantage of them at the moment. But the only people who "haven't heard the dirt on Clark" must be living in a cave because every allegation has been covered in almost every major news source. The ones that haven't are so bizarre they will be discredited anyway.

You seem to be content repeating the twisted truths instead of looking into it for yourself. He wasn't "dismissed." He was retired, due to a little Pentagon trickery according to the New York Times and a few other reputable sources. Clinton was reportedly furious when he discovered he'd been tricked into signing off on Clark's retirement.

I'm well aware that Dean is not the liberal he's painted as and I'm also well aware that he and Clark voice many similar positions. But the moderates/conservatives are NOT aware of this because the Republican smear machine successfully painted Dean as a flaming liberal and Dean pandered to the image by continually referring to himself as "the democratic wing of the democratic party" instead of portraying himself as a more moderate centrist. Dean's idea was to fire up the base, and he did that. But the problem is that the democratic base...is very small compared to the conservative base and the number of moderates.

It may help him get past the primary but the democratic base isn't going to help him win the election. To do that, he'd have to peel off conservative and moderate voters from Bush. And there's not as much likelihood of Dean doing that as Clark.

You cement my point when you say that you've voted Democrat for 22 years and you won't sit home on election day. Exactly. While Dean cannot get the moderate/conservative votes he'd need because of this perception of him as very liberal, Clark CAN and in addition Clark will STILL get the liberal votes because he'd be the only democrat on the ticket.

Clark not being a partisan democrat will only help, not hurt. It won't alienate the base enough to make them vote for Bush. I'm a diehard Democrat far more liberal than Clark and yet I voted for Bush Sr. first go around. Military commanders are not by nature overtly partisan which is why it was always "suspected" that Colin Powell was a Republican but he had never announced himself as such until he supported George Bush Jr. Nobody is certain about Schwarzkopf either. Eisenhower didn't declare as a Democrat until shortly before running.

It's true it may hurt Clark in the primaries to stress his previous Republican connections but it will only help in the main election. It's already helping from what I've heard. He's polling extremely well in "red" states. Dean is not. Dean is polling very poorly in the south.

Interestingly, no democrat has ever won the presidency without winning Tennessee.

You can say Dean has great appeal across party lines but in reality his appeal is minimal across party lines. It exists but it's not strong. As I said, he's polling pretty low in traditionally Republican conservative states.

Schwarzenegger has no experience either, but it's looking (unfortunately) like he's going to take California. In more than one poll (including some presidential polls) the majority of people said political experience wasn't necessary.

Many of us haven't been democrats our whole lives but that doesn't make us some kind of false democrat and democrats had better be more welcoming of republicans or they aren't going to win. Dean is lying about Clark, saying he was a 'republican until 45 days ago.' Clark was an independent, which is far different from being a republican.

Only 35 percent of people in the US identify themselves as belonging to one party or another. Most people identify themselves as independent--they vote by individual, not by party.

Dean is perfectly electable in Vermont. But he won't win nationwide.

You woefully underestimate Howard Dean.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Right_Wing_Pundits_Fear_Dean.shtml

"When asked "On most political matters, do you consider yourself liberal, moderate, or conservative," voters broke down this way: 20% said "Liberal," 50% said "Moderate," and 29% said "Conservative." Gore won among liberal voters by 80% to Bush's 13%, while 6% of liberal voters went for Nader. In 2004, does anyone imagine Bush and Nader will do better than that, or that Howard Dean or any Democrat would do worse?

In 2000, Gore won among the 50% of voters who called themselves "Moderate" by 52% to 44%, and Dean or another Democrat is likely to at least match that margin. Gore's play for moderates let Nader discourage and demoralize many liberal-left voters convincing them there was no real difference between Bush and Gore. That, plus Bush's crimes and cheating kept Florida - and the election - close enough for the Supreme Court to steal.

The 29% of voters who considered themselves "Conservative" supported Bush by 81% to 17% over Gore. After Bush's relentless delivery of red meat to his right wing base, it's unlikely Dean or any Democrat would do better among this segment. They don't have to. With Bush's confirmed record as a far-right radical, he cannot hope to carry close to one in seven liberals."

Additionally, you must not be aware of the amazing amount of people that Dean has brought into the political process?

I'm not at all surprised however that Clark is polling higher in the Southern states. I think many people are 'suckers' for a military uniform. Which might explain the Bush "flight suit" stunt.

Also winning Tennessee can be accomplished via Deans (and now Clarks) position on Gun Control and by choosing the right running mate.

http://www.tennessee4dean.org/

"Howard Dean came out a big winner of a Democratic Labor Day Picnic Straw Poll on Saturday, September 6th, getting 40% of the ballots cast and out distancing his nearest competition, Richard Gephardt, by over 100 votes. Edwards was a distant third and Kerry got only 58 votes. The remainder of the field's votes were insignificant in number.

This is a significant win for Dean since it was in Tennessee - or the SOUTH if you will. This was a big surprise to many of the Democrats present who still can't figure out what it is about Dean that attracts so many supporters. We still have much work to do."

Also I'd be interested in seeing your polling data BTW.

Regarding Clarks dismissal/retirement ;) I guess it depends on who you ask there huh?

Also, I find it interesting Clark's issues compare so much with Deans. Some say he took a winning formula and made it his own? Talk about pandering. :eyes:

BTW, I saw your webpage. Are you paid by the Clark campaign? You've done much work for them :shrug:

Clark made a good General (according to some), but he wont win nationwide.

Edited to add interesting article here from an outside perspective.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,213277,00.html

I am not paid by the Clark campaign. I agree that my articles are pro-Clark. Can I help it if that the media lies? I'm sure you didn't read them all, but I also defended the notion that Dean is very "liberal."

Unlike you, I don't believe in attacking any of the Democratic candidates. This only gives ammunition to our enemies should anyone of these guys become the nominee.

All the polls I quoted are from mainstream news sources but it would take me some time to dig them up. I memorize the information, but often not where it came from (thankfully I have a blog where I collect all the links I need).

One of my articles in my blog links to the Harris polling, which gives a breakdown on liberal/moderate/conservative, which is not the same as yours.

You claim to be this true blue democrat, but I really think a true blue democrat would spend more time attacking the real "enemy" instead of those that have decided to align with him against said enemy.

And no, I don't think Clark took Dean's issues. I think Clark has distinguished himself from Dean on some of the issues. I also think Clark's "issues" are typical democratic positions. Exactly who differs? Clark also said that like Kerry he probably would have voted for the resolution although he wouldn't have supported the war (I know you'll deliberately try to pretend there is no subtle nuance, but keep in mind Dean also suggested at one point he might have supported the resolution though not the war).

Unlike Dean, Clark never said he was opposed to Medicare increases or supported raising the retirement age.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't think Dean can win and national polls show him ranking lower than Clark and Kerry and sometimes Gephardt when matched head to head with Bush.

I didn't attack Clark. I said he is unelectable. And, you said the same about Dean.

Unlike you, I don't believe in attacking any of the Democratic candidates. This only gives ammunition to our enemies should anyone of these guys become the nominee.

Well, re-read your posts, then re-read mine. If I am guilty of 'attack' you certainly are.

You claim to be this true blue democrat, but I really think a true blue democrat would spend more time attacking the real "enemy" instead of those that have decided to align with him against said enemy.

The time will come where I fight for who ever wins the nomination. Right now, I'm fighting for who I want to win the nomination.

And no, I don't think Clark took Dean's issues. I think Clark has distinguished himself from Dean on some of the issues.

What issues might they be? I am curious as to where they differ. Not doubting you, just curious.

*Unlike Dean, Clark never said he was opposed to Medicare increases or supported raising the retirement age.

Unlike Clark, Dean never praised Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfi and the gang. Nor did he vote for Reagan and Bush senior. We could chattle on, but it's pointless as I assume we will be on the same side one day. Hey, what happened to not attacking other Dems??? ;)

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Very true. We'll have to see how it all 'shakes' out in the end.

are but a meager handful. Look at this website, for instance there is maybe a dozen hardcore Clark bashers such as yourself who think of him as a "war criminal".

So don't answer for the majority of DU'ers and voters on the Left... you are one of a very vocal and misguided majority.

I pointed out what people on the left and right have said about him.

I have no formal position on that personally. I raised the question is all.

Some candidates have more baggage than others. And compared to the others, Clark has the least amount.

Masters in Economics.

Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards).

1) involved statements that were intentionally misinterpretted to give the worst possibly slant to them. Clark claimed he had been contacted by people CLOSE to the White House, and had been specifically asked in one contact to tie Iraq and Sept 11 together.

2) as I understand it, some military gear (I believe armoured vehicles) was obtained from Fort Hood at which Clark was the commander. If you assume that the commander must approve all uses of base equipment, then Clark was responsible for granting the use of said equipment at Waco. However no one has ever proven that Clark actually approved the use of the equipment, and even if he did, that is NOT the same as saying he approved of using it to invade the comopund.

Clark had NO SAY over how the equipment would be used, at most all he can be blamed for is accepting a request to provide armoured vehicles to law enforcement for use during the seige, assuming he did actually approve such use.

3) Is true. Clark had been ordered to prevent Russian troops from taking Pristina airport. He then ordered Gen. Jackson (UK) to take a force of armoured vehicles to the airport and thus seize it before the Russians arrived. Jackson refused this order because it would have been a breach of the peace deal with the Serbs and could have resulted in open fighting between NATO and the Serbs (instigated by NATO) and resulted in the collapse of the peace deal.

The delay this refusal caused allowed the Russians to occupy the airfield. At this point the plan should have been abandoned because the Russians were there, and the only way short of open battle between NATO and Russian forces to get them to leave was to negotiate with Russia. But Clark did not want this. The best you can say is Clark stuck to his orders at the risk of sparking a war with Russia, at worst you can say Clark's ego would not allow him to accept the slap in the face the Russians had dealt him and he was willing to risk a confrontation in order to save face.

In any case, he then ordered Jackson to send British paratroops in helicopters to the airfield to at most force the Russians off the field, or at least set up a NATO presence on the field. This force was to be accompanied by helicopter gunships, and it was envisaged that combat could ensue. This order was also refused by Jackson and it was to this second order that Jackson said he would "not start WWIII for you".

This pissed off Clark, so he got Gen Jackson's superior (I believe the British defence minister) on the phone and explained the situation to him. The defence minister agreed with Jackson, and after speaking with his counterpart in the US, Clark was ordered to back down.

The way Clark tells it he was ordered to do something, and when he tried to do it, a foreign subordinate disagreed, and his own superiors stabbed him in the back.

4) The reason I say "kind of" on this one is because as the commanding officer and thus intimately involved in planning and target selection Clark would have approved the attack. The claim the attack was based on faulty intelligence (rather than the fact that the Chinese were assisting the Serbs) may be true, and thus although responsible in a real sense, in a moral sense he would not be. Of course that is if you believe the excuse, and I for one, don't.

We have a system of civilian authority for our military. No equipment could leave Fort Hood and be used in a civilian op without a direct order from Washington.

At Pristina, to prevent---prevent---a confrontation by preventing the landing of Russian troups (10,000) Washington and NATO agreed that parking tanks on the runways. (operative word=parking) It should be noted that this had been going on for three days while the Russians in Moscow (a sick Yeltsin) continued to deny that this was going on. The Russian planes had been denied airspace by three small countries. The US and NATO were concerned that the Russian pressure would break the resolve of these countries. Clark had received an "okay" for that order to move the tanks and went over to see Jackson (British). The British chain of command differs from ours by granting much broader authority to the commanders in the field: Jackson objected and called London. BTW, iirc, the following day (?) the tanks were moved onto the runway without a problem.

At the time of Jackson's refusal there were 200 Russian troups hold up in the airport. They would bum water and food from the British soldiers who had set up on the perimeter. The 200 Russians there were also being denied by Moscow. Basically the Russians were part of a renigade Russian Gen. who wanted to poke NATO in the eye, while helping Milosevic to gain a partition of Kosovo.

Each and every target with its intellegence was sent to the Pentagon and the White House. Everyone...in other words not one was approved by Clark. I repeat NOT ONE. Also, every NATO country had to approve the targets sets. Only the US gets to approve everyone.Tenet went before Congress and admitted that the CIA screwed this up. Tenet didn't do this to protect Clark; he did this because the CIA screwed up. So fuck "kinda"

I will go one by one down your list..

1. Clark NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, stated the call came from the WH.
21 months AFTER 9/11..on MTP, he and Tim Russert were discussing 9/11 and Iraq, in general, and Russert asked how would he have handled the situation, and would he have done things differently. I believe that the General was saying yes, he would have done things differently, and that he wouldn't have started trying to connect Iraq to 9/11 immediately after it happened. This is when he, made the off hand comment stating, that he, himself had received a call on 9/11 asking him to connect Iraq/9/11. Then he was asked who was trying to connect the two. That is when he said, well the WH, and everyone around it was trying to connect the two. Now...isn't it fact, that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and everyone else in Bush Co. tried to convince the American people that Iraq and 9/11 were connected AFTER the fact? I mean, really here, people, the latest polls I have seen say that 70% of the American people STILL believe that Iraq & 9/11 were connected!!!! So exactly how did that happen? By Bush, in every speech he gave after 9/11, and before he started the attack on Iraq, mentioning Iraq, AlQaida, terrorism, and 9/11 in the same paragraph of his speeches. I have listened to the actual interviews of MTP/Hannity & Colmes with the General, and what was said. If you really want to know who it was that said the phone call came from the WH...it was a few days later, that Hannity implied it, on Hannity/Colmes, when he was interviewing the General, and asked "who in the WH contacted you, who, who, who",....this is where the spin started..then Krugman, wrote a column in the NYT and brought it up again...Gen.Clark, wrote a letter to Krugman after his column appeared, and clarified exactly what he had said, and apologized for the misinterpretation that the call had actually came from the WH.

2. WACO....General Clark had NOTHING TO DO with WACO..that was the FBI/ATF.... In fact, I believe I have heard Gen.Clark state, that military force against civilians is wrong. I won't put words in his mouth however, so I won't quote.

3. KOSOVO...General Clark realized, even if his British counterparts did not, that the Russians, had an ulterior motive for wanting to have 200 troops present at Pristina Airport. HE DID NOT order an attack on the Russians, he wanted ground troops present on the airfield, to stop the Russians from having a presence there...HE WAS RIGHT...The Russian intent was to place 200 troops on the Airfield first, under cover of working within NATO...but...the kicker is, that they had a couple thousand more troops poised and ready to fight it out with the NATO troops, which they have admitted they intended to do, had the first 200 Russian troops been allowed to occupy the airport. There were an awful lot of letters on the draftwc site, from people in Kosovo, thanking the General, and urging him to run for President. At the same time, the British officer, (Jackson) who supposedly said he wasn't going to start WW111 for Gen.Clark, is now under investigation for the "Bloody Sunday Massacre" that took place in Ireland, under HIS COMMAND...

4. Any bombing that was done, was sanctioned by NATO. I believe I have read that they thought the embassy was empty. In times of war, accidents happen, bombs hit targets they weren't intended to hit, or someone gets innacurate information, causing casualties. Example, would be smart bombs that continue to hit the wrong targets. GW1 and GW2 are perfect examples of this. Look at all the Patriot missiles that hit the wrong target during GW1. Look at the friendly fire incidents that took during that war, or any war...Canadian troops being hit by our guys in Afghanistan...just this week, our guys telling how they were hit by their own A10 pilots and lost 16 men, I believe, because of it. Shit happens, innocents die...unfortunately that is one of the costs of war. That's why WAR should be the last option...ALWAYS the LAST OPTION...who would know this better than someone who has been there, and experienced it firsthand? Who would I trust to act accordingly in the future?

5. and lastly, when it comes to Gen.Clark being a hothead, going off the deep end, being whatever you want to call him...NOT!! When you are in the military, and all you guys/gals who have been there know this firsthand...there are those above you, with you, who want things their way, you piss someone off, you get into trouble, you disagree with someone, you get trouble...you don't follow orders, you get court martialed...you step on someone's toes, people get even...what makes anyone think, the higher you rise in rank, the easier it gets? The ego's get bigger, the toes you step on get bigger...the end result is bigger, the determination to get even is bigger...

I only ask each one of you to do one thing...listen to Gen.Clark speak. Really listen to what he says. Don't allow yourself to get spun out of control, because believe me, those who want Bush to stay in office, are out for blood, and the Gen. is their nemesis. You think they don't know it? We cannot allow them to succeed, if we love this country. It also is soooo not the time for Democrat to attack Democrat...it is time to unify this party, for the well being of all we hold dear, our lives, our families, our futures, or go down for good, in failure.

When you hear that there is an interview with the Gen. on TV. Take the time to listen to it yourself. Don't take someone else's word for what he said. We all know that two people can hear the same sentence, and interpret it differently. Just be fair. Unless you hear it yourself, with your own ears, or unless you get to read official reports about the way things really happened, don't take anything someone else happens to say, as the gospel truth.

Yep! They have no clue how to run against a Democrat they can't label. Doonesbury's been great all week...Trudeau get's it.

1. Think tank/9-11/Canada. Clark said the WH was trying to connect 9-11 with Hussein from the start. He said he got calls from people with administration ties from think tanks asking him to connect the two. The conservative press contracted these two statements to "the WH asked me to link the two".

2. The Waco tie-in is nothing more than black helicopter stuff.

3. Clark never ordered the British to attack the Russians. He ordered them to park their vehicles on the end of the runways on which Russian reinforcements were expected to land, in violation of the Russian's word to NATO and the US. Jackson was being hysterical in the true sense of the word.

4. The US had bad intelligence regarding the Chinese embassy bombing. I think it should be obvious that we would not have purposefully bombed the Chinese embassy. It's not the first time we've killed people by mistake, it wasn't the last, and if there is negligent blame to be placed, it lies several steps down the chain, and probably outside his chain of command.

These are all lies.

Coming as they do from the rightwing talk radio circuit, I'm not surprised that half of the allegations are fabrications and the other half are questionable at best. I'm glad to see that Clark supporters are prepared to deal with dirty tricks and vicious lies, because its only going to intensify if Clark does well in the primaries.

Supporters of every Democratic candidate should be practicing, getting ready for the real shitstorm. The kind of push&shove going on right now is playtime compared to what'll happen when the RNCC starts spending some of that $$250 Million$$ in earnest, next year.

does not want Clark to make it past the primaries. They do not want to run against him. They want to run "Dems are not as patriotic and Dems are soft on defense."

The back up plan they have, and its thin, is to have lots of rightwingers write articles "now" that they can quote next year. The meme is basically: Clark is loony. That's why they spun the MTP interview. Also, it is curious that only the Toronto paper published the name of the person who admits calling Clark.

More than anything, it would split the GOP base, probably for a long, long time.

Sometimes, DU does work :)

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1002-02.htm

An excerpt from William Greider's piece, People Power in which he contrasts (among other things) what Dean stands for (genuine people power with no connection to party insiders and incumbants) vs. what Clark symbolizes.

Yes, incumbent Dems all want Bush out, but they would much prefer it's done by a safer, more reliable candidate.

General Clark? I don't mean to pick on him but he seems the perfect vessel for conveying a "new face" sense of change without actually disturbing the status quo. A number of fellow bloggers accused me of seeing black helicopters when I earlier described Clark as the Clinton establishment's stalking horse . But that is self-evident now that Clark is an active candidate. Mr. Bill's Hollywood friends are swarming around the General with money; his campaign is run by Clintonoids. The General's tepid economic-stimulus plan is off-the-shelf stuff from the Democratic Leadership Council. He is being tutored on economics by Citigroup godfather Robert Rubin and Gene Sperling, the DLC's economist in chief.

If you want four more years of Wall Street economics guiding the Democratic party, go with the Four Stars. If you are ready for risk and real change, listen to the Doctor. People who put aside convictions in order to win an election often wind up regretting it. I know I did during Bill Clinton's presidency.

**********************

Please post it. Thanks!

If I dont see its soon, perhaps I shall...

I only hesitated because of that last section which, in my opinion, was way off topic for this thread -- but the whole philosophy of People Power vs. Establishment Power, regardless of party, is a very important one and an intellectually challenging one.

An that is "self-evident" by looking at his voting record.

Allow me to counter-spin this quote:

" Mr. Bill's Hollywood friends are swarming around the General with money; his campaign is run by Clintonoids."

The staff that worked on Clinton's campaign were smart enough to end up with a winner who won an election decisively.
They are smart enough to gravitate towards another winner GENERAL CLARK!

:)

who is that a victory for, exactly?


The Carlyle Group? Henry Kissigner?

I voted for George Bush Sr. before I became a democrat. I regretted that vote when he started Operation Desert Storm (which despite the way he coordinated it internationally, which was good, I still opposed). And by the end of the year, after actually paying more attention to the things people like Gingrich said, I became a moderate Democrat who voted for some republicans but mostly democrats. And during the Clinton impeachment debacle, I became a far left liberal Democrat for the rest of my life who will never vote for a republican.

So who is to say that Clark could not reach a similar conclusion? I know more than one former republican (my father, my brother) who have had their eyes opened by the Bush administration and what it represents as well as by Fox News. Before Fox News and the notoriety of people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, a lot of moderates were in the dark about the conservative agenda. We thought they were more moderate than they have actually been shown to be.

We are democrats, I think, based on the values and principles we hold. Not necessarily based on who we have voted for during our entire lives. I also think it's possible to praise a republican (I have a lot of praise for John McCain) without that making you a republican. Clark clearly repudiated his praise of the Bush team given at a time when EVERYONE thought Powell and Rice were great choices and had hopes that Bush would abide by the promises he made. And without 9/11, I don't think he would have had the chance to do what he did regarding Iraq.

Ever since Bush made that decision, Clark has spoken out against him quite aggressively.

He is a democrat as much as I am, in my opinion. And believe me, I could never be anything else.

At the local level the criteria is basice -- register as or sign up with the Democratic Party.

When running for the Democratic Prez nomination, the criteria should be tougher because the Dem Prez nominee is the Party's standard bearer. The standard bearer is the Party's role model. If that person is not a registered Democrat or has no publicly available history to verify his/her Democratic credentials then that person is a fraud.

Clark had an opportunity to run for Arkansas governor on the Dem ticket in 2000. He turned it down. A year later he was speaking at a GOP fundraiser and praising Bush & the PNAC gang. Why should I believe that he is a Democrat? His word is worthless, but his actions speak like a Republican.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208123,00.html



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 K-For 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 Russians had made a political point, not a military one. It was apparently too much for Clark. According to the US magazine, Newsweek, General Clark ordered an airborne assault on the airfield by British and French paratroopers. General Jackson refused. Clark then asked Admiral James Ellis, the American commander of Nato's southern command, to order helicopters to occupy the airport to prevent Russian Ilyushin troop carriers from sending in reinforcements. Ellis replied that the British General Jackson would oppose such a move. In the end the Ilyushins were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new Nato member, to refuse to allow the Russian aircraft to fly over its territory.



Clark also openly supported bombing civilians and journalists...



Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Big difference.