Bush is Terrified of Clark. Here's Proof!

Although the Bush administration agreed to allow retired General Wesley Clark to testify at the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, it has demanded stipulations never enforced, before now.

According to an article in the New York Times, the White House reserved the right to edit video tapes and transcripts of the sessions before they are made public.

The sessions will be closed to the public, minus the usual television and internet broadcasts.

I am a Dean supporter, and quite frankly, this type of maneuvering by the Bush administration is common, but I think this is a telling sign of how afraid Bush is to allow someone of Clark's stature upstage him.

and also include the pundits black out of Clark.....

The capture of Saddam will change all of that....as Bush is now going to be percieved as strong in Foreign policy.....(you know how dumb the general populace can be)

so now we need our strongest candidate in that foreign policy area to neutralize Bush in that area.

CHECK OUT THE DIFFERENCE:
http://tinyurl.com/z6v9

Wesley Clark calls for transparant trial of Saddam

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - U.S. presidential candidate Wesley Clark called Sunday for a transparent trial for captured Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein that ensured him full legal rights under international law.

The retired general and former NATO commander said Saddam's capture was welcome news that could have an impact on the anti-coalition insurgency in Iraq.

"I hope this will see a diminishing in the violence against American soldiers in Iraq," he told reporters as he arrived in the Netherlands.

Clark did not say who should try Saddam, but said the trial should be conducted with "the highest legal standards. There can be absolutely no doubt about the rights of the accused."

The case "needs to be as public as possible and the evidence needs to be aired and charges brought," he said.

Clark, contesting for the Democratic nomination for president, declined to comment when asked how Saddam's capture could affect the race or the standings of President George W. Bush.

Clark was on his way to The Hague where he has been summoned to testify in the war crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
______________

12/7/03 Hardball Interview with General Wesley K. Clark:

MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?

CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs to be tried in international court.

MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They don't have capital punishment at the Hague.
CLARK: I think that's a separate issue.

MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not execute people at the Hague.

CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we handle the war on terror from here on out.

MATTHEWS: But doesn't life in Holland beat life in a cave?

CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're cold, they're really miserable.

KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN POLICY VERSUS UNINFORMED INDIFFERENCE

11/31/03 Hardball Interview with Dean:

MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?

DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...

MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or would you let The Hague do it?

DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as long as he is brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.

MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...

DEAN: Again, we are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they're brought to justice and tried, and so far we haven't had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to find either one of them.

You never cease to amaze me :hi:

I'll take you at your word, but do you have a link other than Clark's website?

He tells Clark that 3000 Americans died in the WTC. That's not true, according to everything I've read. It's more like 2400 to 2500. About one-sixth of the dead, more than 500, were NOT Americans, but, as Clark points out, citizens of other nations.

but I don't understand why, since it's an International Court, the U.S. has so much control over the circumstances. You'd think that the court could subpoena anyone in the world, and they would have control over every detail.

I would love to see Clark testifying. WOW! Too bad bush is such a weenie (among other things).

The regime dragged its feet and negotiated the terms. Clark, btw, remarked at a dinner attended by a blogger, that because Milosevic is representing himself and tends to play games, he, Clark thought it was alright. I would guess that Clark hardly cares about the black out, other than it takes him off the trail for several days.

On cspan he announced that he had to end the interview because he had a dinner to attend. The man is out there! I'm sure he is enjoying visiting with old friends and talking to someone other than Judy Woodruff.

Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for the profanity spewing lunatic on the street. Yes, what the Bush administration is doing to Clark's testimony, using diplomacy to screw with politics (seeing Clark testify at the Hague would show American's that there are 'leaders' and there are Leaders.)

for good reason. Insecure, incompetent people do things like this.

There's an article about it in the online version of Stars & Stripes.

is that the Bushies are afraid of him. Is there another one that I'm not aware of? Just look at who else was allowed to testify openly.

By removing context through edits, one can totally change a message.

out 28 pages.

Clark is the one they fear, the one thay cannot win against.

and I don't know who you are referring to as Sherlock, but I find it insulting. As I said, I support Dean, but I don't like to see blatent manipulation by the White House used on any candidate. Oh, and good luck with Clark. You're going to need it.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

and Dean, and Kerry, and Edwards, and Kucinich, and Sharpton, and Braun, and Gephardt.

That's all the candidates they need to fear...

WTF? When did he get this power? Who made the President powerful enough to be a censor to anything coming into the US?
There will be nothing in that trial that would be a danger to American safety. Its about the election. Who do we write to over this nonsense?

... to see it or read about it from foreign press sources?

I can't imagine that anything can be kept totally secret these days if there's something "shocking" to tell.

bush doesn't know the meaning of the word fear....of course there are a lot of other words he doesn't know the meaning of.



george bush…pResident?

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

simple. He is afraid.

and it is not hte strangest thing in the world for someone to politisize something. This insures that Clark cannot do that.

I'd expect the same thing were the tables turned.