Wesley Clark, Democratic Frontrunner

[Tony]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030922.shtml


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago.

Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.



I’m curious to know what our democrats here think of this. If this was Bush, Rumsfeild or Cheney hanging out with a "war criminal" the democrats and bedwetting left would be going apesh!t.

[Chaos]

I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos
I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

So since reagan and bush might have been seen hangin' with saddam, things are now "even"?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony


So since reagan and bush might have been seen hangin' with saddam, things are now "even"?


You´ve said:

If this was Bush, Rumsfeild or Cheney hanging out with a "war criminal" the democrats and bedwetting left would be going apesh!t.

It was Reagan and Bush (or at least people they sent) hanging out with "a ´war criminal´". So Republicans are not exactly in a position to point and call names in that respect.
The left didn´t go apesh!t or anything else, did they?

The party whose presidents cozied up with Saddam and OBL in the 80´s should not call to loudly at a candidate of another who met with a war criminal. This is like a gangster calling another one a scoundrel.

Anyway, I´d like to know exactly under which circumstances Clark met with Mladic - your link doesn´t work for me, I just get a blank white screen.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


It was Reagan and Bush (or at least people they sent) hanging out with "a ´war criminal´". So Republicans are not exactly in a position to point and call names in that respect.



No they arent, but this isnt about republicans, its about democrats.

[Chaos]

Yes, but the Republicans do not seem to mind staffing their administrations with people that have (or have had) ties with war criminals and terrorists.

As an outsider to U.S. politics, I see no reason why the democrats should have problems with that then.

(Note: if you find a sarcasm, you can keep it)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Chaos
I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

The issue at this point is which Democrat will take on Bush.

[Clancie]

I agree with those who've said you probably don't want to go here, Tony. Do you really want to start documenting all the unsavory war criminals and murderers that Reagan, Bush and their various emissaries have wined and dined and aided and abetted through the years?

Rumsfeld was quite chummy with Saddam as Reagan's representative shortly after Saddam had gassed his own people (and we knew).

Politics makes strange bedfellows, no doubt about it. But you won't be able to support the argument that Republicans are less tarnished by this, not at all.

P.S. And, just curious, why usurp my original thread title rather than starting your own--or at least adding, "Part II" to your version of it? :confused:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Clancie


Politics makes strange bedfellows, no doubt about it. But you won't be able to support the argument that Republicans are less tarnished by this, not at all.


Im not trying to make that argument, I just want opinions of what democrats think of Clark hanging with a "war criminal".

P.S. And, just curious, why usurp my original thread title rather than starting your own--or at least adding, "Part II" to your version of it?

Irony.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Chaos
I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

And so what does this have to do with what Wes Clark does? I would hope that General Clark has a better excuse than

"I was hanging out with this guy cause Rumsfeld got to hang out with Saddam."

Just because someone else does something wrong does not make it right when someone else does the same thing.

If Clark had a real good reason for meeting with this man I would like to hear it.

[Uther]

Tony: I'm not sure I have enough to go on here. Do you have more information on the incident, preferably from someone other than Robert Novak?

-Uther

[Tony]

Originally posted by Uther
Tony: I'm not sure I have enough to go on here. Do you have more information on the incident, preferably from someone other than Robert Novak?

-Uther

No. Here is a picture from Drudge.

http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.jpg

[Uther]

While I can't really reply to Novak's column without doing more research on the incident, one sentence from Novak caught my attention:

On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic.

Now, I wasn't sure exactly when Mladic was indicted, but I seemed to recall it happening in 1995. Sure enough, after I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic <a href=http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm>here</a>. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995. I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.

-Uther

[Tony]

Originally posted by Uther


Now, I wasn't sure exactly when Mladic was indicted, but I seemed to recall it happening in 1995. Sure enough, after I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic <a href=http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm>here</a>. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995. I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.


Ok, that's cool, I started this thread to get opinions, it seems that Novak is bending the truth.

[Clancie]

Posted by Uther

I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic here. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995.

I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.
Wow, Uther, fabulous point! I had read this anecdote in Newsweek and another reputable news source and not one of them actually looked it up as you did!

Novak isn't "bending the truth", Tony. What he wrote is irresponsibly smearing someone. Very bad!

And I guarantee we will see this factually corrected (eventually) and still the smear of Clark will be misrepresented and restated over and over and over by the Bush campaign and Republicans in the press all throughout 2004. (And can I really blame them? After all, "Willie Horton" did wonders for dad....)

[EvilYeti]

http://www.topos.org/images/1639839.jpeg

That's Rumsfeld on the left, btw.

[clk]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
http://www.topos.org/images/1639839.jpeg

That's Rumsfeld on the left, btw.

I’m curious to know what our republicans here think of this. If this was Clinton, Clark or Dean hanging out with a "war criminal" the republicans and bedwetting right would be going apesh!t.

Oh wait.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by clk

I’m curious to know what our republicans here think of this. If this was Clinton, Clark or Dean hanging out with a "war criminal" the republicans and bedwetting right would be going apesh!t.

Oh wait.

Let's see. Gotta come up with a campaign slogan.

I know!

VOTE FOR CLARK!
He's no worse of a war criminal than Rumsfeld! :rolleyes:

I sure hope the Democrats can do better than this by the time the convention rolls aroud.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Let's see. Gotta come up with a campaign slogan.

I know!

VOTE FOR CLARK!
He's no worse of a war criminal than Rumsfeld! :rolleyes:

I sure hope the Democrats can do better than this by the time the convention rolls aroud. Sorry Abdul - Uther just established this fact:

I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.Whereas the meetings with Saddam took place after he bombed his own people and we knew it.

So, unless you disprove Uther's info - your slogan should be along the lines that Clark didn't do it .... :(

[SRW]

Originally posted by Uther

Now, I wasn't sure exactly when Mladic was indicted, but I seemed to recall it happening in 1995. Sure enough, after I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic <a href=http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm>here</a>. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995. I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.

-Uther

Novac dose not specifically state that Mladic was indicted at the time of the meeting. Only Clark met with Mladic a indicted war criminal.

I know why Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam, you may recall that at that time Saddam was fighting a war against Iran, a country what was involved in killing Americans in Lebanon. World events are world events.

I still have not heard an answer on why Clark was meeting with Mladic, he may have a very good reason, or possibly Novac is not being honest with the state departments objection to this meeting. I do not know. If an US officer was meeting foreign leaders against the wishes of the state department, that sounds more than a little dangerous.

With out Clarks side of the story it is hard to say if there is something here or not.

[Uther]

Originally posted by SRW


Novac dose not specifically state that Mladic was indicted at the time of the meeting. Only Clark met with Mladic a indicted war criminal.

I know why Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam, you may recall that at that time Saddam was fighting a war against Iran, a country what was involved in killing Americans in Lebanon. World events are world events.

I still have not heard an answer on why Clark was meeting with Mladic, he may have a very good reason, or possibly Novac is not being honest with the state departments objection to this meeting. I do not know. If an US officer was meeting foreign leaders against the wishes of the state department, that sounds more than a little dangerous.

With out Clarks side of the story it is hard to say if there is something here or not.

So far the only source we have on this is Robert Novak, whose claim -- that Clark met with an indicted war criminal -- is false. To say that Novak's statement is correct because Mladic would eventually be a war criminal and eventually be indicted for those crimes is the equivilant of saying that a senior citizen is posting in this thread because I will eventually grow old. Clark did not have prescience in this matter -- he couldn't know he was meeting with a future war criminal, so Mladic's actions since the meeting are not at issue. We can only judge Clark's motives based on Mladic's standing prior to and at the time of the meeting.

If someone can provide a better source than the Novak column, I would be interested in discussing the merits of the meeting. However, if all we have is a column whose central assertion can be proven untrue by a quick google search, we can't really discuss the issue.

-Uther

[Tony]

Originally posted by clk


I’m curious to know what our republicans here think of this. If this was Clinton, Clark or Dean hanging out with a "war criminal" the republicans and bedwetting right would be going apesh!t.

Oh wait.


:D :D

Hey!! Get your own material.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by SRW
Novac dose not specifically state that Mladic was indicted at the time of the meeting. Only Clark met with Mladic a indicted war criminal. Oh, that explains it all.

Bush had three meetings with a prostitute .... :pwell, she wasn't a prostitute then, she became one later, but we won't destroy the story by mentioning that fact ... :p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Sorry Abdul - Uther just established this fact:

Whereas the meetings with Saddam took place after he bombed his own people and we knew it.

So, unless you disprove Uther's info - your slogan should be along the lines that Clark didn't do it .... :(

It's not just about the meeting with Mladic. Clark is himself a war criminal for his role in Kosovo. I said this at the time, and I'm certainly not being a Republican apologist now.

Our troops are still over there fighting on the same side as the bad guys. GW Bush is president now, so I can't just blame Slick Willie anymore.

Iraq is a different question in my opinion, but how can we justify still supporting the Kosovars?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


It's not just about the meeting with Mladic. Clark is himself a war criminal for his role in Kosovo. I said this at the time, and I'm certainly not being a Republican apologist now.


What did he do that would make him a "war criminal"?

[SRW]

It seems the criminal career started well before the meeting with Clark. RFJ (http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/warcrimes/Mladic.htm)


This guy was doing bad thinks and we knew it. So Novak is not being honest, it still does not excuse Clark for meeting with this guy against the advice of the state department.

So why is it that Clark should not be held accountable for meeting with a man who was known to have committed war crimes at the time of the meeting. This was known prior to his indictment.

[Uther]

Originally posted by SRW
It seems the criminal career started well before the meeting with Clark. RFJ (http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/warcrimes/Mladic.htm)
Interesting; I should have checked for later versions of the indictment. I am curious, though, about which of the various pre-1995 crimes that were added to the indictment were known of at the time the initial indictment was filed (or, for that matter, at the time of Clark's meeting).

This guy was doing bad thinks and we knew it. So Novak is not being honest, it still does not excuse Clark for meeting with this guy against the advice of the state department.
Can you provide corroboration of Novak's claim that the state department opposed? As we've already seen, the editorial is not entirely factual.

So why is it that Clark should not be held accountable for meeting with a man who was known to have committed war crimes at the time of the meeting. This was known prior to his indictment.[/b]
I do not know to what extent Mladic's crimes were known to the State Department and NATO at the time of Clark's meeting. If you can provide background on the Clark-Mladic meeting, I would be interested in debating it further.

-Uther

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tony


What did he do that would make him a "war criminal"?

Gee whiz. Where to start?

Here's the best I can do at short notice:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html)

[SRW]

Originally posted by Uther


So far the only source we have on this is Robert Novak, whose claim -- that Clark met with an indicted war criminal -- is false. To say that Novak's statement is correct because Mladic would eventually be a war criminal and eventually be indicted for those crimes is the equivilant of saying that a senior citizen is posting in this thread because I will eventually grow old. Clark did not have prescience in this matter -- he couldn't know he was meeting with a future war criminal, so Mladic's actions since the meeting are not at issue. We can only judge Clark's motives based on Mladic's standing prior to and at the time of the meeting.

If someone can provide a better source than the Novak column, I would be interested in discussing the merits of the meeting. However, if all we have is a column whose central assertion can be proven untrue by a quick google search, we can't really discuss the issue.

-Uther


From the Indictment at Rewards for Justace I refrenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From May 1992, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC took control of municipalities in the Serbian Republic of BiH, primarily in the northwestern region of BiH known as the Bosnian Krajina and in eastern Bosnia. In these municipalities, the Bosnian Serb Forces participated in a campaign of persecutions to drive the non-Serb populations from these territories. Thousands of non-Serbs were deported or forcibly transferred from these municipalities. Many non-Serbs were killed, and many others were held in detention facilities, where they were physically and psychologically abused and subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions. In addition, non-Serb homes, businesses, and religious sites and property were looted, destroyed and/or appropriated.


On 19 November 1992, General Ratko MLADIC, in his capacity as Commander of the VRS Main Staff, issued Operational Directive 04, reaffirming the goals set forth in the "strategic objectives" referred to in paragraph 8 above.


From January to March 1993, in accordance with Operational Directive 04, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC attacked the Cerska area in eastern BiH. Thousands of Muslims fled to BiH government-controlled territory including Srebrenica and Zepa. On 16 April 1993, the Security Council of the United Nations ("UN"), acting pursuant to Chapter VII of its Charter, adopted Resolution 819, in which it demanded that all parties to the conflict in BiH treat Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde, and Sarajevo (and their surroundings) as "safe areas" which were to be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act. Thereafter, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC began to focus particular attention on capturing the strategically located Srebrenica enclave and expelling the Bosnian Muslim population that had fled there in the wake of the 1992 and 1993 "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in eastern BiH referred to in paragraph 10 above.


From 26 May 1995 through 19 June 1995, Bosnian Serb Forces under the command and control of General Ratko MLADIC seized and held over two hundred UN military observers and UN peacekeepers as hostages, following air strikes by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ("NATO") against Bosnian Serb Forces in BiH, in order to deter further air strikes in those areas where the hostages were being held. Some of the hostages were assaulted and otherwise maltreated during their captivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So can we all agree that Mladic was a very bad man in 1994 when Clark met with him. Lets put that to bed. And someone tell me why Clark was meeting with this guy.

[Clancie]

Our foreign policy has us dealing with criminals and war criminals often. What's the big deal?

Novac was dishonest, in implying that Mladic was already indicted for crimes at the time of the meeting with Clark. The phrasing makes that seem the case, undeniably.

As for the State Dept...I was just reading about the war in Kosovo where the State Department and the Pentagon were frequently at odds. I'm sure that's extremely common whenever there is military vs. diplomatic concerns and expertise.

This is an attempt to smear Clark, pure and simple.

I'm sure Republicans will get even more down and dirty now, since the recent CNN-USA Today poll has Clark basically polling even with Bush if the election were held today.

2004...if only...

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by SRW
Novak is not being honest ..... Good. My point exactly.

So why is it that Clark should not be held accountable for meeting with a man who was known to have committed war crimes at the time of the meeting. This was known prior to his indictment. Was it known to Clark at the time of the meeting? :confused:

[Uther]

Originally posted by SRW
So can we all agree that Mladic was a very bad man in 1994 when Clark met with him. Lets put that to bed. And someone tell me why Clark was meeting with this guy.
I'll concede that point; as I said, I should have looked for updated versions of the indictment. The question isn't what he had done up to that point, though, but what Clark knew of what he had done.

-Uther

[SRW]

Originally posted by Uther

I'll concede that point; as I said, I should have looked for updated versions of the indictment. The question isn't what he had done up to that point, though, but what Clark knew of what he had done.

-Uther


Which is what I have been asking for, I did find that Novac also reported this story in 1999, which was well before Clark declared he was running for president. So much for the big conspiracy.

And I would hope that Clark knew what was going on in Serbia, after all I did back then and I was not a general. But I cannot find anything else about the meeting so I cannot say for sure.

[Hexxenhammer]

If only real life was like an action movie where any Eastern European named Gen. Ratko Mladic could safely be assumed to be a bad guy. He should have come out guns blazing and then said something witty like "I thought I smelled a Rat......ko."

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie
Our foreign policy has us dealing with criminals and war criminals often. What's the big deal?

Novac was dishonest, in implying that Mladic was already indicted for crimes at the time of the meeting with Clark. The phrasing makes that seem the case, undeniably.

As for the State Dept...I was just reading about the war in Kosovo where the State Department and the Pentagon were frequently at odds. I'm sure that's extremely common whenever there is military vs. diplomatic concerns and expertise.

This is an attempt to smear Clark, pure and simple.

I'm sure Republicans will get even more down and dirty now, since the recent CNN-USA Today poll has Clark basically polling even with Bush if the election were held today.

2004...if only...


And why are you so sure that Clark did not do something wrong? When I got up this morning I fully expected to vote for Clark. Now I am not so sure, it looks to me like there are quite a number of questions that Clark has to answer.

Not only this but his actions in Haiti Waco and France all are raising questions. Do some googling on him and you come up with a lot of trash most of what I found was older stuff from the left.

[SRW]

Smoking Gun? (http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1994/94-D91.html)


From a 1994 article

____________________________________________



Washington, D.C.): Last Saturday, one of the highest-ranking officers in the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- Lieutenant General Wesley Clark, Director for Strategy, Plans and Policy -- consorted with one of the most despicable war criminals on the planet: the Bosnian Serb commander, General Ratko Mladic. The visit occurred in the Serbian enclave of Banja Luka, scene of horrific and continuing ethnic cleansing; it was captured on film by Serb propagandists delighted at being able to portray Gen. Clark jovially exchanging military caps with the man responsible for many of those atrocities and accepting gifts of brandy and an inscribed pistol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok so Clark did not read the news while he was in Bosnia.

[EvilYeti]

Has anyone considered the General might be engaging in a bit of Diplomacy?

If I thought it would lead to peace I would smile and share hats with a tyrant, regardless of how I felt about him personally.

Or do you think its more likely Gen. Clark is endorsing genocide? Come on ppl, critical thinking....

[SRW]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Has anyone considered the General might be engaging in a bit of Diplomacy?

If I thought it would lead to peace I would smile and share hats with a tyrant, regardless of how I felt about him personally.

Or do you think its more likely Gen. Clark is endorsing genocide? Come on ppl, critical thinking....

Exactly, until we hear from Clark and his explanation everything Else is speculation. You were the one after all who brought out the pic of Rumsfeld and Saddam, I am still trying to figure out what that has to do with Clark. I have heard what Rumsfelds explanation was but not Clarks.

If Clark was engaging is diplomacy, why was he doing so against the wishes of the state department? Was is a secret mission on behave of Clinton? I do not know. And will hold off my judgment until I hear something conclusive.

[gnome]

Regarding the link from Abdul Alhazred: can anyone confirm that he ordered (or requested) British (or any allied troops) to engage Russian forces at the Pristina airport...?

That would certainly impact my willingness to vote for him...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by gnome
Regarding the link from Abdul Alhazred: can anyone confirm that he ordered (or requested) British (or any allied troops) to engage Russian forces at the Pristina airport...?

That would certainly impact my willingness to vote for him...

That article is only the best I could come up with on short notice. In fact my opinion goes back to when the USA first got into the Kosovo war.

Voting for Clark is like voting for Westmoreland. You want a quagmire? Forget Iraq, our troops are still in the Balkans.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030922.shtml

I’m curious to know what our democrats here think of this. If this was Bush, Rumsfeild or Cheney hanging out with a "war criminal" the democrats and bedwetting left would be going apesh!t.


war is okay when a democrat is president, bottom line.

[Supercharts]

From the article at:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

"On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

Clark and Kerry share more than one thing in common: They both have the ability to change their opinions and beliefs according to which way the wind blows.
;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



war is okay when a democrat is president, bottom line.

I'll even go further and say that the patriot act would be ok if a democrap were president.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Supercharts
From the article at:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

"On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

Clark and Kerry share more than one thing in common: They both have the ability to change their opinions and beliefs according to which way the wind blows.
;)


I was seriously looking at Clark, as a democrat who has had real problems with the canadates reciently, I thought this might be somebody to support. But the more I find out about him the less I like.

[Clancie]

Posted by Supercharts

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03).
Well, in January most Americans still trusted that what President Bush, Colin Powell and others had told them about WMD was true.

Like other Americans who were not privy to confidential reports, Clark may have trusted in the accuracy of the intelligence information the President claimed to have.

Like other Americans, Clark had no reason to think that Bush was blatantly lying to the American public in order to get support for a first strike on Iraq.

It's no wonder many opinions have changed about this war--now that we all know that we were lied to by Bush & co....repeatedly..

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, in January most Americans still trusted that what President Bush, Colin Powell and others had told them about WMD was true.

Like other Americans who were not privy to confidential reports, Clark may have trusted in the accuracy of the intelligence information the President claimed to have.

Like other Americans, Clark had no reason to think that Bush was blatantly lying in order to get public support for a first strike on Iraq.

It's no wonder many opinions have changed about this war--now that we all know that we were lied to by Bush & co....repeatedly.. [/B]


Sure Clark is free to change his views on the war, but not to lie about what they were, as he clearly is doing now.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by SRW

Sure Clark is free to change his views on the war, but not to lie about what they were, as he clearly is doing now.

??? When did he lie about what his views were?

Why are you so hell-bent on slandering this guy? I can undestand being cynical given the current administration, but don't paint everyone else with the same brush!

[SRW]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


??? When did he lie about what his views were?

Why are you so hell-bent on slandering this guy? I can understand being cynical given the current administration, but don't paint everyone else with the same brush!

Read Supercharts post above, and why are you so hell-bent to defend this guy? Should we simply give him a pass because he may be able to beat bush. How about a little ... a what did you call it? Skepticism?

So its wrong to discuss anything wrong with Clark? When did this happen, Oh right when the polls came out.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


I'll even go further and say that the patriot act would be ok if a democrap were president.

Beats me why a person would choose to be so obstructively cynical as to believe things that are clearly wrong, just so it fits his belief system. But whatever.

You're too young to remember what happened to Hubert Humphrey regarding the Vietnam war, aren't you? Let's just say you're incorrect. The left doesn't hesitate to turn on its own when it feels they've betrayed their principles... unlike Republicans, who sometimes seem to have a club rule to support each other no matter what.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by SRW

Read Supercharts post above, and why are you so hell-bent to defend this guy? Should we simply give him a pass because he may be able to beat bush. How about a little ... a what did you call it? Skepticism?


Why don't you READ the article SuperCharts linked to? It details Clark's position on the war and it is fairly complex, not surprising considering his military background. You cannot label him as strictly as for or against. He was in favor of the removal of Hussien but critical of the administrations handling of the affair, both pre and post invasion. His criticisms are detailed and very well thought out. He's never claimed to be "anti-war", thats a label stuck on him by journalists.

I'm not even defending the guy, I'm just pointing out the facts, which are currently at odds with what you are claiming. You are making the claim he is a liar, provide evidence of this or retract your accusation. The burden of proof is on you.

[Clancie]

[B]Posted by Evil Yeti

Why are you so hell-bent on slandering this guy? I can undestand being cynical given the current administration, but don't paint everyone else with the same brush!From today's New York Times....


CHARLESTON, S.C., Sept. 22 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark called today for "a new American patriotism" that would encourage broader public service, respect domestic dissent even in wartime and embrace international organizations like the United Nations....

"We've got to have a new kind of patriotism that recognizes that in times of war or peace democracy requires dialogue, disagreement and the courage to speak out," General Clark said. "And those who do it should not be condemned, but be praised."
My guess is that some Bush supporters find Clark's vision of democracy very threatening, as does this Administration.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


That article is only the best I could come up with on short notice. In fact my opinion goes back to when the USA first got into the Kosovo war.

Voting for Clark is like voting for Westmoreland. You want a quagmire? Forget Iraq, our troops are still in the Balkans.

Please, if you can, find more on that for me. The article didn't really state the source of the knowledge... you won't be wasting your time, this one's got my curiosity.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



war is okay when a democrat is president, bottom line.

Ohh, yes, and nobody protested Vietnam until Nixon was president, right...

[SRW]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Why don't you READ the article SuperCharts linked to? It details Clark's position on the war and it is fairly complex, not surprising considering his military background. You cannot label him as strictly as for or against. He was in favor of the removal of Hussien but critical of the administrations handling of the affair, both pre and post invasion. His criticisms are detailed and very well thought out. He's never claimed to be "anti-war", thats a label stuck on him by journalists.

I'm not even defending the guy, I'm just pointing out the facts, which are currently at odds with what you are claiming. You are making the claim he is a liar, provide evidence of this or retract your accusation. The burden of proof is on you.

Ok the article clearly shows that Clark has been both in favor of the war and not in favor of the war. Which is in direct contradiction to what he is saying now.

Clarks stand today (http://www.msnbc.com/news/969466.asp)


Now what facts have you pointed out? Did I miss them? If so please show the pertinent facts. (no Rumsfield is not pertinent to this discussion).

It seem I am doing all the work. Why don't you answer the question I have been asking.


That is why was Clark at a meeting with a war criminal? Can you answer it or not. No speculation allowed just facts.

I have stated over and over that I do not know, and I would like to know. Unlike you who just apparently wants to make it disappear.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Clancie
....Novac was dishonest, in implying that Mladic was already indicted for crimes at the time of the meeting with Clark. The phrasing makes that seem the case, undeniably.



Yeah, it would have been much better if Novak had Clark meeting Mladic, an unindicted war criminal. ;)

Do you suppose there may be a few more still-unindicted war criminals still running around?

[shuize]

I really don't know much about Gen. Clark. After all, nobody even knew what party he belonged to last month. But now that he's gone on record against the Iraq War, I'd like to hear whether he believes he was justified in waging war against Serbia without UN approval.

I know there were some on the left who opposed US involvement in Kosovo and many on the right who played politics with it. Now, however, it seems that their roles are exactly reversed.

Not that my opinion matters for much, but I really don't think there wouldn't be anywhere near the anti-war hysteria if Clinton were still in office. The vast majority of it is wrapped up in the left's hatred of President Bush.

Politics as usual.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by hammegk
Do you suppose there may be a few more still-unindicted war criminals still running around?
http://www.frif.com/new2002/gifs/kiss.jpg

But I hear that the cops are closing in...

[Clancie]

Posted by shuize

Now that he's gone on record against the Iraq War, I'd like to hear whether he believes he was justified in waging war against Serbia without UN approval.
There may be something about this in the book he wrote about Kosovo, "Waging Modern War".

Clark has another book due to come out next month, Winning Modern Wars\.
Winning Modern Wars From the Publisher:

"....In Winning Modern Wars, General Wesley Clark writes about how the issues and principles discussed in his earlier book were evident in Afghanistan, Iraq, and wherever the war on terrorism has taken us or may take us next, providing a frank and revealing analysis of the gains, risks, and shortfalls of America's current approach and offering informed alternatives to that approach.

What Clark, currently a much-watched and much-admired military analyst on CNN and one of the most decorated and influential officers of his generation, has to say on our national plans and tactics-and the lessons of empire-is invaluable, reminded us that as we celebrate our successes, we must also tend to their consequences."

From Barnes and Noble (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2U1NVQOGP5&isbn=1586482181&itm=2)

[Supercharts]

This week's Time Magazine does an in-depth study on Clark. His career, his ambitions, his personality etc.
Clark come across as very ambitious and a back stabbing sob.
But that's just my opinion after reading the report. All ambitious people are opportunists. But there's ways to do it and win friends or ways to make enemies.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030922.shtml



I’m curious to know what our democrats here think of this. If this was Bush, Rumsfeild or Cheney hanging out with a "war criminal" the democrats and bedwetting left would be going apesh!t.

I guess that I won't be voting for Clark any time real soon, I wonder if Oat Willie is still around. Just what the Democratic Party needs, Joe Lieberman, Carol Mosley Braun and Clark. Sigh.

I am still waiting for the third parties to sprout up, and will probably vote Libertarian.

[SRW]

Gen. Sir Michael Rose of Great Britain, then commander of the U.N. Protection Force in Bosnia, who was present at the meeting, thought Mladic had made a fool of Clark. "It was horrible to watch," Rose wrote in "Fighting for Peace," his book on Bosnia.


Gen Rose reflects (http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/5.12/990607-belgrade.html)



Well I guess I'll have to find and read this book.

[Clancie]

Well, no one making decisions is going to please everyone, no matter what he does, especially when politics and national pride are involved. (Plus, who knows what amount of personal ego, even jealousy, is involved in much of the Clark criticism, like that from the Pentagon brass who relieved him?)

Personally, I find it refreshing that he is not the stereotypic "military man" and hasn't spent his life being "one of the boys". That will help him with liberals/progressives and, imo, that, combined with his pro-choice views will give him no "gender gap" problems with women (unlike Bush).

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie
(Plus, who knows what amount of personal ego, even jealousy, is involved in much of the Clark criticism, like that from the Pentagon brass who relieved him?)




You do know why he was relieved don't you?

[Clancie]

Posted by SRW

You do know why he was relieved, don't you?[/B]

Yes, I do--if you ignore the "explanations" of right wing Bush-supporting ideologues and get it from mainstream newspapers or magazines instead. :)

Here's one:
From Newsweek:

Newsweek (http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1964)

The firing of Clark was an act of vicious bureaucratic jujitsu. In the summer of 1999, when Clark was still basking in the glow of victory in Kosovo, General Shelton abruptly informed him that he was being relieved of command—ostensibly to make room for Gen. Joseph Ralston, a favored four-star whose political rise had been stunted by a long-ago scandalous romantic liaison.

Knowing that Clark would instantly try to appeal right up to the Oval Office, the Pentagon brass leaked the story to The Washington Post and made sure that top officials were “unavailable” when Clark began frantically calling in the middle of the night.

It was a shabby way to get rid of Clark, who had skillfully fought a difficult two-front war—against the Serbs and his own superiors in Washington. For the most part, Clark’s tireless diplomacy had worked to bring together the 19 NATO countries over Kosovo.

But Clark’s battles, especially with his own commanders, were often strident and messy and too public, conducted over a videoconferencing system with a wide audience (that leaked to reporters).

Clark’s boldness explains some of the animus against him; the Pentagon top brass has become very risk-averse since the Vietnam War....

Clark also suffers from the anti-intellectualism of the military. At West Point, “star men” like Clark, who won stars for top grades, often declined to wear them on their cadet uniforms. They didn’t want to be singled out as nerds.

Clark was a top debater at West Point. One of his superiors—a captain by the name of Norman Schwarzkopf, later the commander of Desert Storm—objected to Clark’s spending too much time traveling to debates, doing “puffy stuff,” Schwarzkopf complained, rather than more manly pursuits, like “socializing” and “professional development.”

Some of the resentment against Clark is just plain jealousy. More-plodding officers dislike “fast burners” like Clark. It should be noted that Clark commanded the loyalty of many of his subordinates as an officer in the field in the ’70s and ’80s.

By the sheer force of his personality and high expectations, he was able to turn around Army units that had drug problems, poor morale and racial divisions.
My conclusion as to why the Pentagon relieved him of command? Politics.

More to the point, imo, Clark doesn't have to be perfect. He just has to be better for the country than George Bush.

And it seems to me from everything I know of them both so far, that he will be. :)