Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wes Clark in '08--What do you think?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:27 AM
Original message
Poll question: Wes Clark in '08--What do you think?
Yesterday I asked about John Kerry, who may be positioning himself for another run in '08--now what about Wes Clark who ran in '04 and may also be running in '08--would you support him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
union_maid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. As things stand, yes
I'd be happy to see him give another try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I just hope if he does decide to run, he'll jump in early enough
this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyDarthBrodie Donating Member (941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yes
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 09:31 AM by LeftyDarthBrodie
although I'm not sure he wouldn't be more effective at the Pentagon or the State Department after the damage done to those institutions under Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
50. As Commander in Chief....he would have the power to propose
real cuts and rearranging of the military budget priorities, and finding the dollars for our social programs (hello, health care!)

No other Democratic contender can make such claims and not be accused of being "Soft on Defense"....and not Republican contender would even think of doing this.


Nixon went to China....Clark will live by Einsenhower's words...and put in "check" what that other General warned us about. I think that it's about damn time....don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyDarthBrodie Donating Member (941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
88. I totally agree with everything you said
but if he chooses not to go through with the campaign then I hope he is a SecDef or SecState. The big names we have swirling around now for '08 are not that attractive and Hillary will undoubtedly continue shifting to the right.

If General Clark were to announce tomorrow he were running '08 I would wholeheartedly support him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. If Hillary shifts any further
to the right, she'll be able to run for Czar instead of President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ksclematis Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
105. He would have more
Edited on Sun Jul-31-05 10:31 PM by ksclematis
power to accomplish a clean-up of the Pentagon, et al, as POTUS by appointing the right cabinet members and he would "pay attention" and hold them accountable. He's got the leadership qualifications, and is a "details-oriented" person. Check out his early and late military records as company commander and SACEUR. He was always rated tops in getting things done right.


My edit:
(Damn, this was in response to Post #3).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. He is a truly ideal candidate
against the Right.

He's intelligent, articulate, compassionate, wise, and a true American Patriot/Hero. If he runs, he has my vote.

CLARK '08 all the way for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. But he works for Faux news
If he declines to tear Faux a new asshole, he will lose all credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. He's already done so much damage to
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 09:43 AM by Totally Committed
Hannity's nether region his last few appearances have been during the afternoon hours. O'Reilly, Hannity, and Hume won't have him on, so they let the blonde bimbettes interview him now. His next appearance, I hear, is this Monday at noon.

If they won't have him on in prime-time, he's already gotten too mouthy for them, and he could be on his way out. Who knows? Personally, I think they are a bunch of gutless, wimp-ass cowards for standing behind the daytime blondes for protection from the big, bad General.

On Edit: With this postion, he is trying to reach a voter that never hears the Democratic point of view and win some over. He calls it "Eating the elephant, one bite at a time." Try and see it from this point of view and your obvious outrage may dissipate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Thanks for the update
My TV is too smart to let Faux into my livingroom. I never know what is going on in the wingbat world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I tune in only when I know he's on,
and keep it on "mute" until I see his face. Even then, my blood pressure is not normal for hours afterward. I understand completely where you're coming from!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
48. Here are reviews of Clark's performance on Faux to date......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
94. It's getting earlier and earlier..
they got him now they don't know what to do with him.

I'm sure Clark is way to dangerous for Prime Time on fauxsux.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
104. I really wish there was a video of the last appearance
on Hannity floating around somewhere on the web...That was classic. That one moment when Hannity says he supports Bush's position on Taiwan and then Clark says Bush retracted it....that was priceless. I saw it on videotape and, although I absolutely detest watching Hannity even when Clark is on, I had to watch that one multiple times. Even my young niece who'd never seen Hannity before was howling with laughter at Hannity's reaction...and Gen Clark just laughed...priceless....I can only imagine the caurses Hannity was throwing around when that interview was over.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. So far, he's been standing up to them
with dignity and grace and uncommon sense. A lot of the time he's being used for background info on foreign affairs, but he's also been on the talking heads shows a few times, and has stood his ground admirably each time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howmad1 Donating Member (959 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
151. Wait a minute.
Since when do those attributes mean anything to the muricun public? Can you drink a beer with him? Is he just a great guy? Does he exhibit the same characteristics as King George? If so, he just might have a chance. Otherwise, fugetaboutit. Clark doesn't stand a chance. Remember, 50%+ who vote are Morons!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. I'm not sure he's my top candidate but
I'm having a hard time seeing why someone would pick no on this poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
159. Because of some of the "pros"
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 03:29 AM by loyalsister
People talk about his Arkansas "roots."

He is about as culturally southern as Hillary Clinton.
A claim of southern roots makes him sound like an imposter.
Thus, that argument fails.

He has not won an election and his military history is disturbing.
'nuff said.

It makes no sense to rely on the candidates from the last election. We should look for a governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #159
160. Sooooo
When did growing up in Arkansas since the age of 4 until graduating from High School makes you NOT having grown up in the south and therefore not a southerner? Please do tell. Clark also spent most of his adulthood somewhere in the south, on military bases...with some exception.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/11/16/boy_from_little_rock_chooses_military_path/

Please provide the "military history" that is sooooo disturbing.
Here's some reading to assist you in finding your answers...
http://www.clark04.com/about/

Please respond...as it would be the right thing to do.

Thank you! :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #160
165. yeeessss......
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 01:44 PM by loyalsister
I said that he is not culturally southern. Accent, mannerisms, language, etc. Trying to pass him off as being "from" Arkansas is disingenuous. In short, southerners are not "his people" in the same sense as they are for say, Jim Hightower or anyone else who has spent their life in the South and has the culture embedded in their personality.

Bottom line. Any military history = indoctrination and a demand for unconditional loyalty.
This is a guy who has spent a lifetime in a world where blatant indoctrination is the rule- and at the highest levels. In order to get where he was, he gave in to unconditional loyalty to god, country, government, etc at least for a significant period of time.
Isn't this the very thing we are trying to get out of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #165
166. I just don't know how to respond to someone who thinks that
being raised in Arkansas throughout your entire childhood and teens...and then coming back to live there for the last 5 years....
makes you anything but an Arkansan.

I think that the Arkansans that have labeled him as Arkansa's 2nd favorite son would disagree with your logic.

Look, the man has lived in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, California, England, Brussels, Colorado, Washington DC, Germany, (fought in Vietnam), Panama, New York, and Chicago....as well as many other places.....But the fact remains that he is still from Arkansas (whether you like it or not).

And by the way, I haven't heard his "phony accent".....cause he doesn't have one. Many people don't detect his accent, except for those who are from the part of the South that he is from.

For you to imply something phony about Wes Clark....because he is an international Arkansan is ridiculous.

You don't have to like him....but you don't have to invent some shitty shit about him just cause you don't.

I think that you are way off on this.

PS. I've lived in California for the last 25 year....and I am still a fucking Frenchwoman. Try to tell me otherwise, Ms. Judge....cause I'm just waiting for that to be the next thing!

As far as swearing an oath of loyalty....Guess everyone in congress who has ever been sworn in should just go!

Pathetic!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #165
190. LMAO!
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 05:12 PM by Clark2008
I'm from the South and Wes sounds just like I do!

We call it "educated Southern."

You know, not all of us sound like the Beverly Hillbillies or John Edwards. :eyes:

WTF ever!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. Anyone in 8
Absolutely anyone, or any thing would beat this criminal mess.



Clark- I voted for him in the primaries, hoping he'd be pres. back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. He is much more media savvy than he was...
in '04, but I still don't think he is ready for prime time as far as running a presidential campaign is concerned. He needs to run for governor, VP, set his sites on something smaller to begin with. He was not the kind of "national hero" general to go from that to president with little scrutiny. He needs seasoning regardless of someone really smart running his campaign. He is just the kind of green politician who could make one giant blooper that his campaign would never recover from. He proved in '04 that he is NOT a "natural."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I don't want a "natural",
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 09:48 AM by Totally Committed
I want a LEADER. I want someone UNTAINTED by public office, and all the strings winning one these days involves, thank you.

One of the reasons I love Wes is that he is NOT a "natural" or a "politician". I don't want that. Never again.

WES CLARK in '08!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. Nobody wins a presidential campaign who has no...
political experience, never run any kind of campaign not even dogcatcher and WON, unless the somebody is a "natural" like an actor, or someone with tremendous stature and charisma as well as instant name recognition. We either nominate some politician who knows the ropes WITH a record he can run on plus charisma, or we nominate someone who is already a household name as familiar as "Clorox," or we lose. I guess if the other party nominates somebody that doesn't fit in either category too, then we would have a chance because somebody has to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Ike did.
So it CAN be done.

Oh - and he also was a general. General's have far more political experience than you're giving them credit for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Read the first post of mine you replied to...
Clark was no general with stature and name recognition like Eisenhower had. Eisenhower, if he were running today, would probably not stand up to the scrutiny from the media he would get. That was a different time when his stature as a "national hero" insulated him from a lot. Surely you are not suggesting that Clark retired with the kind of hero status that Eisenhower had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. He was freaking SACEUR of NATO, and the highest decorated
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 10:58 AM by Totally Committed
General since Eisenhower.

And, it insulated him from NOTHING. Those of us who actually campaigned for him can tell you that. When he wouldn't back Bush's war, Lou Dobbs had him fired from his CNN gig. This earned him one hell of a media black-out. Insulated him, my ass!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. If being a NATO general was the same as getting credit...
from the American people that Ike got for his role in WWII, then Clark would have been insulated a lot more than he was. Do you have any idea how many generals have headed up NATO since its inception and nobody ever heard of any of them or Clark until he decided to run for President? It (SACEUR of NATO) is not a position that inspires many Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
70. Can anyone name the current SACEUR/NATO commander?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. General James L. Jones
But, we are also in a different era than when Wes was SACEUR.

**** He was SACUER pre-9/11, so people were actually not so scared out of their minds that their own security was paramount. They were actually concerned about what was going on in the world then.

**** He was working with an American administration that actually knew what diplomacy was, and what it's proper role in the world was.

**** Kosovo was about stopping the genocide of ethnic Albanians, not about the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country on a lie. The Moral Imperative was different then.

The current administration doesn't keep the current SACEUR front and center as the Clinton Administration did Wes because they think Europe is unimportant in their plans for world domination.

After they are done allowing Bolton to destroy the UN, they'll move on to NATO. No messy multi-national coalitions need get in the way to mess up their plans.

So, if the current SACEUR is not as well-known as Wes, it's not because no one's interested, it's because the Bushies are keeping Americans busy with other things so as to draw their eyes away while they apply their criminal "slight of hand" globally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #73
146. We're in a different era because we didn't have Google back then.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. Did I mention heroes?
No, I mentioned the political savvy one needs to become a general - especially a four or five-star general, as in the case of Clark and Eisenhower, respectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. If becoming a general (4 or 5 star) gave someone...
the credentials to become president in the eyes of the American people, there would be a lot of candidates straight out of the pentagon every election cycle. There is virtually no recognition except for a WAR HERO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. Clark IS the "message",
and it should be sent over the bow of the Good Ship Wingnut in '08, imo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. I'm not speaking of "the American people."
I'm talking about the fact that generals know how to play politics.

Geesch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #46
52. That (generals know how to play politics)...
is a true statement, but it does not get any of them the nomination or the presidency. It's just a fine background the same as serving as a governor or executive of something is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomUser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #42
51. 23% of all U.S. presidents were Generals
So it's not as rare as you might think. Climbing up the rank ladder requires political and diplomatic skill.

But ultimately, it is not the rank itself that is essential, but he person behind the rank. You need to examine each candidate on his (or her) own merits. And I think Clark stands up well.

He was the first candidate I ever gave money to. And I would support him again if he chose to run in '08.

He stood up for the very name "Liberal" on Bill Mahr's show when almost every other candidate was running away from the label. And yet, no matter how liberal his policies (and they were amongst the most liberal, second only to Kucinich), his military rank insulates him from being smeared as a liberal, peacenik, commie.

We need someone like him to break the "weak on defense" stereotype, just as Clinton (no matter what his other faults) broke the "tax-and-spend, democrats are bad with the economy" stereotype.

You either need to have national defense and foreign policy credentials, or you need to fake it.

If you look at other candidates, they usually attempt to overcome the "weak on defense" stereotype by trying to be super macho and more Republican than Republicans. Dean wanted to increase defense spending, Edwards said if he was in Bush's place prior to the war he would have invaded Iraq, Kerry courting McCain and wanting to put Republicans into his cabinet slots like SecDef, even Bill Clinton put a Republican into the SecDef slot.

Clark won't have to do that, there is no question of his credentials on national defense -- this means he's freer to move left on this issue than any other candidate. He wouldn't need to use a Republican as SecDef to reassure the country he's got Defense covered -- because that would only further the illusion that Democrats are weak on defense.

Only Nixon could go to China. And only Clark dared to use the very phrase "PNAC" and condemn in over the airwaves on a radio interview during the primaries. And only Clark and Kucinich committed to cutting the Pentagon pork.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. Please accept my apology...
I thought "what do you think?" actually meant to give my opinion. Maybe I will figure out one day which threads on here mean that and which ones mean "no opinion except the one we are promoting." Again, please accept my apology for intruding with my opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomUser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. No dice.
First, you criticize Clark. Then, when you are asked to debate those criticism, you now try to paint Clark supporters as bullies who want to stop you from voicing your opinion, instead of backing up your positions.

This tactic of moving from criticizimg Clark to criticizing Clark supporters when you can't support your criticisms of Clark is sneaky, underhanded, dishonest.

Listen -- NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM VOICING YOUR OPINIONS. But this is Democratic Underground, a political board. That means that your opinions, whether pro-Clark or anti-Clark (or substitute anything else for "Clark") will get challenged and you will need to participate in that debate to defend your positions.

Hell, go post a pro-DLC or anti-DLC, or pro-AFL-CIO or anti-AFL-CIO, or pro-"ANYTHING" or anti-"ANYTHING" opinion. You will experience the same dynamic.

So either defend your opinions or don't. But don't accuse us of being cheerleaders and wanting to stop you from voicing your opinions.

I really hope you're not now smearing Clark supporters as being cheerleaders simply because you find that sort of character assassination easier than to defend your criticism and opinions of Clark on a political DISCUSSION board. You should not expect your words to go unchallenged under the the label of "opinion" -- because then there would be no DISCUSSION.

So stop with the character assassination of Clark (or Dean or SEUI or whatever) supporters as cheerleaders or bullies, already. And welcome to a discussion site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Eisenhower. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Are you saying that Clark had the stature as a general of Ike?
Not hardly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Look, that's your opinion.
And you know what they say about opinions: Everyone has one, and the other guy's always stinks.

Those of us who actually have taken the time to get to know Wes, study his positions on the issues, and have been open to what he has to say have become true believers in him. That, to me, says more than an opinion born of lack of understanding or information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. I have nothing against Clark...
I watched him carefully when he entered the race in '04 because I wanted to see if he could use his background as a means to making himself a credible candidate. If you are a "true believer" as you state, perhaps it would be helpful if you could take a step back and see him as most people who are just open to a message from him do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. For someone who has nothing against Clark,
you surely are the voice of opposition in this thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. I guess I misunderstood...
I thought it was open to opinions, not just a thread to promote Clark for '08. I made the same mistake a couple of weeks ago on another thread about something else. I wish people would title the threads "cheerleading, no other opinions need apply" so newbies like me would know we are not welcome. Sorry for intruding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. You're ok....nothing wrong with your opinions....
A lot of Democrats have those. I just hope you read this thread, and the links that I provide and understand that we, Democrats, need to set up our reality....and not allow the Pubs and their media to do it for us.

The opinions that you have shared so far, are very much in line with those of Democrats that buy a lot of what the Opposition and the Corporate media has been selling to us.

"Not so ready for primetime" is a label that the Corporate media stuck onto to Clark for reasons other than what they appear.

Remember that the media is not our friend....not then, not now, and not anytime in the near future. Listening to them will only bring us defeat.....as it has for quite some time now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. Nothing wrong with opinions,
as long as you make clear that's what they are.

In your posts you have made claims (or at least they sounded like claims) that have been at the very least, misinformed. As long as they are just your opinions, well... like I said in #38 -- Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
43. In this current age of partisanship, the GOP is not gonna acknowledge
Clark's effectiveness in achieving our last noble military sorti....

The Republicans and their Corporate media are not about to talk about Wes Clark in "glowing terms"....considering that it only bolster Clinton indirectly.

But I don't think that should stop us Democrats....do you?

If you want to under-rate General Wes Clark, and what he accomplished in the 1990's....go ahead. The GOP will love you the more for it.

Read these articles for '99 and '00....and understand that Wes Clark is one of those great Generals that come around only rarely.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm

Of course, you and the Corporate media probably are more impressed with a Colin Powell (like what in the fuck did he ever really do?) and Stormin' Norman (like what in the fuck did he ever really do?)

You've been set up.....and you don't even realize it.

Don't allow others to dictate who is worthy and who is not. That could be dangerous to your health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. I just look at Clark as one of a number of possibilities...
I'm not opposed to him and I'm not a "true believer" as someone else on here claims to be. He has impressive credentials as a military man just as Schwartzkoff (sp?) or Powell does. I don't think either of them are going to be elected to the presidency on that basis and I don't think Clark will be either. If Clark can articulate his beliefs and Democrats agree with them, he'll be the nominee in '08 and if the majority of the electorate agree with him, he'll be the next president. I think he has a very good chance of being elected if he can get past the hurdle of being nominated, but I would guess that it is a lot more likely the ticket will be Clinton-Clark, not Clark-Clinton. JMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. And, once again, the Dems will have it backwards on the ticket.
Like they did with Dukasis and Bentson.

Clark should be the CinC and Clinton, a senator, should be president of the Senate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #53
72. Clinton shouldn't be on the ticket at all
Unless you like saying "President Cat Butcher"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #72
91. LOL! I can agree with that.
I was just making the point that Clark should be the commander-in-chief because of his military background and because of his masters in economics and the work he's done as a leader and all of these senators who would be vice-president can be in charge of the Senate. Makes more sense that way around.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #49
55. Well of course, so many "Senators" and "Governors" would want
Wes Clark as President of the Senate, instead of Commander in Chief. :sarcasm:

After all, many senators and governors need to plug the hole in their resume to give them the edge that they don't have on their own.

Ironic that you find H. Clinton, who has no executive experience, besides the fact that she married Bill, is somehow better equipped to be President than someone who has fought for this country, and against Genocide, and took bullets and was dissed in Washington for his strong stances consistently.

Another funny thing is that Clark is constantly being touted as a good possible VP by those who support another candidate....

So the bottomline with your reasoning, it would seem, is that name recognition is a more important factor in becoming President....as opposed to what someone has actually accomplished in their lives.

Boy, the opposition just love that kind of opinion from Democrats.

And by the way, What did Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkoff actually accomplish while at their command post? Did they save 1.4 million lives by averting a Genocide at the cost of their own careers? Didn't think so.

Powell and Schwartzkoff were held up by the Corporate media....and Republicans elevated the status of those two. Democrats who have no Friggin' Clue....just don't even know how to do this.....so of course, Clark, our 4 star General, gets the doo-doo end of the popularity stick.

I so wish Democrats would wake the fuck up and understand that they are manipulated every single fucking day. We are not supposed to go along with the PR program set up for us....we're supposed to fucking create our own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. EVERYBODY!!! I apologize...
I intruded because I thought that "what is your opinion" meant exactly that. Now that I realize it means that "if you do not agree with us, don't post here," I will not post anything else here.

Frenchie Cat: I am NOT a Hillary fan. I will not be voting for her. That much I do know. I just think that it has been pre-ordained that she will be the candidate and the real race is for VP. All I would like to see is that my party choose the candidate most likely to win in '08. Clark has +'s AND -'s that are apparent if you are not a kool-aid drinker. You make too many assumptions and most from thin air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. #38, #53, #57, and, even #60... but,
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 12:15 PM by Totally Committed
savvy tactic, nonetheless. I am in awe.

I didn't actually appreciate where you were coming from until now. I just hope you take the time to read the replies so thoughtfully given to you.

Wes is a good, decent, intelligent and compassionate LEADER. That's MY opinion. Yours is different. I hear ya. Opine away!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Like I said, your opinions are welcomed by me....
Cause I like a good debate.

I don't know you from Adam, so I don't know who you support.

When I write posts, I'm doing it for all readers, not just to whom I respond.

So a debate is what was had....and, and personally, I think that my reasoning is pretty sound.

So the multiple apologies are not required, as they do not replace answers to the issues that are being raised.

You certainly are OK by me to voice your objections....and I think that those who support Clark have the right to question your manner of reasoning.

A good rumble is healthy....and as for me, my only "assumption" is that you have a different opinion....as do many others. I don't shrink away from that, and I do attempt to provide analysis and facts that backs up my assertions.

When you say...."I just think that it has been pre-ordained that she will be the candidate and the real race is for VP", I'll just agree to disagree with ya. As long as I have a breath, the pre-ordained is non existent. Why do I want to be defeated by some intangible PR bullshit served to us on a platter? That's how we got into the mess we are now facing. I learned my lesson right around the year 2000.

Peace!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nashyra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #59
97. I want to know if you have read his position papers
and if you have you could not possibly call his supporter's Kool-aid drinker's and if you have not you should do that prior to posting an opinion. His own words are what created such a loyal following, that coupled with his apparent convictions even in the light of being unpopular with the MSM. The MSM is the what you would call cheerleading for Hillary, not that I have an opinion of her because I have not read enough about her. My opinion is such that we need to keep EVERY Senator and congressman/woman that we have in office and take back one of the houses. I would like to see Clark as the candidate but right now I'm concetrating on 2006 and if it is not Clark I hope it is a Governor or someone other than a Senator or congress person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
147. OH, Please....
Do NOT compare Gen. Clark with Gen. Powell...on that front, there is NO comparison..I can almost guarantee you...that IF Gen.Clark had been given the responsibility of investigating the My Lai massacre..he would definitely have interviewed the soldier who filed the original report, and gotten to the bottom of it, instead of neglecting to do that interview and then telling his superiors that there was NO basis to the story......and I seriously doubt he would have been willing to give false information on Iraq, so that we could go to war...Powell didn't "impressive credentials" in the military at all, in fact, if you research it, you will find, he had a ho hum, uninteresting, and very mundane military career.....so, imo, comparing Clark to Powell...is indeed, a slap in the face...
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
58. That's what I am saying.
In Wes Clark, we have someone the caliber of an Eisenhower. Check the resume, of course, but most importantly listen to what Clark says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. "one giant blooper"
Do you mean like Dean's scream? Or Kerry's "I actually voted for it before I voted against it"? My point here is that the problem with both of those was not the actual statements, but the way they were portrayed by the media and the repubs. Clark won't let anyone get away with distorting his statements. He won't wait to see if something blows over, he'll be out there in front and in their faces.

I think the public is ready for a little rawness, if it's genuine and dynamic and direct to the point. Look at Bush. He gets away with being an absolute idiot as a public speaker. Clark is way more polished and charming and smart. He's ready.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. No. I agree that your 2 examples were manufactured...
by the media. What I'm talking about is what Clark himself did. When asked a question by some reporter on air that he had not been prepped for, he threw up his hands and said something like wait until I ask my handlers. It helps if you have an agenda (other than wanting to be elected) if you're running for some office because then you are not dependent on handlers to tell you what you believe. The reason Clark has the job on Fox is to get seasoning so he won't make gaffs like that when he runs again. Maybe he will learn to think on his feet by the next presidential race and will be less prone to do that kind of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Link please...
A post like this one needs to be backed up. Show me a DATED quote, and a link. Otherwise, "manufactured" is in the mind of the beholder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BornaDem Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. If there are archives of all three 24 hr. networks...
it's there somewhere because I saw it. It was not an unfriendly interview. If it had not been live, it probably would have been cut before being aired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. No, someone who spouts such incorrect and
intentionally prejudicial "info" needs to be ready to back it up with a link OR a retraction, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #33
103. you saw it???
This I find hard to believe. It sounds like you are describing the "hey, Mary" incident from very early on in the campaign...but that wasn't televised. It was an interview with print journalists on a plane, no? So how could you see it?

Unless you are referring to something else....and, if so, you'll have to describe it in a bit more detail for that charge to be taken seriously because I don't remember anything of the sort happening in a live TV interview and I've been pretty aware of his interviews since before he announced he was running...

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. I believe that you are referring to Clark's first interview the day that
he announced.

Yeah...he learned that too much honesty can bring out the worse of those in the Corporate media....that's what Wes learned.

But don't confuse honesty with the problem of not being able to think on one's feet.

The General has realized, for a while now, that less is more when it comes to talking to the fucked up media!

He has also learned not to give the Corporate Media an inch....cause he understands that they will take a mile, and hang you with the rope they have in their back pocket.


Wes Clark is no dummy.
When you're shot 4 times, and still command your troops to victory (as he did in Vietnam)......thinking on your feet ain't the problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. Geez...
thank God. A voice of reason against this bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #36
65. I agree!
It's a shame that honesty got him in trouble with some.

But what you said gave me an idea for a slogan: "Wes is more!"

Clark would be the perfect choice in '08, especially considering how much trouble Bush got us in during his term in regards to foreign policy. I was for Clark in '04, too, but he got in too late and didn't go to Iowa. I think he would've won if he DID compete in Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Agree that he lost out on the Big MO....
That blew other certain somebodies over the finish line.

The primaries were always Clark's issue.....not the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. Exactly...
Clark was a combination of Kerry and Edwards-a military man from a Southern state. But he was BETTER than BOTH Kerry and Edwards. I remember the night before he dropped out, c-span carried his speech and after, someone commented to him that he wished he competed in Iowa. Clark agreed and said something about thinking things would've been different if he had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Well, this time if he runs,
he will definitely compete in Iowa.

He knows that was a big factor in his last campaign. There simply was no time. He entered too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. I know...
He had to choose between Iowa and NH. Sadly, he was winning in NH before Kerry won in Iowa. I wish he hadn't dropped out. When he dropped out he had beaten Edwards in NH, OK, and maybe other states I have forgotten. All I know is he was doing better than Edwards but it seemed the media wouldn't cover Clark at ALL. They seemingly wanted Edwards v. Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #28
119. Contrast..
.... this minor gaffe with the numerous fatal gaffes committed by our last candidate.

Nobody is perfect, of the entire universe of possible Dem 08 candidates, Clark comes closer than anyone else by a country mile.

I've seen him in several interviews and I think he handles the press better than anyone I've ever seen - he puts them in their place so nicely that they don't even know what hit them.

The last election was decided on "national security" issues, that is hardly even debatable. The only Dem candidate with any real credentials in that area (besides Kerry, and we've seen his game) is Clark. Not Hillary, not Edwards, not anyone. The fact that Clark hot only has military credentials but also is clearly a learned progressive, well just how good does it ever get?

I know, the media machine is going to shoehorn Hillary right down out throats if we let them, because the pukes would love nothing better than to run against her - she will energize their base and they can go off and energize the center. Maybe for once we could pick a candidate and not let Kansas and New Hampshire do it - they are losers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
137. But how will he fight how his statements are distorted
if the media doesn't report that either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pkspiegel Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
26. He's ready now!
He's been a leader for 33 years. He doesn't need to be tainted by holding political office. Give me brains and integrity and real work experience any day. What he didn't have in 2004 is time and campaign experience. He's a fast study and he's ready now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
11. I now believe NO congressinal leader need apply except for a few.
Bayh NO
Clinton NO
Biden NO
Leiberman ABSOLUTELY NO
the Nelsons NO NO

Only someone of the stature and idealism and the activist zeal of Conyers and Waxman and their supporters need apply - otherwise - let's go with an outsider.

I only want someone who speaks and works for the people - genuinely and with honesty.

I don't want a UNTED STATES OF CORPORATIONS and their SLAVES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sportndandy Donating Member (710 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
13. Nominate whomever you want,
without controlling the machines the best anyone can hope for is second place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. unfortunately you are correct
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
14. Most definitely, Clark!
Clark stands up for the troops said NO to the war and he has intellectual curiosity as well as integrity. :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
17. Clark is the ONLY candidate who would hold the bushies responsible..
for their treason. If Clark were the president today, the bushies would be defending themselves against numerous charges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theshadow Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
20. Can you imagine a Clark/Obama ticket?
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 10:04 AM by theshadow
Talk about a dynamic, thrilling campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. That would be absolutely amazing.
There would be those who say it's too soon for Obama, and I see their point, but he's certainly got the chops for it already. That would be an historic race, to be sure...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeanQ Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
22. Clark definitely needs to be in the mix!
I couldn't say with certainty now that I would pick him over someone else. That decision would have to wait until I see who else is running in the primary.

But I would endorse his running now with an enthusiasm I could not during the last primary. I simply didn't know enough about him. But watching him work this past year, seeing transcripts of his speeches and testimonies, I'm very impressed. He may not be as liberal as I would like, but he is smart, has good core values, and most importantly, stands up and calls a stinking pile of cow dung bullshit when he see's it. That's a skill most dem leaders these days seem woefully lacking in, and which we seriously need more of!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carnie_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
23. The only person
I might like better would be Barbara Boxer, but I think we need her in the senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemInTX Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. For What It's Worth....
Actually, I think Clark/Boxer would be one unbeatable ticket. But then, we would lose one heckofa Senator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. And notice that Clark is one of the few that could run with a woman
on the ticket and still maintain the image of a "strong" ticket during these fucked up times.

Clark for Commander in Chief with Boxer as President of the Senate!

Oh wait.....vey! The media aint' ever gonna let this happen! They will only talk about Hillary/Warner/Bayh & Biden, to raise those folks' poll numbers.....but will barely talk about Wes (his supporters have made it happen though....more than the media will admit). I mean, Clark won the last three KOS Poll...but the media only mentioned second place winner...No Friggin' Clue. That was transparently weird and made the Corporate Media's agenda very apparent.

The Corporate media don't want a strong Democratic ticket that's telegenic, Fresh, dynamic, and vocal. They don't want Democrats to stand by a candidate that could actually win a General Election by more than the 5% margin needed to "moot" the miscounting machines! .....cause then, we might win.

THe media doesn't want us doing anything out of the "predictable".....no, they don't!

Some folks say....No Senator need apply
Some folks say.....only a Governor can win.
But can a Red State "Moderate" governor with no foreign policy or National Security experience win in 2008? What makes one think so? 2008 will not be 1992.

Look; the last time there were no incumbents running, and we were involved in a war......yes....In 1952, America chose a General....and the troops were home by that Christmas!

I'm ready for the Democratic party to do....not what is dictated by others. Let's get rid of the "Soft on Defense" image that Democrats have and let's call the Republicans on their strength. Let stomp on the toe of their trump card!

Will Clark be attacked? Hell yeah!
Will we have our Rapid Response team in place.....to fucking numb and STFU that corporate media? You bet your sweet ass!
The gameplan is being prepared right now, as we speak, via Clark's Grassroots organization and his WesPAC with Wes' blessing.

While the other potential candidates are pandering and kissing ass....Wes Clark is planning and preparing. I know.....cause I'm participating big time....and it's gonna be a thing of beauty!


Yeah! let's get ready to fucking Rummmmmble!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
67. I can't think of a worse choice.
Hillary would be bad but Clark would be much, much worse. Outside of the Clark die-hards here at DU the man has no support. He has no relevant experience. He is an oppertunist who would do anything for power. He was a bush supporter until the repugs rejected him. Worst of all is his military career. The last thing we need is a fucking general in the oval office. I have voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since 1976 but there is no way I would ever vote for a ticket that included Clark. I know many Democrats who feel the same. When I mention Clark, most just ask 'Who?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SeveneightyWhoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #67
83. Oh really?
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 02:52 PM by SeveneightyWhoa
"Outside of the Clark die-hards here at DU the man has no support. He has no relevant experience."

That's a lie, and an even bigger lie.

"He is an oppertunist who would do anything for power."

Have you been regurgitating basic RNC talking points again?

"He was a bush supporter until the repugs rejected him."

Bush supporter, eh? Doesn't seem like one today. That's a mighty change, no?

"Worst of all is his military career. The last thing we need is a fucking general in the oval office."

Are you Matt Taibbi, per chance?

"I have voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since 1976"

Could've fooled me!

"I know many Democrats who feel the same. When I mention Clark, most just ask 'Who?'"

Name one of these "Democrats" who doesn't know who Wes Clark is. Even Fox viewers, for fucks sake, know who Wesley Clark is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. SeveneightyWhoa,
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
102. Hey bowens, I asked this before...
but you ignored or didn't see it, so I'll post again:

From your posts, you seem woefully uninformed about Clark

Can I ask you to check out some of the resources in this thread before you pass judgment?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Or are you one of those who wishes to know as little as possible so you don't run into anything that conflicts with the opinion you've formed?? I hope not.

Thanks!

Also, how can these folks who ask "who?" when you mention Clark know they would never vote for a ticket that included him if they don't even know who he is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #102
110. here's the link above fixed so it actually works...
....since I'm certain you'll go running right over there when you read this, right???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6296

Again, thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #67
118. you don't know a thing about Clark, apparently
Your opposition to Clark stems from a hatred of the military, apparently...or at least, deep mistrust.

Which I understand. I grew up around the military, and I can tell you that my mom has the same kind of deep mistrust of a general that you seem to.

However, Clark was never a typical military officer. He had LOTS of difficulties in the military culture because of it. In an era when generals were supposed to fit the 'good ol' boy' mold, Clark was brilliant and Oxford-educated.

Do some research, rather than base your opinions merely on your prejudice. You may be surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
68. I just don't see a candidate with no elected experience winning this one.
It's inevitable that the General will have a role in the next administration, but I don't believe it's at the top of the ticket.

Of all the names that have been discussed as possibilities for 2008, the strongest ticket I've seen would be Gore/Clark. And then with the executive branch experience added, Clark would be a stronger candidate in the future.

Of course, I also mentioned in the past the thought of Wes running for Governor of Arkansas, but that leaves him in the situation of either committing to that state for at least 4 years, or alternatively taking the job and not really doing it because he'd be campaigning for 2008 most of the time.

Bottom line is that the PNAC machine will throw everything they have at any candidate in the 2008 race, so it's best not to give them an open door, and a candidate who has never held elected office would be exactly that. Clark's experience in defense and foreign policy are definite assets though, and combined with an experienced political leader such as Gore, it would be a tough combination for the 'Pukes to find a problem with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #68
80. Ironic that you should say that AntiCoup2K4
Because following your logic.... of all of the prior nominees, Democrats and Republicans alike....of those who have had elected experience....at least 50% of them lost the GE.

And you see.....out of all of those who ever had no elected experience and competed in a General Election in our history, 100% won (hum...that would be Eisenhower, who was the only one).....

So it is clear that the historical odds are in Clark's favor.... :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #68
86. I see that at one of his strongest points
People are sick of politicians. Plus, one of the things that hurt Kerry so much in the last election was that the GOP kept taking his voting record out of context. They won't be able to do that with Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Kerry is a Senator. I'm opposed to Senators running as well
You can look up any number of my previous posts on that subject. Historically, Senators lose.

Since 1968, every President elected (or otherwise in the case of the current occupant of the White Hosuse) has been either a Governor or a Vice President.

NIXON - VP
FORD - VP
CARTER - Governor
REAGAN - Governor
BUSH SR - VP
CLINTON - Governor

And then either way you want to read 2000
GORE - VP
CHIMP - Governor

It's hard to argue against that history. I don't think we can afford to chance it in 2008.

And as far as the Eisenhower references go, that's a whole different matter altogether. Eisenhower was the commanding general in WWII. He was considered an American hero and rightly so. It was also a much different time without a prostituted media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #68
196. I totally agree with your post.
I will not abandon the man that was trashed and slandered by the corpwhorate media precisely because he helped us. Al Gore is by far the most qualified candidate for President, he knows better than any how the White House and the Congress operate. I believe as you that Clark could make a good vice-president under President Gore and then be better situated to run in 2016.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
69. ABSOLUTELY!
Wes is the BEST!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greendog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
77. '08 is too soon for Clark...
...maybe 2016 or 2020 but NOT '08! He should start out by running for Arkansas state senate and work his way up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. Plu-eaze.....
Same song, different day.

Please provide some backup analysis as to why Wes Clark's foreign Policy and National Security experience would be best used with him in the Arkansas state senate. How does that advance the National Democratic cause and helps us? We should have our strongest Dem (yeah....I said it) relinquished to the Arkansas State house so that you can push some other candidate? Don't think so.

Also point to me your proof of when having elected experience made a difference in a national presidential election.

Please point to someone, in either party, who had elected experience and beat someone in the general election, who had no elected experience.

Good luck!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greendog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #81
87. Push some other candidate?
Where am I pushing another candidate? The next presidential election is YEARS away. We have no candidates. You have no candidate.

*******

This whole Clark thing is evolving into a freakin' religion. The man has absolutely NO record on domestic issues. He's NEVER won an election. As far as I can tell, he's not running for election now.

You all should get together and buy some land and start a commune. You could wear mauve nehru shirts and shinny gold propeller beanies and walk around in circles chanting: Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark till the next primary season.

You wouldn't look any sillier than you do now. Plu-eaze indeed. Give it a rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nashyra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #87
98. None of us look silly who support Clark
We're too busy working for Hackett or working for candidates in 06. Clark supporters are loyal because they can trust their candidate to do the honest thing, that's why they will work for 2006 like he has asked, they TRUST him, they TRUST that he is for the common good of America and not just out for himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #87
141. I see that I'm not to get any "back up"
to document you conclusions on Clark ....just criticisms on who I am, and what I am about.

Thanks for nothing Greendog. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greendog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #141
170. Once again...
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 02:52 PM by greendog
...he's never won an election. He has absolutely no record on domestic issues.

His entire domestic platform "came into being" with his announcement to run for the Democratic nomination. I'd guess it was crafted for the politics of the moment. He needed to appear to be to the left of Dean.

Our current situation does not require a brilliant military mind. We need to:
A: Stop pissing people off.
B: Get out of Iraq.
C: Put the liars and crooks(Bushies) in prison where they belong.
D: Make reparations to those who've been harmed by the liars and crooks.

Currently, Wes Clark's "experience" has netted him a part time job on a third rate TV network. The Arkansas Senate would be a step up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #170
183. Wow.....Greendog ! Don't see your documentation, but OK, I give up!
You say that Wes has no record on domestic issues and he's has never won an election, and that we don't really need anything but something simple to get out of the disaster created.....

In reference to a record on domestic issues, I personally agree with the Tenent put out by Dennis Kucinich....in where he says that Foreign policy AFFECT domestic policies and therefore Foreign policy IS a domestic policy, as is National Security. If you didn't know that, now you do. If you disagree, then take it up with Dennis, and anyone else that makes sense.....but I ain't buying your "objections"....but, but, but....my ass.

As far as I'm concerned, we've put up candidates who had won elections in the past...and they still lost. So as far as I'm concerned, there goes your theory as to what we have to have to win. Plus, Clark did win Oklahoma in an election....whether you count that or not is your pleasure. I'm fucking counting it, and too bad if you don't like it.

You say that our current situation doesn't need a brilliant military mind....and with this statement, I disagree.

Your simplistic 4 points are not a reflection of a brilliant mind....as brilliance means coming up with a great idea/plan/solution that can happen and would work....not what one wishes would happen, but never does and never will. What you are suggesting is called a fairy tale in the land of make believe. You can believe it all you want, but that's as far as it will go.

Pragmatic brilliance, on the other hand, is certainly a virtue hard to find....as witnessed by your very own post.

Not only do we need a brilliant military mind, we need a brilliant diplomatic mind, a brilliant strategic mind, we need a brilliant mind, period.

What we really DON'T NEED are simplistic minds...like your "won an election, does domestic policy" current president.

As a response bonus to your rant.....Please know that you can underestimate the power of television; the electronic media at your own peril. Me, I'm too smart for that, and Wes is brilliant for understanding what smart folks realize......Fox and CO. were instrumental in helping Kerry lose the last BIG election we had. They have been effectively shaping public opinion for quite some time now, and what they report as news, ends up on the AP wire which is desimmenated just about everywhere else sooner than you can say "boo"!.

But since you don't understand the power of the media, nor the fact that winning elections don't guarantee shit, nor what a domestic policy actually entails....I really don't feel like wasting another minute addressing you.

In my book, your kind of simple logic is why we are in the mess that we are currently in. It's the brilliant folks that will have to get us out of the deep doo-doo funk that we currently lie in.

When one attempts to keep it as simple as you suggest, all it does is keep us stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
78. General Election - Yes. Primary - Of course not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. What's Warner's position on Iraq, Anyways......
Do we know? Has he mentioned it yet? If he hasn't, will he? Or is he just "neutral" on the idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
79. Very possibly...
He's not my first-choice, but Wes Clark would be an extremely strong General Election candidate, and would make an admirable president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
84. If he was nominee then I would vote for him
but I think that is highly unlikely. Either Hillary will be the candidate or if not her, then someone else would win the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
92. General election - yes. Primaries - no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raiden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
93. Hell YES!!!!
I'm hoping for either Wes Clark, Mark Warner or John Edwards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
95. Wes Clark in 2008
Great idea. Now let's clean up in the 2006 elections.


:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
96. This Edwards booster would be glad to support Wes in 2008...
Should he be the candidate. That said -- and this *isn't* a knock on Wes, for I like him very much -- I'll throw my support behind the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, whoever it is! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
99. I'm more worried now about who's going to run in the 2006 races
Edited on Sat Jul-30-05 07:53 PM by Lydia Leftcoast
We're stuck with Norm Coleman till 2008 :-( but we've got to find someone to replace Mark Dayton, who's leaving the Senate.

There are also a couple of Republicanite Congresscritters whom the right candidate could knock off.

If the Congressional races are not successful, we can just kiss 2008 goodbye, because even a winning Dem candidate will be hobbled by a hostile Congress. It will make the treatment Bill Clinton got from Gingrich and co. look like a love-in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
100. CLINTON '08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark E. Smith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-05 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
101. Yes.
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RunningFromCongress Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
106. Clark is excellent VP material...that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
njdemocrat106 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
107. I'm hoping for a Clark/Warner ticket in '08
I think Wes and Mark can knock the pants off of Frist, Santorum, or Brownback, if one those 3 repukes get the GOP nomination. I think we'll have a challenge if McCain is the GOP nominee (though I think he'd be too old to run by '08). I'd also think that Kerry would make a great Secretary of Defense in a Democratic administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #107
111. You mean this Warner?
Edited on Mon Aug-01-05 07:33 AM by Totally Committed
"Still, Warner's wide acclaim is based on compromising with Republicans, not defying them. As he assesses his chances for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, Warner has toured the nation urging Democrats to reclaim 'the sensible center' and become competitive again in the South."

http://tinyurl.com/9b9od


By virtue of that one paragraph, I am not enthusiastic in the slightest for a Clark/Warner ticket. Reading that yesterday made my skin crawl.

On Edit: Anyone who believes that there is a 'sensible center', and that what ails this country will be healed by 'compromising' with the other side is either delusional, collusional, or has not been paying attention. They don't want us as 'partners', they want our annihilation. To win, we need to remember that and treat them in kind.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-31-05 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
108. Maybe
My main reservation is where he stands on the use of American military power to promote the neoliberal economic policies that are forcing the race to the bottom for most of the world's people, including average Americans. Haven't heard him criticize Plan Columbia or the threatening posture toward Venezuela. None of the crap in Yugoslavia would have happened without the pro-corporate economic policies being crammed down peoples' throats. Still can't figure out why a demand that all industries be open to foreign ownership was a condition for not bombing Serbia, or why all of the factories destroyed were employee or state owned. Is he actually against trying to control the Middle East by force, or does he just think he can do a better job of it? What about missile "defense"?

On the other hand, maybe a more competent imperialist is all we can hope for at the present time, at least until we get more progressives on our farm teams of local elected officials. At least he wouldn't take crap from the Pentagon, and has a realistic chance of cutting down on some of the waste. And I'm sure he would dramatically ramp up funding for the Nunn/Lugar Threat Reduction Act. He'd get really major props from me if he would just cut out the incrementalist crap and advocate universal health care. His ideas on tax reform are a good starting point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #108
117. Hotel Pristina?
You wrote:

Still can't figure out why a demand that all industries be open to foreign ownership was a condition for not bombing Serbia, or why all of the factories destroyed were employee or state owned."

You say that you can't figure it out, but I can't figure out how you missed the genocide that occurred in Bosnia, and the onset of genocide in Kosova. Maybe you believe that until another 300,000 are dead we should just whisper the words "never again" while we watch it happen. Maybe we should wait and shake our heads ever so sadly as we file out of "Hotel Pristina." Well, after years of negotiations, Milosevic was clearly on the path to genocide, or as his defenders like to dub this criminal action a dream of a "Greater Serbia." But that does not change the facts on the ground none of which would have happened if Milosevic had been a leader of integrity as opposed to the ring leader of what Chris Hedges calls: a crime syndicate. Or do you think Hedges is a corporate shill? I don't.

You wrote:

My main reservation is where he stands on the use of American military power to promote the neoliberal economic policies that are forcing the race to the bottom for most of the world's people,..."

And Clark wrote:

"But recognizing the power of our values also means understanding their meaning. Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated...Seeking to intervene and essentially impose a democracy on a country without real democratic traditions or the foundations of a pluralist society is not only risky, it is also inherently self-contradictory. All experience suggests that democracy doesn't grow like this...We can't know precisely how the desire for freedom among the peoples of the Middle East will grow and evolve into movements that result in stable democratic governments. Different countries may take different paths. Progress may come from a beneficent king, from enlightened mullahs, from a secular military, from a women's movement, from workers returning from years spent as immigrants in Western Europe, from privileged sons of oil barons raised on MTV, or from an increasingly educated urban intelligentsia, such as the nascent one in Iran. But if the events of the last year tell us anything, it is that democracy in the Middle East is unlikely to come at the point of our gun.

Washington Monthly

In Clark's Seton Hall address, he does discount the effectiveness of "Star Wars" because he believes that real security can only result from creating "more friends and fewer enemies."

I agree with your final paragraph, and hope I've addressed your concerns.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #117
155. The bolded paragraph was impressive
It clearly established that he is four-square against dictating other nations' forms of government. But what about military force cramming our economic policies down their throats? "Our" used in a loose sense, of course. It's really all about the elite minority in every country isolated from its population and promoting the race to the bottom for their own citizens as well as everyone else in the world.

I don't understand the refusal to realize that all of the horrors in the Balkans were directly caused by US and Western European economic policies. Before the Soviets gave up empire on the grounds of expense, Yugoslavia was a major beneficiary of all kinds of grants and loans, just because Tito told Stalin where he could stick it, and remained independent of the Warsaw Pact. Tito was more than a dictator--he was a smart politician who knew how to keep the various ethnic groups happy by making sure each got a piece of the bennies.

With no more Soviet Union, western policy turned toward imposing IMF policies on Yugoslavia, instantly pushing it to third world status. There was even a US law passed forbidding companies to do deals with the whole country--only designated separate break-off states. When life gets harder, ethnic groups are more likely to scapegoat each other, and that is exactly what happened.

The war in Bosnia was explicitly and directly caused by the US ambassador. You'll recall that the Serbs lost 500,000 to Nazi death camps in WW II (suffering by far the highest death rates of all the Balkan ethnic groups), and the ones in Bosnia were not at all pleased that 2/3 of their countrymen elected a former member of the SS, Alia Itzbecovic, as president of a break-away province. Understandably, they thought that if Bosnia did not have to stay part of Yugoslavia, they should not have to stay part of Bosnia. They were willing to settle for quasi-autonomy in the regions where they were the majority, and had an agreement to that effect that Croatians and Serbs had signed on to. Itzbecovic was going to sign it as well, when the US ambassador told him not to. And the rest is some very unfortunate history. What is truly disgusting is that the regions of ethnic dominance that now exist in Bosnia are quite similar to the ones that were nearly agreed to peacefully.

Milosevic, besides being a corrupt fellow interested in his own enrichment, also happened to be an elected president of a country whose opposition parties could not unite in order to stop him. 2/3 of the Serbian parliament consisted of members in opposition, and they passed a proposal that Kosovo be turned over to the UN to administer. Did Clark have some objection to that proposal? Either he did, or he didn't know about it, because the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Jews and Rom by Albanians in Kosovo is now pretty well complete. (The reason that the Albanians were a majority in the first place was that they were so helpful to the Nazis in exterminating the much larger pre WW II Serbian population of Kosovo.)

Milosevic was a lot like Ariel Sharon, dealing with Albanian attacks on Serbs in Kosovo much like Sharon deals with Palestinians. He revoked provincial autonomy and applied the heavy-handed military reprisal method, which, as his opposition recognized, was exactly the wrong approach.

Given a perfectly reasonable opposition party plan, the notion that 300,000 Albanians would have been necessarily been killed is just bullshit. Not to mention which, you don't explain what a demand that all industry in Serbia be privatized in order to avoid war had to do with genocide prevention. And at any rate, the real Serbian reprisals did not begin until after the NATO attack.

And the Krajina? Does Clark approve of the mass murder and expulsion of Serbs by Croatians there with the assistance of US mercenaries? It was exactly parallel to the situation in Kosovo. The Krajina was a majority Serb province with a Croation minority in a majority Croation country, in which the majority hassled the minority, just as Kosovo was an Albanian majority province with a Serbian minority in a Serbian country with the majority hassling the minority. The major difference was that Milosevic had opposition to his tactics within his government, but the former Nazi Tujdman had nothing but hearty cheers from the rest of his government. And of course the US media told everyone who to cheer for and who didn't really exist, just like they told you that Saddam was uniquely bad and nothing at all about Karimov of Uzbekistan boiling his prisoners alive, which is no problem at all, really, as long as he lets the US have bases there.

You've presented clear evidence that Clark does not favor imperialism that involves direct military conquest, but what about the economic imperialism that was behind most of the problems in the Balkans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #155
158. So what are you truly saying....that we should have had another war?
or Are you saying that one genocide deserves another? Or that it was all of our fault via history....so we shouldn't have intervened?

For quite some years before Clark was in charge of NATO, it was the Serbians doing the dirty deed (1994 to 1999). Of course there was reprisals for Serbian action by Albanians...but it was the Serbs who held the governmental power during the Kosovo campaign.
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=113035®ion=3

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2005/june/ogrish-dot-com...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1520469

Genocide By Mass Starvation;
NATO Strategy Makes Sense On One Level. But, In Humanitarian Terms, It's A Fatal Miscalculation.
Los Angeles Times
April 25, 1999, Sunday, Home Edition

http://www.refugees.org/news/op_eds/042599.htm
President Slobodan Milosevic's ability to stop and start massive refugee flows out of Kosovo is a chilling sign of his power and intent. From the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge, closed borders have been a serious sign that genocide is occurring. Genocide does not require gas chambers or even mass graves. A favored tactic is calculated mass starvation. That is what is happening in Kosovo.

Serb forces used food as a weapon during the war in Bosnia. They rarely engaged in battle, preferring to surround and besiege an area, subject it to shelling and cut it off from food.

Long before the bombing began, Milosevic began a systematic campaign to deplete Kosovo of its food resources. Beginning last summer, Serb forces:

restricted importation of basic items into Kosovo, including wheat, rice, cooking oil, sugar, salt, meat, milk, livestock, heating fuel and gasoline;

looted warehouses and burned fields, haystacks, winter food stocks and firewood.

killed livestock and often dropped their carcasses into wells to contaminate the water;

shot at ethnic Albanian farmers trying to harvest or plant;

Harassed, persecuted and sometimes killed local humanitarian aid workers;

created nearly 300,000 internally displaced people, most of whom stayed with private families, eating what private stores of food they had managed to save.

In the best of times, Kosovo is not a self-sufficient food producer. By early this year, with planting and harvesting brought to a halt and with food stocks consumed or destroyed, there were no food reserves outside Serbian government shops. Most of the population was dependent on humanitarian aid delivered through a network of U.N. agencies and local and international nongovernmental organizations. That network is gone. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Program are out of Kosovo. International nongovernmental groups have been expelled and are now working with refugees outside Kosovo. Local nongovernment groups have been decimated, their staff members lucky to become refugees themselves.

Before NATO's military objectives can be achieved, Milosevic will already have accomplished his objective: Grinding down Kosovo's 1.8 million ethnic Albanians. One rule of war is this: Men with guns do not starve; civilians do. NATO is not going to beat the Yugoslav military by starving them out, and if it did, the civilians would perish long before them.

As hunger and disease loom, various interim steps have been suggested: internal safe havens, food air drops, humanitarian corridors. Each is flawed, largely because each requires cooperation from Milosevic that in all likelihood will never come to be. Milosevic could achieve his aims simply by dragging his feet.

Everyone is concerned about the lives of NATO servicemen, but the people on the executioner's block cannot wait for a risk-free, soldier-friendly environment for their rescue. They can't wait for the amassing of 200,000 troops, if that will take months of buildup and field support. They can't wait for a "permissive environment."

Mass Graves, Mass Denial (PDF)
http://www.bard.edu/bgia/journal/vol2/63-66.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm
Did the Serbs commit genocide?
Civilian populations are increasingly being targeted during recent civil wars. However, atrocities must match certain specific criteria before they are considered genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The proscribed acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring its children to another group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part."
Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia during the mid 1990s started as mass expulsions of civilians. It escalated to include internment in concentration camps, mass executions, rapes, etc. There was a clear policy by the Serbs "to exterminate Muslim Bosnians as a group..." Their actions were generally considered to be genocide. There is a general consensus that widespread atrocities were also committed by the Muslims and the Croats (largely Roman Catholic). But the level of their war crimes did not reach genocidal proportions.

There have been allegations that the Serbs were engaged in genocide in Kosovo before and during the NATO bombing. Media correspondents and human rights investigators conducted large-scale interviews of Kosovar refugees. The data collected show that the Geneva Conventions concerning civilians had been ignored and that extremely serious war crimes were perpetrated by the Yugoslavian army, police and militias. There appeared to be a consensus of human rights investigators that the quantity and type of documented atrocities proved that genocide was committed by the Yugoslavian government against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This belief was confirmed as the NATO forces occupied Kosovo. Mass graves were located and are being systematically examined by forensic specialists. Ethnic Albainians came out of hiding with horrendous stories to tell. In excess of 11,000 murders were reported to authorities. According to a report by the U.N.'s chief prosecutor in Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, on 1999-NOV-10, 2,108 complete corpses and an unknown but large number of incompete corpses were found. By 1999-NOV, a total of 195 grave sites in Kosovo had been analyzed; another four hundred remained to be investigated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2147781.stm
Mass grave found near Srebrenica
Tuesday, 23 July, 2002, 22:35 GMT 23:35 UK
Forensic experts in Bosnia have discovered a mass grave in the north-east of the country, close to the site of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. It is thought the grave contains the bodies of Bosnian Muslims killed by Bosnian Serb forces after they captured Srebrenica.

Skeletons 'incomplete'
The grave site was discovered on Monday near the Serb-held village of Kamenica, some 70 kilometres (45 miles) north-east of Sarajevo.

The commission said it had "reliable proof" that the remains were transported to the grave from another location, in order to conceal the remains from war crime investigators.

He said some of the skeletons were incomplete, and that others were found with their hands bound by wire.

More than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed after the fall of Srebrenica, in the worst massacre Europe has seen since World War II.

So far 6,000 bodies have been exhumed from numerous mass graves around the town, but only 300 have been identified.


Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic have been implicated in the Srebrenica massacres.


New mass grave found in Kosovo as Milosevic trial nears
Posted: 02/11/2002 11:10 amLast Updated: 2002-02-11 11:58:09-05
Kroni I Mbretit, Yugoslavia - Kosovo villagers have discovered a new mass grave, just two days before former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic goes on trial for engineering genocide in their province.

The remains were uncovered in western Kosovo on Sunday. The remains of up to 20 bodies were found in a shallow grave by children playing in the area.

Several villagers living near the grave will offer testimony in the upcoming trial of Milosevic, which starts tomorrow in the Hague, but their testimony will focus on other events, and not the grave uncovered Sunday.
http://www.wndu.com/news/022002/news_12301.php

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/09/serb.grave/
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia -- Serbian forensic experts have discovered another mass grave near a lake in southwestern Serbia.
The grave is believed to contain bodies of ethnic Albanians killed during the 1999 war in Kosovo

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/11/bosnia.pit/index.html
Bosnia mass grave found
June 11, 2001 Posted: 3:58 AM EDT (0758 GMT)
MOUNT MALUSA, Bosnia -- A mass grave containing bodies of victims of the notorious Foca prison camp has been discovered in Bosnia, Reuters has reported.
Bosnian Muslim officials found the grave hidden deep in a dense forest after receiving a letter signed by "a Serb from Foca," the agency said.


Rice for SOS hearings:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that.
Thank you. "


A Short History:
The Bosnian-Herzegovinian declaration of sovereignty in October of 1991, was followed by a referendum for independence from Yugoslavia in February 1992 boycotted by the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serbs. Serbia and Bosnian Serbs responded shortly thereafter with armed attacks on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croats and Bosniaks aimed at partitioning the republic along ethnic lines and joining Serb-held areas. The UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force) was deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in mid-1992. 1992 and 1993 saw the greatest bloodshed in Europe after 1945. In March 1994, Bosniaks and Croats reduced the number of warring factions from three to two by signing an agreement creating a joint Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Each nation reported many casualties in the three sided conflict, in which the Bosniaks reported the highest number of deaths and casualties. However, the only case officially ruled by the U.N. Hague tribunal as genocide was the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. At the end of the war more than 200,000 had been killed and more than 2 million people fled their homes (including over 1 million to neighboring nations and the west).

On November 21, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio, presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Alija Izetbegoviæ), Croatia (Franjo Tuðman), and Serbia (Slobodan Miloševiæ) signed a peace agreement that brought a halt to the three years of war in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the final agreement was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995). The Dayton Agreement succeeded in ending the bloodshed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it institutionalized the division between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslim and Croat entity - Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (51% of the territory), and the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serb entity - Republika Srpska (49%).

The enforcement of the implementation of the Dayton Agreement was through a UN mandate using various multinational forces: NATO-led IFOR (Implementation Force), which transitioned to the SFOR (Stabilisation Force) the next year, which in turn transitioned to the EU-led EUFOR at end of 2004. The civil administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina is headed by the High Representative of the international community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia


A longer history....
The Magistrate (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-28-05 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #150

153. If Anyone Is Desirous Of Facts In This Matter

The Unhappy History of Kosovo

One: Origin of the Quarrel

The clash in Kossovo of Arnaut and Vascian, as the peoples known to we moderns as Albanian and Serb were oft known in Ottoman days, differs from the usual run of Balkan bloodletting; it describes a real ethnic difference. Serb, Croat, Slovene, Montenegrin; all are Slavs, divided due to institutions only. Albanians remain in some proportion survivals of the old Dalmatian and Illyric peoples of Roman days, taken to craggy peaks for refuge from a tide of Slavic invasion commencing with the sixth century.

Medieval Albanian Catholicism offered further differentiation from Orthodox Serbs. The northeastern extension of the Albanian remnant, and the southern marches of the Serb, coincided roughly in modern Kossovo. Here the Serb Czar and Orthodox Patriarchite were able to exert authority the more atomized Albanian polity could not. After the death of the Albanian chieftain Skanderberg, and the Ottoman routing of Venice from the latter's Adriatic lodgments, late in the fifteenth century, Albanians generally converted to Islam.

In Kossovo, this established local Albanians' dominance over the Orthodox Serb peasantry, as the Ottoman gave landlord's tenure only to Moslems. More enterprising or desperate Serbs migrated north; Albanians of similar motivation replaced them from the west. The locale remained poorly ordered, and a frequent theater for rebellion and consequent Ottoman suppression.

The catastrophe suffered by the Ottoman besieging Vienna in 1683 led to the swift seizure of Bosnia, Albania, and Serbia by Austrian and Bavarian Catholic armies. An Austrian force ventured into Kossovo in 1689, setting Albanian and Serb alike both to rebellion against the Ottoman and to battle against one another. The Austrians soon were routed at Nish. In Kossovo, the Ottoman killed every inhabitant they could lay hands on for days. Serbs fled north in great number, Albanians fled west.

With Ottoman authority reasserted, it was mostly Albanians who returned. These soon outnumbered the Serb survivors and progeny. Erection of an autonomous Serbia early in the nineteenth century enticed Kossovo Serbs to migrate north and acquire a freehold farm there. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877, which saw near collapse for the tottering Ottoman, was preceded and followed by Serb attacks.

These fell on Ottoman garrisons and Moslem inhabitants in the south of modern Serbia, culminating in the 1878 sack and firing of the Albanian quarter in Nish. Islamic refugees fled into Kossovo; Christians fled into Serbia for shelter from ensuing pogrom, and advancing Ottoman soldiery. The peace imposed by the Treaty of Berlin left Kossovo under unrestricted Ottoman rule.

Two: To the Yugoslav Monarchy

Albanian agitation for autonomy on modern terms within the declining Ottoman imperium began at Prizren in Kossovo, and at Istanbul. The Serb remnant in Kossovo were subjected to a wretched existence, without recourse from predation by landlord or hostile brigand. Early in 1912, declaration of an Albanian state ignited a successful rebellion in Kossovo against the Ottoman. In the Balkan War, pitting Slav and Greek against the Ottoman that autumn, Serbian armies struck south through Kossovo with great massacre against the Albanian populace. The Treaty of Bucharest in 1913 confirmed Serbia in possession of Kossovo.

During World War One, Austria-Hungary put Serbia's army to flight in 1915. Albanians in Kossovo rose against the retreating Serbs with utmost savagery. The Serb soldiers replied in kind to fight their way through to the Adriatic, there embarking on French ships to tremendous Allied acclaim. Serb armies re-entered Kossovo from the south by the 1918 Armistice, and were bitterly resisted by Albanian rebels. The new Yugoslav monarchy with its Serb king did not succeed in breaking organized resistance till 1924 in Kossovo. Brigandage, and brutal reprisal, remained endemic to the locale.

The Serb monarchy of Yugoslavia superintended a determined effort to secure its rule in Kossovo. Land was stolen from Albanians as "undocumented," and made available for Serbs who would venture south to settle on it. Schools teaching in Albanian, originally encouraged in the hope they would keep Albanians backward, proved hotbeds of secessionist agitation, and were suppressed. In 1937, the monarchy entertained proposals by a leading Serb intellectual, the assassin turned historian Vaso Cubrilovic of Belgrade University, that all Albanians be forcibly expelled from Kossovo.

Near the start of World War Two, Fascist Italy seized Albania. Nazi Germany seized Yugoslavia in 1941. The mines in northern Kossovo, and most Kossovo Serbs therefore, were retained under Nazi occupation; the remainder of Kossovo was awarded to Italian Albania. Serbs in Italian Kossovo, mostly recent settlers, were pitilessly persecuted by Albanians, even against occasional Italian opposition. The S. S. security division "Skanderberg" was largely recruited among Kossovo Albanians.

Three: The Tito Era

After Italy capitulated in 1943, Tito, the Communist partisan leader, declared Kossovo would be allowed self-determination if Communists won. In 1944, his partisans succeeded in fighting their way into the place, with some local Albanian support at last. Royalist Chetnik partisans violently opposed any idea of Kossovo secession, winning Tito even more support in that locale.

Tito, however, reneged on that promised self-determination, annexing Kossovo anew to Serbia as an "Autonomous district" within his new Yugoslavia. The Albanian Communist leader, Enver Hoxha, was in no position to contest the matter, amid talk under Stalin of a Balkan Federation to include Albania itself. Tito's break in 1948 with Stalin ended any real hope for Hoxha he could fold Kossovo into his hoped for Greater Albania.

Kossovo's populace was then about three-fifths Albanian and one-quarter Serb, with the remainder including Moslem Slavs, Catholic Montenegrins, Turks, and Gypsies. Tito saw that Communist party and police supervisors in Kossovo were Serbs. These energetically hunted up the least hint of Albanian secessionists, harvesting batches of them for show trials in 1956 (coincident with the Hungarian revolt), and again in 1964.

Tito purged his Serb Interior Minister in 1966, for opposition to economic decentralization. Albanian Communists replaced Serbs in Party and police supervisory posts in Kossovo. In the "Prague Spring" of '68, Kossovo Albanian students demonstrated for national status in Yugoslavia, and an Albanian language university. After many arrests, Tito granted the university in 1970. Albanian language textbooks could only be got in Enver Hoxha's Albania, which opened a connection to the new Kossovo school in Pristina for his enterprising "special service" agents.

A new Yugoslav constitution in 1974 gave autonomous Serbian Kossovo effective national status, with a representative on the Yugoslav collective presidency. Albanian Kossovo police and party personnel suppressed radical cliques, inspired to "Enverism" (as secession became called) by Hoxha's agents. Some of these cliques, formed about 1978, included young men who would later become leading lights of the present-day Kossovo Liberation Army.

Tito died in 1980. In spring of 1981, Kossovo Albanian students at Pristina University began demonstrations demanding independence, even fusion with Hoxha's Albania, to applause from spectators. Yugoslav Interior Ministry troops arrived, and broke the demonstrations, shooting and beating scores to death. Kossovo Albanian party and police officials sustained the crack-down, loyally denouncing "Enverist" radicals, and arresting and beating hundreds suspected of such leanings.

Radical secessionist leaders fled to sanctuaries in Western Europe. Several, meeting near Stuttgart in 1982 to form a popular front, were ambushed and shot dead by unknown assailants. Surviving radicals concluded the bullets came from Serbs in the Yugoslav Interior Ministry, and swore blood vengeance. Under the name of Popular Movement for the Kossovo Republic, a handful of such trained in Albania, and attempted a campaign of gun-battles and bombs against Kossovo and Yugoslav police.


Four: Rise of Milosevic

These largely would-be assassins had no material effect, but a profound moral one. Any crime against serbs in Kossovo was in serbia reported as secessionist terror, and crimes against Serbs in Kossovo, particularly against property of isolated farms and Orthodox sites, occurred with increasing frequency. The Serb Orthodox Patriarchite was ranged alongside the Serb Academy of Sciebces in protest of this, with the latter, in 1985, calling the current situation genocide against against Serbs in Kossovo.

At the start of 1986, the banker Slobodan Milosevic ascended to leadership of the Serb Communist Party. Belligerence in favor of Serbs dwelling outside Serbia's boundaries, or in the autonomous districts of Vojvodina and Kossovo, offered a ready lever for political power. Kossovo Serbs were organizing militias with assistance from Serb Interior Ministry police; Hoxha's death had not altered Albania's support of "Enverism" in Kossovo.

Early in 1987, Milosevic arrived in Pristina's suburbs for a meeting with Kossovo Serb leaders. A large crowd of Kossovo Serbs rioted before him against the largely Albanian Kossovo police. It was not chance; four days before, Milosevic had met with the riot's instigators, and a schedule had been fixed for the outbreak.

Widely broadcast film of the incident established Milosevic as champion of distressed Serbs. Later that year, Milosevic used this popularity to force Serbia's president from office. In the summer of 1988, Milosevic's Serb Communist Party organized a campaign of Kossovo Remembrance rallies throughout Serbia proper, claiming an average attendance of half a million at each. In November, Milosevic as Party chief dismissed the Albanians in Communist Party leadership in Kossovo, and promulgated constitutional changes effectively stripping Kossovo of its autonomous status.

Albanian Communist leadership in Kossovo mobilized sizable demonstrations and hunger strikes in protest early in 1989. These were broken with loss of life by Yugoslav Interior Ministry troops, who seized the arms of both Kossovo's national guard and police. Closely surrounded by tanks, the Kossovo Assembly voted itself out of effective existence on March 23.

Milosevic now accepted the Presidency of Serbia. Continuing Albanian demonstrations in Kossovo were broken by Serb and Yugoslav soldiers and police; hundreds of arrests were accompanied by torture. At the end of the year, Albanian intellectuals and some Communist leaders collected to form the Democratic League for Kossovo. The police terror stilled the demonstrations early in 1990.

Milosevic ratified Serb Parliament decrees forbidding Albanians to buy land from Serbs in Kossovo, and removing Albanians from civil service, including hospitals, schools, and the police. The latter quickly became overwhelmingly Serb. The Albanian membership of the Communist Party in Kossovo took up membership in the League for Democratic Kossovo.


Five: The Kossovo Resistance

This L. D. K. was led by the writer Ibrahim Rugova. He inspired Kossovo Albanians to a program of passive resistance to Serb authority. A "shadow state" emerged, quartered in private dwellings, and with a government in exile operating in Germany. Rugova's "shadow state" held elections, administered Albanian language schooling, even collected taxes. These applied equally to Kossovo Albanians dwelling abroad; most were guest-worker laborers in Europe, but some were prosperous businessmen, or smugglers of stolen cars and narcotics and prostitutes.

The handful of violent radicals constituting the Popular Movement for the Kossovo Republic (P. M. K. R.) were denounced by Rugova as stooges of the Serb police, and he was widely believed by Kossovo Albanians when he did. The radicals' sporadic gunshots and arsons each served to signal a fresh campaign of interrogations and beatings by Serb police, directed against the nonviolent "shadow state" organizers.

With Yugoslav and Serb armed forces devoted to war in Croatia and Bosnia, Milosevic was content to leave Kossovo at this status quo. On Serb victory in Croatia, one of the leading Serb killers, an Interior Ministry employee known as Arkan, moved to Pristina with scores of armed followers. "Enverist" radicals of the P. M. K. R. secretly convened in Drenica (where resistance to the old Yugoslav monarchy had persisted into 1924), and there voted themselves the armed force of the Kossovo Republic. Albania's newly elected government maintained cordial relations both with these radicals, and
Rugova's pacific Kossovo government in exile, now established near Bonn.

Kossovo Albanian boycott of official Serb elections in December 1993 gave Milosevic a resounding victory over his rival for the presidency, the Serb-American businessman Panic, and allowed the killer Arkan to win election to a parliament seat. The "Enverist" radicals were split into a Marxist faction, the National Movement for the Liberation of Kossovo, and a Nationalist faction, the Kossovo Liberation Army. The latter had a better footing abroad, where the pacific Rugova's government in exile at Bonn was beginning to explore establishing its own armed force. Albania continued to assist by giving military training to dozens of radicals, and allowing transit through its borders.

The bloody summer of 1995 saw Serb massacre of Bosnian Moslems, Croat expulsion of Serbs, and NATO bombing of Serb forces in Bosnia. The Dayton Accords confirmed Serb gains in Bosnia, and recognized the rump Yugoslav Federation Milosevic dominated, from his seat for Serbia in its collective presidency. The pacific Rugova used his control of Albanian language media in Kossovo to maintain popular commitment to passive resistance, while the fledgling KLA demanded Serb departure from Kossovo, and launched a new campaign of sporadic shootings and bombings.

Serbia was greatly unsettled by the influx of refugees from Krajina and Slavonia. In Yugoslav elections on May 31, 1996, the Montenegrin presidency went to an opponent of Milosevic, and in Serbia, opposition parties won local posts in many cities. Milosevic refused to allow victorious opponents to take office in Serbia. He allowed three months of demonstrations, then bought off his principal Serb opponent by offering him a cabinet post. The demonstrations were mopped up by brutal police attack, and opposition figures allowed to take local office found their function superseded by various national agencies. The Vatican brokered an agreement Milosevic signed to allow Albanian language schools official existence in Kossovo, but he took no steps to implement it.


Six: Taking Up the Gun

In Bonn, the leading functionary of Rugova's government in exile, Bujar Bukoshi, rejected passive resistance, and turned the radio transmitter he controlled to broadcasts supporting the KLA. Early in 1997, Albania's banks were revealed as Ponzi swindles. Mobs looted government facilities, including military arsenals, and swiftly reduced the land to anarchic chaos, in which a Kalshnikov rifle could be had for a five dollar bill.

Bukoshi's embryonic forces, consisting of a few hundred exiled policemen and soldiers, established themselves in Albania as the Armed Forces of the Kossovo Republic (F. A. R. K.), in competition with the KLA. Albanian students organized demonstrations against Milosevic's refusal to implement the Vatican agreement on schooling, ignoring orders to desist from Rugova. Serb police crushed the demonstrations with extraordinary brutality.

KLA attacks, which by the Serb government's claims had been occurring roughly once a week, and claimed ten Serb lives since 1995, began to take place almost daily at the start of 1998. In the old rebel district of Drenica, near the village of Likosane just before noon on February 28, a gunfight broke out between KLA men and a Serb police patrol. Once it was over, Serb police massacred the men of a wealthy Albanian clan considered leaders of the hamlet. Five days later, Serb police surrounded the family compound of a KLA leader and shelled it for hours, then went into the ruins and murdered women, children, and wounded, to a total of 58, including the KLA man, Adem Jashari.

These murders turned Albanian village elders throughout Kossovo against Rugova's passive resistance. They put hundreds of their young men at the disposal of the KLA. In Drenica, and near the Albanian border, armed partisan bands appeared in such strength the Serb police retired to establish encircling roadblocks. Western diplomats threatened Milosevic with dire consequences if the murders by his police were repeated. Milosevic agreed to begin implementing the Vatican schools agreement, and to meet with Ibrahim Rugova. Simultaneously, Milosevic admitted the ultra-nationalist Chetnik party into a coalition government with his Serbian Socialist Party, and loosed his Serb police once again into Drenica.

This campaign was conducted with the same degree of atrocity that characterized previous operations by Serb police. In one typical incident near Gorjne Obrinje, after fourteen Serb police were shot in a fire-fight, a group of fourteen Albanian women, children, and old men found hiding nearby were shot point-blank by Serb police. Some 200,000 Albanians fled their homes to avoid the fighting, some to southern Kossovo and some to Albania. President Clinton ordered a show of force by U. S. warplanes over Yugoslavia, and in October, his pressure secured an agreement by which Serb Interior Ministry troops were to vacate Kossovo, negotiations with Kossovo Albanian leaders were to begin in earnest, and a body of diplomatic observers would enter Kossovo to monitor events. During the course of negotiating this agreement, Milosevic told a U. S. general that the way to bring peace to Drenica was to "kill them all."

The monitored cease-fire brought many Kossovo Albanian refugees back to their homes. In Albania, the Kossovo government in exile's small armed force was violently absorbed by the KLA; in Kossovo, KLA men began arresting and executing functionaries of Rugova's "shadow state" as collaborators with Serbia. They also murdered about a dozen Serb civilians, and a Serb village mayor. By the start of 1999, fire-fights of company and even battalion scale between KLA guerrillas and Serb police were once more occurring.

Near dawn on January 15, battle broke out between KLA guerrillas and Serb police near the town of Racak. After nine KLA men were killed the rest fled. During the afternoon Serb police entered the town, raped and murdered two women, and murdered forty-three unarmed men and boys. Serb Information Ministry spokesmen in Pristina next morning invited Western journalists to visit the scene of a "successful" fight against the KLA; when they reported what they saw, Milosevic declared the KLA had fabricated the incident, and demanded the diplomatic observers quit Kossovo. The chief judge of the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia was denied entry to the country.

Seven: The NATO Intervention

NATO demanded the talks agreed to the previous October begin in February, and threatened military action to force compliance. The meeting at Rambouillet Chateau featured a severely fractured Albanian delegation; its principal factions (all of which hated one another) were Rugova's adherents in the old LDK, old line Communist functionaries from that same umbrella group, and the KLA led by Hashim Thaci. After days of negotiation, Milosevic struck out about half the already settled agreement, substituting his initial demands, which the Albanians and NATO had already rejected, and forced collapse of the talks on March 18. Two days later, 40,000 Serb police and soldiers with 300 armored vehicles launched a fresh offensive into Drenica.

NATO air strikes commenced against Serbia on March 24. While these aimed at destroying Serb anti-aircraft defenses, Serb police and soldiers in Kossovo commenced a wholesale assault on the Albanians of Kossovo, aimed at driving them from the country by exemplary massacre. During the course of this campaign, roughly 10,000 persons, mostly young men, were murdered by Serb police and soldiers. Almost a million Albanians took to flight, either west to Albania, south into Macedonia, or into the mountains of Kossovo itself. Lightly armed KLA guerrillas could accomplish nothing against the Serb forces.

When Serb air defenses were disabled, NATO warplanes began attacks demolishing bridges, power stations, and the like in Serbia proper. With Serb police and soldiers forced to retire their heavy equipment to shelter in bunkers by NATO air bombardment in Kossovo, their murder squads became vulnerable to attack by Albanian partisans, many of whom were not, properly speaking, KLA, but village militia deployed by their clan elders. When Serb police and soldiers attempted to group together to overpower these guerrilla bands, the Serbs were savaged by NATO warplanes.

On June 3, Milosevic capitulated. Serb police and soldiers retired northward; NATO troops moved in. Kossovo Albanian refugees streamed back to their homes. Many set upon Serbs still remaining in Kossovo. NATO troops intervened to protect lives, but not property; even so, several dozen Serbs, many elderly, were killed. The overwhelming majority of Serbs resident in Kossovo fled north into Serbia, or into that small portion of northern Kossovo around the mines where they had long constituted the principal element of the populace.

A government for Kossovo, formed under NATO auspices, blended elements of the LDK and KLA, with the KLA's Hashim Thaci emerging as Prime Minister, while Ibrahim Rugova, the nonviolent leader, found himself without power, or much prestige. The KLA has kept its word to disarm only poorly, and remains a police problem for NATO occupation troops. It has attempted to provoke guerrilla war in the adjoining areas of Macedonia which are largely populated by Albanians, but has had scant success there, either in baiting the Macedonian government into atrocious reaction to their activities, or in gaining wide support among Albanian people in those districts.

Postcript

This piece was written several years ago, which does not, of course, alter the body of facts it presents. In the interim, there does not seem to have been too much change. The remnant Serbian population of the district has been squeezed north and out, and the doing, while unwholesome, is about all that could be expected under the circumstances. There has been some friction between the K.L.A. and the NATO forces, but nothing approaching the scale of even the first stages of revolt against Milosevic.

The situation is, by and large, about as good as could be expected, given the history and recent trauma of the place.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #158
161. I'm saying that it was our intervention in the early 90s, well before--
--any of the genocidal behavior occurred that was the problem, namely encouraging the breakup of Yugoslavia by subjecting its population to intense economic distress. I am saying that the US Ambassador started the Bosnian war when he advised ex-Nazi (and participant in the extermination of 500,000 Serbs in WW II)Itzbegovic not to sign an agreement that was remarkably similar to what Bosnia wound up with in 1995 anyway.

I am saying that Milosevic had enough opposition in Serbia to generate an alternative plan to turn Kosovo over to the UN for governance. What was wrong with taking them up on that? Another alternative might have been to slice off those small parts of Kosovo with higher proportions of Serbs in the population, and add them to Serbia, letting the rest of the province become entirely independent.

You still haven't said anything about the economic angle. Why was an ultimatum to privatize the economy included as part of the demand to lay off of Kosovo? Why were foreign-owned factories spared, and Serbian ones bombed? Whatthefuck does who owns the factories have to do with stopping ethnic cleansing, anyway?

The bloody summer of 1995 saw Serb massacre of Bosnian Moslems, Croat expulsion of Serbs, and NATO bombing of Serb forces in Bosnia. Nice of them to pick the comparatively mild word "expulsion" without mentioning that this involved the assistance of US mercenaries and resulted in killing somwhere between 10,000 and 30,000 of them. Why isn't that a "massacre" as well? (Not letting the Serbs off the hook here--they are a lot like Israelis in their tendency to invoke their disproportionate suffering in WW II as a reason to treat their neighbors like shit. Still, Americans never hear about the Croatian bombardment of the Muslim side of Mostar, only about the Serb bombing of Sarajevo. Why aren't both equally well known and considered equally bad?)

The bottom line is, what does Clark think about economic imperialism? Does he favor the global race to the bottom, or not? This factor was a major driver in the Balkan conflicts, and it also determines which victims are portrayed sympathetically and which not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bride of Cthulhu Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
109. absolutely!!!
Clark in 08!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
112. Only if we repeal the Command-in-Chief clause
which is something to be considered no matter which Democrat wins the nomination. That obscure clause in the Constitution has brought us nothing but grief.

It is time to return the war making powers to the people, as the Framers intended!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #112
113. "It is time to return the war making powers to the people..."
Edited on Mon Aug-01-05 07:57 AM by Totally Committed
The same slim majority of the people who voted Bush back into office even after finding out he lied to them about Iraq?

Or, the clear majority of the people AND THOSE THEY ELECTED who thought Iraq was a great idea in the first place?

Or, maybe the overwhelming majority of people who cannot be bothered, or find the time or the will to stay informed? You know, most of Americans. The ones that find out who's running for POTUS a few weeks before the GE?

How about the same Extremist yahoos whipped to religious frenzy by the likes of James Dodson, Pat Robertson, and Jimmy Swaggart? They'll vote for any war they are told is sanctioned by God, and refer to my first sentence to see who'll be telling 'em.

Until we have a more highly-informed electorate, a higher voter turn-out, and a clearer seperation of Church and State, I am not comfortable with returning warmaking powers to 'the people'. Most of 'the people' in the US are not thoughtful peacemakers. Think about that.

What we need to do is start electing peaceniks to the House and Senate. Those who voted yes on the IWR need to be held accountable for those votes. ELECT DOVES for now, and once we control the WH and/or the House and Senate, we can work on educating the people in a better and more enlightened way, and finding a way to ensure a more even voter turn-out, not just the robot yahoos on the far Right. I don't want them deciding when my country goes to war, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
114. Clark - Hackett
oh it SO could work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. Now, THERE'S a ticket!
Can't you just see it? The "Take No Prisoners" tour! They would eat Swift-Boaters for breakfast.

Unfortunately, *Hackett will face the same "he has no experience" thing from some here, and the "but he's military" stuff from others.

But, there is one good thing about this ticket: two former soldiers who have seen the horrors of war first-hand could possibly be truly anti-war enough to ensure that the US would never fight a war that was not necessary while they were in office. They weould feel the pain of sending our young men and women into harm's way more acutely, and so it would be done only as a true last resort.

THAT'S the kind of "National Security" I'm interested in.

*One caveat about Hackett: I don't know enough about his stand on the real issues. If he is centrist-prone, I would not be able to support him, but as of now, YOWZA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. And one of them a card carrying conceal carry
I love Hackett...some of his quotes have been great, re: I don;t want people in my bedroom, or in my gun cabinet, etc>

PLUS, he has withstood the grueling interviews and been crisp, clear and ALSO stinging in his retorts. I feel he was even able to control Chris Matthews, which is HUGE, IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tibbir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
120. Clark would be my first choice of the known canditates for 2008
but can't we take care of 2006 in the meantime? We need to try to stop the bleeding we're experience under the Bush "reign" and then concentrate on who's the best candidate for 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwantmycountryback Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
121. I would support Feingold 1st but...
Clark may very well be my second choice. I think he is a great man and a great progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aspberger Donating Member (230 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
122. no
4 star general but 1 star candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhinojosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
123. I am going to have be a turncoat on Wes Clark....
I love the guy, and I like his qualifications. But I swore never to vote for someone who supported the war in Iraq. I was in the minority in March 2003 in saying that it was wrong. Why couldn't Clark, Kerry, Clinton, Lieberman, etc. see that it was wrong too. It wasn't hard to see the writing on the wall, what happened is that they feared for their political careers and I cannot have that in a president.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. Huh?
Clark did not support going to war in Iraq. Wellstone quoted Clark when he voted against the IWR. Clark refers to the war as the greatest geopolitical blunder that the US has ever made.

Whether you support Wes Clark is certainly your own affair, but please understand, that not only has he never supported this war, but I would never have supported him if he had. And I do my homework.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhinojosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. Clark on War in Iraq....
I am more interested in the 2003 answers. I like doing my homework too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-01-25-clark-hurting_x.htm

CLARK ON WAR IN IRAQ

Retired general Wesley Clark has made many statements on the war in Iraq since 2002, when Congress was weighing a resolution authorizing the use of force. Almost all are a complicated mix of support and cautions.

September 2002
Clark testifies before Congress that Iraq does not have nuclear warheads but that "the clock is ticking." He recommends that the United States "expand the intrusiveness, the scope and the scale" of United Nations weapons inspections before moving to "the next stage" — a congressional resolution.

October 2002
The Associated Press reports that Clark says he supports a congressional resolution to give President Bush authority to use force. He questions assertions that Iraq is an immediate threat.

April 2003
"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad?" Clark writes in The Times of London . But Clark also warns that lawlessness and armed resistance are serious problems, that democracy in the Middle East is a long-term proposition and that "this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found."

September 2003
On the first day of his presidential bid, Clark says he "probably would have" voted for the congressional resolution. "I don't know if I would have or not," he says.

January 2004
"I did not support this war. I would not have voted for the resolution," Clark says at a debate in Goffstown, N.H.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. You're.cherrypicking
and.mistaking.Clark's.cheerleading.of.his.troops.for.support.of.the.war.itself...a.war.he.would.never.have.got.them.into.in.the.first.place.

But.good.job.digging.up.all.the.wingnut.(right.AND.left).talking.points.and.getting.them.into.one.post...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhinojosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #127
131. My fellow Albuquerquen, what is with all your periods?
it's freaking me out!!!!

Anyways, I went to one USA Today article.. The link is right there. I wasn't cherry picking, I yanked the cherry tree off the ground and handed it to you. Heavy.

I like that link you sent, that was awesome. But please, don't go calling me wingnut just for looking for evidence and information. I don't blindly believe things just because people say so (right or left), it's the liberal in me.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #131
134. Crank.up.that.swamp.cooler,
my.friend...you're.getting.hot.and.bothered.over.not.much.

I.didn't.call.you.a.wingnut--I.said.you.were.using.wingnut.talking.points...There's.a.big.difference.

As.for.the.periods,.my.spacebar.isn't.working.and.I.haven't.had.a.chance.to.buy.a.new.keyboard.yet...Going.to.try.to.take.care.of.that.today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhinojosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. I like getting hot and bothered....
but my point was I wasn't cherry picking like you said....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #135
138. Well the bottomline is that, in essence, you are not cherry picking
per se...since the corporate media wanted to and did so twist Clark's stance on Iraq.

First let's address the resolution....
Clark did not support the Resolution “as was”, although the press made him out to have!

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with Clark's September 26, 2002, testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...

...in the near term, time is on our side , and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force.This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action.
(See chapter that quotes Clark titled: The Post War Planning Failure) at the link here:
http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2


http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

And finally, Clark's statement to AP about the resolution on October 9, 2002:
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports "A" congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for a resolution, but only after vigorous debate... The general said he had doubt Iraq posed a threat, and questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward. Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.

(see full article in related file titled: Clark on Resolution-Swett)
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
haypops Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #126
129. Definitely against the war
Gen Clark was definitely against the war but since you provided evidence/quotes that on the surface seem otherwise, you are owed an explanation.

Voting for the congressional resolution was explicitly to give the US bargaining power to prevent the war. This may not be intuitively evident but there is a whole geopolitical chess-like game that all administrations MUST play. It worked so well that Germany and France offered to supply aircraft etc. for the weapons search. It is only due to Bush's weakness (thought, logic, speech - any thing mental really) that we still went to war.

The Times(of London) article can be more troubling until put into context of reading the whole article. General Clark was joyous that there was so little loss of life for his comrades and arguably Iraq causalities could have been much worse, too. A lot of this article was about celebrating certain military tactics that worked as compared to other tactics that were considered. Again we are talking about relatively light loss of life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #123
125. You.are.misinformed.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-05 02:20 PM by LandOLincoln
Clark.was.against.going.to.war.in.Iraq.

See.his.testimony.before.the.House.Armed.Services.Committee.on.September.26,.2002:

http://tinyurl.com/o0yt


(On.edit:.My.spacebar.is.on.the.fritz...buying.a.new.keyboard.today.if.I.can't.find.the.extra.I've.got.lying.around.somewhere.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #125
130. Here's the link...
to the full testimony:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0f.htm

Richard Perle summed Clark's testimony up like this:
"So, I think General Clark doesn't want to see us use military force, and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can to develop for that, but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

Then he went on to say a number of nasty things about the Gneeral and his testimony. Of course, Gen Clark was vindicated in the hearings with Perle before the same committee earlier this year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #123
136. Although I think your argument could be rounded out a little more,
I do agree with the general sentiment.

The argument that Clark is anti-war is hard to support when you read everything he has written and said.

His book, Winning Moder Wars, is in two parts. The first part is a "tick-tock" of the invasion. He loved every minute of that invasion. He defends Rumsfield's choices. His only criticism he reserves for the media when he says that they started to go a little negative after about a week, but he then praises them for changing their tune and getting on board with some helpful cheerleading and with stories that humanized the soldiers.

The second part of the book is criticism of the post-invasion tactics. He says that politics is not the job of the army, but that's how Bush is using the army in Iraq. IIRC, he says that the State Department should be more involved, and he says that there are many talented people in the US government who know how to build nations, but we're not using them as we should in Iraq.

The transition point between the first and second part of the book includes a statment that (paraphrasing) "all things considered" Iraqis are probably better off with Sadaam gone, which equivocates, much like the book does with one half of the book being "pro invasion" and the other being "anti this kind of occupation."

The conclusion of the book puts things into context. I think it's fair to say that Clark believes that there's a form of occupation (or "transitional government" depending on how you see things) that would work for Iraq and for the US's interests, but the problem is that Bush isn't doing it the right way.

How this gets turned into Clark being anti-war is strange, in my opinion.

I think it would be much more interesting (and honest) if, rather than claiming that Clark was straight-up anti-war, his supporters at DU actually tried to argue the same thing Clark argues. Afterall, maybe Clark is right about all of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. There's no pleasing some for Wes.
Just this week, the BullMoose blog listed him as maybe "too dovish" because of his anti-war stand. So, for the Centrists who want a real drum-banger, he's too dovish; For the hard lefties, he'll never be anti-war because his military experience, to them, will never be truly "anti-war", simply by virtue of what he has said and written, based on that perspective. And, then there are people who are dead-set on reading his books and using them to back up their own prejudices and negative opinions about him, publicly pontificating as though they have deciphered the Rosetta Stone.

W H A T E V E R .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. I guess Bull Moose hasn't read Winning Modern War and Waging Modern War.
And reading a guy's books (which are written in English) isn't exactly deciphering the Rosetta Stone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #142
144. But your interpretations
are just that...

We've discussed this before...and as I told you before, I've read Clark's books, and your interpretations are disingenious....at best.

You have constantly attempted to put Clark in a bad light my mixing his discussion on military aspects of war and political aspects of peace. His book specifically addresses the fact that empire building is a dead idea....

Your negative posts on Clark are aimed at those who have not read the books...because anyone who has, and reads English, does not come away as you have......posting ridiculous conclusions based on wholy your opinions.

You should take up the bible next. At least, there you'll find that things are vague enough for the kind of interpretation that you constantly try doing with Wes' books.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #144
145. Whatever. People should read his books.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-05 11:13 PM by 1932
I think people will be surprised by his arguments if they've been trusting the opinions of a few people here.

By the way, you have a real mean streak. Your posts really cross the line between criticizing the message and criticizing the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #145
149. I'm must be a mean person, as you so astutely "interpreted".....
because I don't buy the message that you are selling? Great incorrect and inappropriate interpretation, once again (at least you are consistence in misunderstanding what you are reading).

You see, in your posts, the message is written by you, and not by Wes Clark, so the message is yours, and not his.

So you stating that I am attacking the messenger and not the messenge is neither here nor there....because the message was conjured up by the messenger.

Below is General Wes Clark's Message which can be found on page 200 of his last book.

"We don't need the New American Empire. Indeed, the very idea of classic empire is obsolete. An interdependent world will no longer accept discriminatory dominance by one nation over others. Instead, a more collaborative, collegiate Aemrican strategy will prevail, a strategy based on the great American virtues of tolerance, freedom, and fairness that made this country a beacon of hope in the world--Wes Clark


Please believe me when I say this....Mean is relative...especially in this case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #149
152. But what does he say about "Virtual Empire"?
It is true that the US has been much more restrained about using the military to project empire (with only a few notable exceptions -- like the Philippines and now Iraq). But the virtual empire that Clark describes is as oppressive for developing countries as European-style colonialism -- ask Hugo Chavez, or Patrice Llumumba, or Salvador Allende or Mossadegh.

It's not the mechanics of empire that matter so much ("New" or "Virtual"). If you're undermining the natural, historical arc of justice and democracy, the results are going to be bad -- and more and more, today, it's economics and not armies that are used to undermine autonomy.

Clark doesn't criticize American Empire. He criticizes trying to project it everywhere militarily, but that's because he thinks that it's much easier to project virtual empire. This is an argument which he makes over an entire chapter in his second book and which expands on a two or three page argument at the very end of his first book in which he says that American values are important enough that we should be willing to and probably will have to use the military to project them -- which is an argument I agree with to the extent that I think the US should be willing to fight fascism, but not to project any kind of empire, "new/Roman style" or "virtual".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #152
156. Please provide YOUR definition of a
"virtual Empire" and Clark's. Thank you.

And please provide quotes in the future, and page numbers (doh)...when telling me what Clark does and doesn't do and what Clark does and doesn't think.

You are not a source that I rely on.:shrug:

Citing actual content information is what can be considered a source, not your feelings and conclusions on it.

Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
haypops Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #136
140. 3 not 2 issues here
I think some of the confusion is because there are three separate issue.

1. Should we go to war? Clark was unequivocal in his belief that it was a mistake.
2. The tactics of the invasion and the performance of the troops. That is where he differs from many of you. As a purely military exercise he was proud of the men he trained.
3. The conduct of the occupation. It just could not have been worse. It is here that Halliburton's profits seem to come before peace and Iraqi and American lives.

I suppose this division of reality is a little complex for Republicans, but Democrats are better and smarter than that. Its like the other side always twisting the fact that Clinton was for regime change. Yes it would be nice to be rid of Saddam but he wouldn't commit tens of thousands of lives for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #140
143. I agree with that.
That's the avenue for discussion.

It would be interesting if disucssions about Clark went down it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #143
148. Walk down the avenue:
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 12:03 AM by Donna Zen
• Clark was against this war. Is he anti-war? Believing that this war was a major geopolitical blunder, and knowing that the bushes were ginning up the pretext for war, he is against this war.

• I think of the first half of Winning Modern Wars as purely a military read. Yes, he is complimentary to the troops, but he also points out the risky plan when he talks about heroic efforts of the marines who crossed the desert in a sand storm to make it into position in time to meet the troops moving north. If they hadn't been there in time, we would have lost many more Americans during that phase. He was none to pleased that because of Rumsfeld's rush to war, the troops that eventually arrived from Turkey got there after the fall of Baghdad.

In the article from the London Times that you posted, where Clark congratulates the troops, he refers to the Tommy Franks having made a might work plan work. Clark believes in will work plans, and considering that he worked on planning at the Pentagon, and eventually was J-5, the seat on the Joint Chiefs for planning, he knew what was sitting on the shelf at the Pentagon. He must have also known, that Rumsfeld destroyed/altered those plans. On CNN he complained that there were too few troops.

Clark is a firm believer that all wars are political, and thus, a failure of diplomacy: international law trumps diplomacy; diplomacy trumps use of force. He saw from the onset that there was no political "end game." In his words: "George W. Bush still hasn't told us why we went to war." That pisses him off. This was an elective war that we didn't have to fight.

• O-10. General Clark is a brilliant officer, but he is also a diplomat who is considered among the world experts on Eastern Europe, and not too shabby on the Gulf region either. Watching people using the military of the US for political and economic gain, is bad enough for the rest of us, for Clark it is horrible. The second half of that book outlines a new foreign policy for the US. Clark believes first and foremost in reasoned dialog and pre-emptive economic-political aid for failing states before they become rogue states. In speech after speech he has outlined a path to a series of inter-locking political bodies to encourage regional governments to have a forum to work on differences and planning before they slide into the abyss of war. When Chris Matthews asked about the flaws in this war, Clark responded that the (PNAC) concept was flawed.

Also, in part 2 of Winning, he talks about the pork-barrel process that congress uses when making the Pentagon appropriations. BTW, I knew that they would go after him once I read that part. The MIC can't stand an honest man, especially one that has the credentials to tell the American people that they are safe without a pile of useless weaponry.

So, Clark is against this war but he thought the troops did well considering the "might work" planning, and wants to pursue a different path that leads away from war by addressing problems before they become a crisis.

Personally, I think the world would be doing a whole lot better with more Wes Clarks in positions of leadership. He says it is not about the "who" but the "what and how." Well, I tend to agree, but considering that all of the other "who's" just don't get it, I voted for Wes Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #148
150. Let's save this post...
I'm going to bookmark it. I'm not sure if it's worth the work right now to go through your post and break down these arguments and impressions and to get back my copy of the book and check my underlinings and notes. But as we get closer to '08 and if this becomes relevant and worth the work your post deserves, it might be interesting to get into a longer discussion using this post as the jumping off point.

Generally, I'll say now that notwithstanding things Clark said later as a candidate, the impression one gets from reading Clark's two books together is that Clark feels that politics is what you do up to the point when the war starts. After the war starts, politics gets in the way of the mission goals. He says many times in both books that this is why the US didn't win in Vietnam (which, as I've said before, raises the question whether Vietname was winnable at all). Therefore, I read Winning Modern War as an argument that once the politics were over and the war started, the mission was about winning. And Clark had few (if any) criticisms of the invasion -- I don't remember him saying there weren't enough pre-fall of baghdad troops, although I vaguely remember hims saying there aren't enough post-fall troops.

But, Clark argues, winning the war didn't stop at the fall of Baghdad. He says there needs to be a post-fall of baghbad/occupation strategy, and that's where he says Bush is doing the wrong thing. As with Vietnam, this raises the question of whether any occupation could succeed. I think Winning Modern Wars argues that there is an occupation strategy that could succeed. I think Clark says that the state department should manage the occupation and not the army.

If Clark wanted to write a book criticizing the politics and saying that the whole thing was wrong and that occupation would never work...well, that's not the book he wrote. If he wanted to write a book about the politics that lead to the wrong decision about invading, he didn't do that either. (It might be worth noting that Waging Modern War is also not so much about the politics that lead to war; Waging Modern War discusses the negotiations mostly to set the stage for the sorts of agreements that Yugoslavia was violating and is mostly about when the politics end and the war starts -- like winning modern war, it's an argument that when the politics are finished and it's time for war, politics should play no part in the war strategy.)

I suspect that Clark campaigned for president with a more general argument about the war being wrong, but my memory of the arguments he made during the campaign aren't clear. In any event, if that was his argument during the campaign, it was very different from the argument in the book. Repeating for emphasis: his books argue about what should happen after the politics end and the war starts (and with winning modern wars he adds a second half criticizing the occupation strategy).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #150
153. I am going to bookmark this thread....cause it appears that you
are saying "you'll be back"....
1932 QUOTE:
I'm not sure if it's worth the work right now to go through your post and break down these arguments and impressions


YOU ARE NOT SURE that it's worth the WORK RIGHT NOW? :eyes:

What "work" must you do, to get back to somebody? I mean, either you understood the book, or you didn't.

Oh, I see.....you now need to make sure that your conclusions and interpretations are what you thought they were. Why isn't it worth it to you now, considering your constant "talk" of what Wes Clark thinks....

1932 QUOTE
the impression one gets from reading Clark's two books together is that Clark feels that politics is what you do up to the point when the war starts.

Do you mean...THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU GET, don't you?

than more of your gibberish on what Clark "feels" like Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. OMG....could your posts be any less apparent.

Your words are your take, your reading, your "Feelings", your interpretations. Believe it...cause it's true.

1932 QUOTE:
After the war starts, politics gets in the way of the mission goals. He says many times in both books that this is why the US didn't win in Vietnam


Can we get a page number or something? As you know, Context is everything. How can one challenge your statement without a hint of where you are getting what Clark said from???

1932 QUOTE:
Therefore, I read Winning Modern War as an argument that once the politics were over and the war started, the mission was about winning. And Clark had few (if any) criticisms of the invasion -- I don't remember him saying there weren't enough pre-fall of baghdad troops, although I vaguely remember hims saying there aren't enough post-fall troops.


You key word....I READ WINNING MODERN WARS AS AN ARGUMENT.

Here is Clark's preface as to what HIS book is about
In this book my aim was to go from the bottom to the top of the national security activities of America's response to the terrible attacks of September 11. As a soldier I have seen war firshand, and during a lifetime of service as an Army officer I have seen virtually every aspect of the national security business.....

I saw trouble. It was clear to me that the Bush administration had rushed us, pushed us, misled, and manipulated us into a war with Iraq at the expense of the real war against Al Gaeda. In addition to what I was hearing from the inside, there was a clear trail in the press, especially inthe Washington Post and the New York Times. Since then more information has become public that confirms my early conclusions. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in his book, the Price of Loyalty, details the administration's fixation with Saddam Hussein from ealy 2001. President Clinton has written about his warnings to George W. Bush, and how they were ignored. Richard Clarke, in Against all Enemies, related that the president seemed determined to find the linkage between Saddam and the events of September 11, despite the evidence. Vivid testimony before the 9/11 Commission, and its won findings, confirmed that the case that the administration used to take us to Iraq simply was not there.



and Here's is Clark on Troop numbers (page 166-168)-- I'll only type up some of this.....but he goes on and on as to why the troop strength was not enough.....cause, as he says, any plan should not be just about fighting a war, it should also be about winning the peace.
in the Summer of 2003, the troops committed to Iraq, around 140,000, plus another 15,000 or so in internationals, were a small force measured against the recent standards of peacekeeping. In Bosnia in 1996, more than 60,000 NATO and associated soldiers had enforced the cease-fire and peace agreement between the warring factions. The civilian population was less than 4 million. In Kosovo, there were almost 40,000 peacekeepers in the province of slightly less than 2 million people, in an area roughly sixty-five miles square. Yet in Iraq, with a population more than ten times larger and an area some forty times greater than Kosovo, was the the troop strength of 155,000 sufficient? Only four times larger than the requirement for minuscule Kosovo? This was a force that was largely mechanized and short on "groundpounders." Outgoing Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinsekis's concerns expressed in February 2003, about the size of the force required--several hundred thousand--seemed prophetic.


1932 QUOTED:
I suspect that Clark campaigned for president with a more general argument about the war being wrong, but my memory of the arguments he made during the campaign aren't clear.


In conclusion, the impression that ONE should get (your words) is to "suspect" that you don't know Jack....and that you don't know Clark. That's what one should suspect!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #150
162. 1932: This is the single most insulting post you have ever written,
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 07:16 AM by Totally Committed
and an absolute illustration as to why I refuse to even engage you about this any longer.

Donna Z wrote an amazing post, taking up your challenge, to go down an "avenue" where you'd like to see conversation about Clark go. It is a long, detailed, and very well-written and thoughtful post, and you can't even be bothered to answer it on the spot? No offense, but that sucks.

"I'll bookmark it"???? WTF is that about? You gonna pull it out a week or two from now, piece by little piece at a time, and completely out of context, to maybe try and discredit Wes or to lure some other unsuspecting Clarkies into your mindless pissing contests? That's your real game, and people need to catch onto it.

This is why I won't discuss anything of any consequence with you any longer, and more and more people will catch on to your little mind games sooner or later, and soon you'll be posting to yourself. No one likes to be dismissed so summarily once they have taken up a challenge. Remember that.

I think this post of yours should be bookmarked and re-read before anyone spends more than 60 seconds composing an answer to any post you write. After this, that'll be more than you deserve.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #150
163. Clausewitz
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 10:19 AM by Donna Zen
You wrote:

Generally, I'll say now that notwithstanding things Clark said later as a candidate, the impression one gets from reading Clark's two books together is that Clark feels that politics is what you do up to the point when the war starts. After the war starts, politics gets in the way of the mission goals.

During Kosova a diplomatic team was actively engaged during the entire conflict, and the contact group was established before the onset of that conflict. Coercive diplomacy is mentioned many times in Clark's books.

When Clark speaks of "politics" intruding into war, he is speaking of the domestic partisan electoral politics. It was the running of this war and Vietnam by the White House and its political team that Clark objects to, not the diplomatic political activities that were present during Kosova, but sadly lacking in Iraq. So, politics of the diplomatic nature must be part of the mix since as Clausewitz states: "War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."

An example: For many months, Fallujah was first ignored because of a lack of troops, diplomats, and planning by the bush administration. It was then allowed to fester because bush's partisan political team did not want casualties to intrude on the manufactured image of bush's election. Thus, Fallujah, which could have been secured with little or no bloodshed, became a fiasco. Those are the politics that Clark refers to, not the political goals that Clausewitz cites.


We are talking about two different realms of politics.

Yes, Clark does believe that if American troops are committed to a war, then they should be given a plan to win. Are you surprised? Personally, I'm not, nor do I disagree. The corollary, committing American troops to fail just doesn't interest me. Nevertheless, bush had no strategy for success, and no political goals at all when he invaded Iraq.

The number of troops used by Rummy were sufficient for the invasion, but they were never the number needed for an occupation. Clark never believed in the invasion, but again, he did not want to see us fail. He warns of this failure both in his 2002 congressional testimony, and in the London Times article. (note: Tommy Franks, who also argued for more troops, retires immediately after the invasion.)

In a recent interview with Blitzer, Clark said that he talked behind closed doors to members of congress before the war, but that he and others, were unsuccessful in stopping it. This was in reference to a question about the Downing Street Minutes, which to Clark, and many of us who have followed this debacle closely, came as no surprise.

Note: because of their charters, many NGOs could not participate when the occupation was put under the auspices of the Pentagon v the State Dept.

You wrote:

I suspect that Clark campaigned for president with a more general argument about the war being wrong, but my memory of the arguments he made during the campaign aren't clear.

His argument before the war, and continued during the campaign and today, was that this war is a war of choice, and one that we did not have to fight. In fact, this war without political objects, except for bush's personal electoral political objectives, thwarted what was in the best interest of our country's geopolitical strategy. HIs advice was that after 9/11, we needed to 1) go to the United Nations for a clear, and accepted, international definition of "terrorism 2) make international law and law enforcement regarding terrorism "seamless" and thus, more effective than the terrorists networks 3) engage the Arab moderates in reforms that take away the ideology of the terrorists 4) bring the perpetrators of 911 to justice. In Clark's words: "we must live our ideals and not just preach them."

There are politics, and then there are politics, just as there are apples and oranges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #163
169. Nice post Donna
I was going to post something but it wasn't coming out as good as yours did.

In short...Clark's whole message with regards to waging and winning modern wars is that politics is a key component. He is saying you can't win without the right alliances and without the regional strategy. Winning means the occupation comes to a peaceful end with the outcome you planned from the start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #136
154. Can we get some Fucking page numbers?
Mr. "I read the Book".

Thank You.
(amazing how some people can tell you what they gathered from reading 1/2 of this....and the other 1/2 of that, but won't bother to provide a damn quote or even a doggone page number...Like what is that about? :eyes:

Almost feels like when youre in one of those Mega-churches, and they don't even bother to provide you with a bible--Scheech!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
128. Business as usual
and I do mean "BUSINESS" as usual. He's another capitalist tool, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. By business as usual, I take it you mean politics as usual.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-05 04:00 PM by Donna Zen
Wes Clark will never be politics as usual.

But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
Paul Wellstone



http://www.wellstoneaction.org/news/news_detail.aspx?it...

and also got Fiore's PREWAR cartoon where this is mentioned

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
132. If he runs,
he needs to get into the race early enough (soon after the midterm elections) rather than waiting until the last minute like he did last time. He probably would have been a much stronger candidate if he hadn't been so late out of the gate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #132
157. Count on it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
164. Absolutely, positively, 100%. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeanQuinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
167. I say "Yes". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
168. Wes Clark is only a small percentage of the solution
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 02:19 PM by SemperEadem
there needs to be a Democratic election landslide in both the Senate and the House...

What good would Clark be if the same thug assholes are able to override his vetos and engage in the same thuggish behavior they've gotten used to doing? While I think the man is good, he needs to be backed up with members of his party in the Senate and House.... or at least enough to which the thug control is kept in check because they don't have enough votes to steamroll their shit all over the Amerian people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
171. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. Here's all I have about the incident you mention:
From my files:

The Pristina Airport incident that you so want to throw in the face of Clark supporters actually only demonstrate what an outstanding leader and commander Clark is; the fact that he took no shit and knew which way was up. THIS OCCURRED 5 YEARS AGO...NOT 40 YEARS AGO, and it was ALL WELL DOCUMENTED.....NEWS STORIES IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ETC...

Gen. Sir Mike was the WHINER on this one. His nicknames are "Macho Jacko" or "Prince of Darkness"!

Here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........ Yes, I'm for a full discussion on this incident and I conclude that the British General was the screw-up who gave the Russians back their balls against NATO!

The first from an article by Elizabeth Drew of the highly (more so than NYT Hack Adam Nagourney)respected New York Book Review:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."

Read the whole article here:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

And here's another take on it:

Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

Think back to Berlin in 1945. General George S. Patton urged Eisenhower to let him drive the Russian army back east across the Russian border. He understood better than the naive Eisenhower and Churchill that Russia had become the biggest threat to the west and was not about to return conquered territory back to the allies or the original governments. He also understood that Russia's army, while victorious over the depleted German army, was in no shape to resist the allies. In a very real sense we missed an opportunity to avoid the cold war entirely. Republicans, conservatives, and hawks generally agree with this hindsight assessment. It highlights the irony of political partisanship that the same people condemn General Clark for essentially the same behavior. Clark very much resembles Patton: aggressive, hard-nosed, a brilliant commander, and despised by his peers and superiors - one would think Republicans would appreciate him for that.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.

http://epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxville/local_editorial...

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.

>snip

More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://tinyurl.com/6hgry

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report

http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm

Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

Brig Freer was in charge of the Parachute Regiment and Gurkha soldiers who were the first, apart from special forces, to enter Kosovo, on June 12. The report, prepared for the Ministry of Defence's comprehensive "lessons learnt" exercise on the Kosovo war, and copied to Gen Jackson, is unusually strong criticism of the command structures in the operation. Because there was little or no Serb opposition to the arrival of the Nato peacekeepers, the failings identified were not fatal.

....

The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.
a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.

Macho Jacko Supported the War in Iraq
The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml

....

General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

He was less impressed, just before the war began, when Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be suggesting that the British troops were tagging along for the ride. "I saw the comment about the British forces not being necessary. I don't think he had an idea how many British troops were committed, but the first days of the war straightened him out," says the general. "Our performance was outstanding in the south."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.

==

His role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial

Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News

<>"http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183 ">http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183

Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

Colonel Ted Loden, the major in command of the army unit which fired more than 100 shots on Bloody Sunday, had claimed he made a list of engagements, which was later typed up, after interviewing soldiers in his armoured vehicle.


Thanks to Frenchie Cat, and anyone else from whom this information was "lifted".

Basically, I wish everyone would just read this and stop parroting the paranoic blabberings of the Ultra-Lefties who are basically anti-military in all cases. You do the Far Right's job when you do.

This should be enough reading to "debunk" and allay any "fears" you have about Wes. Hopefully. But, it's all I got!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. U.S. Army 1985 -1989
I'm hardly Anti-Military.

Christ, are you in love with Clarke or something?

To me, it really doesn't matter how ill equipped the 200 Russians at the airport were, I'd imagine that attacking 200 of them wouldn't bring the whole Russian Military to their knees. When one Nation's Military attacks another Nation's Military, it's a declaration of war.

And if they were so ill equipped what would be the point of going after them anyway. It's obvious that they were making a statement of their long history of Serbian alliance. The Russians didn't really pose any credible threat, it was just a hollow rattling of swords.

I'm Glad Jackson ignored Clarke. And frankly I could care less of his background. Attacking his past doesn't elevate Clarke to God Like status.

The original post asked a question, I responded. I gave my reservations and reason why I probably wouldn't vote for him.

If I was shown that Clarke never made that decision in the first place, I might vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #173
175. Clark did not tell Jackson to attack the Russians.
He told Jackson to occupy the runway with vehicles so the Russians could not land reinforcements. The 200 Russians at the airport were not the concern it was the troops that were being sent to the theater of operations. Because Jackson refused the orders of his superior, Clark engaged the neighboring nations to prohibit Russian use of their airspace and was able to stop Russian interference anyway. Don't vote for Clarke but don't be afraid to vote for Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #175
177. Ok, I can deal with that. I'm going to have to read more about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #173
178. It's "Clark", unless you are are from a certain "bent", usually.
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 04:09 PM by Totally Committed
I am not "in love" with Wes. I've just been down this road so many times before, it's disheartening.

There are none so blind as they who WILL NOT see.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. Well saying....
"Basically, I wish everyone would just read this and stop parroting the paranoic blabberings of the Ultra-Lefties who are basically anti-military in all cases. You do the Far Right's job when you do."

to me just makes my eyes glaze over, seeing.....That I served in the Army.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #181
185. Yeah....and so did my mama.....
And? :eyes:

Doesn't mean that fiction turn to facts just cause you served?

It's like, do you have something else....or is this the reason that we should discount all of the documentation provided and just go with what you say?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #185
189. I'll make it easy for you.
I served in the U.S. Army.
I don't think that's something your average Ultra Left wing tree hugging anti-war person would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #189
193. And.....
what is that supposed to mean to me? :shrug:

I mean...thank you for your service and all....but

your service can't turn fiction into truth....that's not one of the benefits of serving.....as far as I can remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #193
195. Apparently nothing means anything to you.
I'm just saying ONCE AGAIN.
That I simply stated that I had reservations about Clark.
And apparently because of those reservations I'm quickly labeled as some kind of Ultra Liberal anti-war guy without any knowledge of anything about me.
I provided some knowledge.


I like Chocolate Ice cream. This does not mean I hate Vanilla.
It simply means I like Chocolate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #189
194. Please, again try and understand,
it is disheartening to debunk this over and over and over, every time there is one of these threads, either here or elsewhere.

It's almost as if no one takes the info we have and ever reads it, and if they do, they refuse to believe it. Like I said, it's disheartening. And frustrating.

I Know How To Do it, it's none of my business, so you can tell me it's none of my business and not answer. I'll understand. But what rank did you hold in the service? Where were you stationed? Maybe it would help me understand your problem with Wes. At any rate, thanks for your service to this country. I appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #194
198. I follow you. And I will read up on this issue. I mean I have to vote
for someone. If I feel Clark is the best choice for the future of this country, I'll absolutely vote for him.

I also wanted to point out that I don't usually bring up my service, or try to use it as any special badge of honor.
Once in awhile if a Con gets in my face about how Liberals never serve, I'll shove my service in his face to shut his mouth.
But, I don't have my rank tattooed on my arm.
I don't get up at 4:30 and run around the yard calling cadence, believe me, I know ex-Military people that do stuff like that and I avoid them if I can.
I saved my Uniform. I still have my medals, ribbons, and goofy certificates, in a little box.
In this instance, I only brought it up, to show I'm not exactly like you thought I was.

So I'm cool with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
174. So I get censored for giving my opinion about Clarke?
There wasn't any profanity. There wasn't any personal attacks.
It was just my reservations on voting for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. You didn't give an opinion,
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 04:10 PM by Totally Committed
but said you wanted an explanation. I gave you a long one.

Hope all that helped. Doesn't sound like it did.

No good deed goes unpunished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #176
179. I stated that I had reservations about Clarke due to his actions
in Kosovo.
That is an opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #179
180. C L A R K, no E at the end.
Thanks, but there is an unpleasant political connotation to the way you are misspelling his name. I am used to dealing with those who disrespect him and his background so much they refuse to spell his name correctly. I'm sure it's not intentional on your part.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #180
182. It's not refusal. It's just that I didn't know. I used Clarke in google
and had no problem finding anything. So I didn't really think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #182
186. You
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 05:05 PM by FrenchieCat
"didn't really think "....yep, that's obvious!

So you googled Clarke and came upon what? Congrat on that feat!

"A googler is just a googler unless there is some thinking involved"-FrenchieCat

So whatcha find? Some extreme Right Wing and Left wing asshole sites left over from the primaries?

Here's some articles dated from when Kosovo was actually happening....not the manufactured shit put up by Clark's (extremist on both sides) enemies taylor made as propaganda for the '04 primaries. :eyes:

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm

(edited to add)....and please know that the number of propaganda sites found on the net does not reflect the amount of accuracy to be found within the propaganda they are peddling...but rather how scared they, the opposition are and how desperately they need for the uninformed smuck to buy what they are selling.

But then of course, you knew that!....:hi:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #186
188. uhhhh an article from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/255858.stm

and abc news

among 119,000 other
hits for, "Clarke Kosovo"

You can try it yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #188
191. Yeah, and?
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 05:12 PM by FrenchieCat
So the British spelled his name with an "E" at the end in one article dated 1999.

So what's your excuse again for not knowing how to spell the man's name in 2005? But yet feeling compeled to enter a thread titled with his name spelled correctly ....to bother letting us know .....What (I forgot)?

Sorry, but I'm not making the connection here.

Say again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #191
192. Nice way to avoid the issue.
You suggested any article that spelled Clark with an E is some kind of Right wing organization.

I gave you a link to a BBC article that spelled it that way.
Do you consider the BBC as a right wing think tank?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #192
197. Please...say again (which I said) means.....come again...repeat...
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 05:43 PM by FrenchieCat
Cause I don't even know what you were saying

the WWWIII issue is a smear to be found on numerous extremist websites. That was my point!

Someone thoughtfully debunked the story....but you don't seem curious about the content of that post, beyond the fact that in, it was implied that you might be a military hater.

OK...so you say you served...so maybe the poster made a misjudgement based on the rethoric that you were spouting....Or maybe you do hate the military. Cause one serves, doesn't mean they end up having to love it.

nevertheless, the content of her post still stand...regardless of that specific error.

So what say you on the rest of that post?

PS. Personally I don't give a fuck how you spell his name.....as long as you keep your facts straight (hence where my problem lies).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Know How To Do it Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #197
199. I've stated on about 4 occasions that I would read more on this subject.
If you call that rhetoric, then be my guest.
It would also make a lot more sense if my initial post was visible you'd see I also said that I would read any info.
I personally think you do care about how I spell his name because you kept dragging it in that direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #199
200. Ok....
You win! You found me out!
I care! :cry:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
184. Yes
Supported him in the primaries until his withdrawal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
187. For me it was the General in '04
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 05:05 PM by jokerman93
He was dismissed though, supposedly for being green and inexperienced. But in my eyes, he was the only candidate that could have solidly put the lie to all the Right Wing bullshit about Dems being anti-military and anti-American (whatever the hell all THAT means).

Anyway, Clarke would have my full support in '08 if ran for Pres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC