Clark on AAR: 9/11 preventable, caused by Bush's dereliction of duty.

[Clarkie1]

A few highlights from Clark's appearance on AAR Saturday. Link to full transcript below.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: they’ve got to be able to go after and suppress attack and take apart these militias. You’ve got to identify who runs them, you’ve got to go after their headquarters, you’ve got to take them down and then you’ve got to have dialogue with the people who are sponsoring them - including Iran, and you’ve got to tell them in no uncertain terms that they’ve got to play a different game. And as the dialogue takes hold and military action is effective, you’ll see the militias disappear. That’s our only real hope for success there. I’m not confident the administration has the vision or the courage to do it. I say they don’t have the courage because I think they’re holding back the military and keeping the military from doing more in preparation for the election because they’re afraid of casualties. I think they’re probably restraining our armed forces but also I think that they lack the courage and the vision to talk to people they disagree with, like the Iranians.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I’ll tell you who the real losers are – the American people.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We’re losing as a result of George W. Bush and his mistaken policies.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: President Bush started a war with Iraq that we didn’t have to have. Iraq was not a major threat to the United States.

Jon Elliot: Now they’re looking to conquer and this 1% solution that Ron Suskind wrote about was basically Dick Cheney saying if there’s a 1% chance that a foreign country has a weapon of mass destruction, we have the right to preemptively strike it.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That’s absolutely nutty.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It is nutty and you know, the thing about it is in 1951, ‘52, ’53, there was a lot of discussion in the United States about striking Russia preemptively. People thought we’ve got the H-bomb, they’ve only got an A-bomb, we could wipe them off, this is our time. Eisenhower was president – he knew better. He knew as a military leader…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He knew you don’t start a war if you don’t have to. You don’t do it.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And you know, the generals and the admirals they’re the last ones to want to go to war – they know what it does. This war, for example, is wrecking the United States Armed Forces – the Army and the Marine Corps. We’re losing equipment, we’re wearing things out at 5 or 6 times the normal rate, there’s no money budgeted to repair the equipment and worse than that, we’re using up our people. I say ‘using them up’ because it’s terrible we’ve lost 2,600 service members over there but even the ones who aren’t the casualties, who haven’t taken the wounds have come home to damaged, broken relationships, shattered families, anger, frustration. It’s…we’re tearing down what we’ve built up.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I’ll tell you what’s even worse. They think the major reason why we might not win is because of the American people.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They think if we knew what was really happening we wouldn’t support them. They don’t understand that if they had a winning strategy, we would support them. The American people are willing, as John Kennedy said ‘to pay any price and bear any burden,’ if it makes sense. What they’re…what our people are beginning to realize and what the administration is trying to hide is that its policies in Iraq don’t make sense. Iraq’s not part of the war on terror. The war on terror has been exacerbated by the invasion of Iraq. There are more members of al Qaeda today than there were 5 years ago. The intensity of the attacks, the numbers of attacks around the world have progressively gone up. And so I’m proud of the men and women in the FBI and the CIA and law enforcement in the United States. I think they’re working together more effectively than they’ve ever been but this administration has failed in its duties to keep America safe.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: 9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Never forget that. 9/11 could have been prevented in any number of ways but that president never even had a meeting of his chief cabinet officers and the National Security Council to discuss the threat of Osama bin Laden despite the warnings. To me, that’s dereliction of duty.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This administration has let down the American people. And all the flag waving, all the sloganeering and all the sneering at Democrats by the Republican party, it’s not going to keep the American people from recognizing the truth.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: One thing I believe in is the common sense of the American people.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think we’re losing the war on terror under George Bush so I can’t say that we’re safer today. I think we’re in more jeopardy as a result of the invasion of Iraq and the distraction and the counterproductive effect that’s had on the war on terror.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1440

[speedoo]

1. Go Wes!!

More and more people are listening.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

2. Amen to that.

[FrenchieCat]

3. The mules heads will get it soon...hopefully, Wes.....so just keep on

saying what you are saying...and say it all over the place!

Those of us who know the truth will also continue to say it as it is!

[CTyankee]

20. I know you've worked on his campaign. How is it going?

I'm interested in knowing how well he's managing to capture and retain people's interest in him as a presidential candidate.

This post reveals what a deeply intelligent and visionary man Clark is. Not one potential presidential candidate in our party is as articulate as this man, except for Al Gore when he is talking about the environment.

I hope you will report that he is lighting fires all over the nation in people's hearts and minds. God, how we need Wes Clark!

[FrenchieCat]

25. I volunteered for his campaign.....but never worked for it......

(just don't want folks here thinking something that isn't).....

I think he is doing great.....is talking for Democrats all over the place (see radio interviews I link below).....and concentrating on 2006 as a "must win" for us. That's what he needs to do.....as he is not running for anything right now. In fact, that's what all Democrats leaders should be doing.....not attempting to garner limelight for themselves as much as attempting to speak in a manner that will only benefit all Democrats running....by speaking in a manner that appears to be "in unity".

This is a time when Democratic leaders must become Team-mates rather than "stand alones".

[CTyankee]

39. Actually, I meant that you volunteered (in the same way I "work" for Ned

Lamont). Still, you are very knowledgeable about Clark.

It is so good of Clark to look at the big picture and I think he is absolutely right. We must pull together to win in 2006 and that's where our energy should be. But, of course, I also want Wes Clark in the Oval Office for the sake of our democracy, or what will be left of it after Bush gets through with us.

[GetTheRightVote]

4. Thank God for General Clark, we really need a voice of reason

to fight this horrible adminstration.

:kick:

[EVDebs]

33. Be careful, the NSA probably thinks you said 'treason'

"You don’t start a war if you don’t have to. You don’t do it."--Gen Clark

But that is anathema to the Dept. of Offense headed by our fearless leaders.

[lvx35]

5. God damn he's great...

I will back him in 2008 for the presidency as I did in 2004 if he's willing to run. I just LOVE this guy, and that says a lot considering the greatness of his competition. He nails it all dead on, and he's not afraid to fight (as he must) against the republican BS. Its SO RIGHT to attack Bush for dereliction of duty, after those asspricks releasing a film a that blames CLINTON for events that happened during Bush's administration.

[Bobbieo]

6. Wes Clark is the man

who should be the next president of the United States.

[Cosmocat]

13. ABSOLUTELY the right man ...

at a VERY important time in our country's history ...

[Cameron27]

7. He is great

And we're going to need a great president after bush is out. The country is a disaster. The world is a disaster. Clark has vision, he's certainly mastered leadership and combined with his intelligence and common sense, I really think the man can accomplish great things for us.

That speech is terrific, but has the man ever been afraid to speak his mind? He challenges right wingers on their own territory--FOX TV for chrissakes, and makes them look like idiots.

Yep, he's my candidate.

[DemExpat]

8. Kick for Wes Clark!

Someone is telling it like it is.

:kick:

DemEx

[CJCRANE]

9. Wes - someone who really does "support the troops"..n/t

[NYCGirl]

10. He's on Franken's show today (Monday) about 1:30. NT

[FrenchieCat]

11. Thanks!

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

12. On now.....

http://www.airamerica.com/alfrankenshow/

[JNelson6563]

14. Bravo!! Great Stuff!

Takin' it to 'em! :toast:

[Joe for Clark]

15. This is a GREATpost Clarkie1.

Thank you.

I feel a little bit better. He is right about the common sense of the American people, I think it is our saving grace as a society. We are a little slow, but we do the right thing in the end.

He will be back, have no doubt. Clark is one of (I mean the) smartest people I have ever heard talk on this war. I don't actually agree with him 100% of the time, but I DO trust his judgement - and that is what really counts.

Thanks again,

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

16. LISTEN to today's interview on Al Franken.....here....

http://www.airamerica.com/audio_ highlights

Wes Clark also with Jay Marvin on 760AM Talk Radio -
Listen Here: http://securingamerica.com/node/1445

Plus a Great Quote from Clark in Press article--short but sweet on this day, 9/11/06:
"Despite all the trumpeting of patriotism by this administration, this administration and the Republican leadership in the Congress have weakened our country and made Americans less safe at home," said Wesley Clark, retired general.
http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=wtccrash&Id=1429&callid=8

[welshTerrier2]

17. dereliction: "DELIBERATE or CONSCIOUS neglect"

intentional? works for me ... kudos to Clark for this statement!

i only wish he would talk about motives ...

WHY did bush "DELIBERATELY And CONSCIOUSLY" CHOOSE to not do what was necessary to prevent 9/11?

[FrenchieCat]

21. Well, Clark has discussed this for a long time.....

They were "distracted" by their plans to invade Iraq which was the plan since prior to election 2000...Per PNAC.

Was it something that was "let" happen, or "Made" happen.......I'm not certain.

Listen to what Clark says during his appearance with Ollie North this Saturday on Fox-
(note Clark suffering from laryngitus doesn't stop him from stating our role in strengthening the Muslim extremist groups in the '80, unpalatable truth that it may be to most)
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8384

Clark has denounced the Bush admin handling of 9/11 for a long time.....and always very forcefully:
back in 2003 - http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1030-02.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/28/182442.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/103003A.shtml
in 2004 - http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24896
in 2006 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/general-wesley-clark-take_b_22672.html

Of course, there's more.

[alvarezadams]

18. Clark is only right

if you believe in closing the barn door after the horses escaped.

9/11 was going to happen sooner or later. A century of abuse made it inevitable.

Dubya was so caught up in his own navel to miss the last-minute warning signs of an eruption that had been building up for decades.

As for Clark's approach to the militias - that's pretty much the same approach that the British had throughout their second and unofficial empires. A great way to pacify a bad status quo and a great way to plug the bottle as you shake it.

Sorry - Clark is just another one of those types that gets us into messes. Nice digs at Dubya - but the man has no concept outside military solutions and short-term expediency.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I believe that you are wrong, and believe that you are no expert.....

although you very effortlessly poopooed Clark's approach, you are just as effortlessly ultra vague in providing a coherent factual argument before swiftly reaching a conclusion that Clark "is just another one of those types".

The barn door cannot be closed, so that is NOT what Clark is attempting to suggest....but the horses can possibly be corraled as opposed to let run wild.

Bottomline is that you did not really make a case against Wes Clark's recommendations based on what you wrote here....in particular to those who are informed about such matters.

Sorry! :shrug:

[alvarezadams]

38. It is indeed effortess

to pooh the usual paradigm approach of our politicos.

He is offering the traditional approach of "unofficial empire" - a combination of military action and negotiation with power brokers. Thus the Brits in Africa and the ME - and thus Dubya with the exception of dealing with Iran.

What of the opposition that is NOT being sponsored from abroad or that is being sponsored by ad-hoc groups? That would be the Baathists, many of the tribes, and the fundies. Ooops - that's virtually all of the opposition except for Sadr and a couple of others.

Clark, like all imperialist politicians, miss the point. We are fighting more than one conflict in Iraq - vs. nationalists, vs. Jihadists, vs. separatists. All coincide in one thing - everybody (including the non-fighting majority) want us out. Military action only creates more martyrs and more hatred.

Clark speaks of a dereliction of duty. That's partisanship because the conditions that made Al Qaeda possible have existed since WWI. Those conditions are, to a large extent, the consequence of Western foreign policy. And since WWII we have taken the lead in exacerbating an already bad situation. 9/11 happened under Dubya's watch, it could have happened under LBJ's, Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's, Bush I's, Clinton's... or whomever the next potus will be. Ultimately we are defenseless and no Maginot Line is going to protect us unless we become the kind of state nobody in their right mind wants.

We have a choice to make that no potus or party seems to want to approach. We need to choose between a vulnerable empire or a law-abiding and fair-minded good neighbor policy. As for Iraq, we've created a jolly mess - and until we set a date for withdrawl (abandoning our plans for a permanent presence) no military-cum-negotiation solution is going to work.

I am no "expert" because nobody is. I am an historian and I can at least appeal to precedent plus some experience in Muslim countries and with nationalistic movements. Unlike our "political experts" I foresaw the war long before our senators approved of it with cover-your-arse caveats. Unlike our "political experts" I foresaw the world of trouble that our invasion would bring. Unlike our "media experts" I dissected the implausible pretexts. Unlike the "political experts" and their media tools ....

What we've always had too much of is plausible rhetoric that invariably speaks of the "superior moral basis" and "just causes". All of it tickles the electorate's need to think of its country as somehow being a force of good in the world. We need rhetoric that recognizes that many of our protestations of innocence and benevolence merely cover for selfish and short-termed expediency, usually to the benefit of corporate interests.

Clark doesn't do any of this. He speaks condescendingly to the uninformed, offering "plausible" but nevertheless shallow and empty solutions. You can keep him.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Well, I will agree to disagree with you......

and certainly I will "keep" Wes Clark, and far as I'm concerned, the Democratic leaders and many of the congressional candidates appear happy enough to have his assistance in attempting to regain both houses if possible.

What I see in you is what I see in many.....a lot of criticism of the way things have always been since really the beginning of time (your expertise as an historian) yet subtly camouflaged in the disguise of astute idealism.

Your vision is grand and perhaps a good one. You demand "radical" changes, talk of a guilty past......and anyone who prefers to work realistically within the system is "coupable"....therefore, you are set up to fail, because you are not willing to even consider some movement of change in the meantime as victories....

IMO, you are fighting a lost cause...concentrated on "teaching us" about the known past which is behind us instead of helping us win incremental battles that lay before us (e.g., you knock the school system we have had, saying that it doesn't work (which may be true)....yet fail to provide what steps you would take to actually change the school system based on the realm of actual workable possibilities)

The tragic news is most of us can't afford the luxury of an historians who may want to blame the past on the present as though doing so solves the current issues. It doesn't. And unlike you, there has to be some of us who's work lies in the form of the next election, and I say thank God for us!

But I will be one of those who says that we need those like you...so it ain't all bad.

Unfortunately that would make you not even a a Democrat...as you detest them just a little bit less (but not by much) than the Republicans.

So alas, you will always be disatisfied, as the past is what it is, and although we'd all like to have control, we don't have very much over the future...which is what counts in the end of it all.

Preaching to the choir (we all want changes) is actually cheap and easy to do. It is always, always easier to give a speech about has been and what should be, than to give a speech on "how" do we realistically get to this place you would want to have us see.

This was evidenced in your op titled "an unpopular post" in where you bait others who would prefer to see real changes.....but alas, will always be disatisfied, as it will never happen in the exact way that they would want it, and certainly never at the speed that you would order it.

[Donna Zen]

41. An exercise in the superficial.

Let's look at this:

What of the opposition that is NOT being sponsored from abroad or that is being sponsored by ad-hoc groups? That would be the Baathists, many of the tribes, and the fundies. Ooops - that's virtually all of the opposition except for Sadr and a couple of others.


These groups that you name are being supported by outside interests. They are Sunni, and their backers have plenty of money and troops who do not want the rise of the Shi'ites. The Baathists were in reality a small group, because no one should number among them the outer circles who supported Saddam for the job. Anyway, the power brokers in Saudi Arabia etc. are providing for them. Many of the leaders of these groups currently live in Jordan and Syria.

Clark spoke about exactly the conditions you preach:

Clark speaks of a dereliction of duty. That's partisanship because the conditions that made Al Qaeda possible have existed since WWI. Those conditions are, to a large extent, the consequence of Western foreign policy. And since WWII we have taken the lead in exacerbating an already bad situation.

In a speech he gave last night he spent some time on history of what we see. No. He didn't glorify America's actions. Yes, bush is guilty of "dereliction of duty." That's fact not partisan. I find it pecular seeing this charge as part of an obvious ill-informed bias rant.

Clark is as a close to an expert as we are going get on this region. And he does propose a "good neighbor" policy. He knows every faction in the region and all of their leaders name. Wes Clark is not bush, nor can he say everything you demand in short interview. That's just the nature of the beast.

Talk/write less and listen/read more is sound advice. Save your projection.

[FrenchieCat]

42. True, true......

That Wes Clark has discussed at length exactly how we, the USA dealt with Al Qaeda in the 1980s....and it has come back to bite us...predictably.

Clark: More Friends Needed

BETHANY — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark believes the key to winning the war in Iraq is to develop strategic relationships with other governments in the region.

Clark spoke on the Bethany College campus Monday about Iraq, the war on terror and the history and rise of Osama bin Laden on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The strategic relationships, he said, would allow governments to work together to solve problems such as global health issues or even global warming.
snip
Clark gave a short history of the U.S. government’s relationship with Osama bin Laden during the 1980s and how he eventually became the country’s biggest threat by the late 1990s. While many people could be blamed for not preventing the attacks, he said everyone should take responsibility, including U.S. citizens for not paying enough attention to foreign affairs and the government for not taking action soon enough.
snip
The overall goal of keeping America safe, however, will not be won by bombing every country that may harbor terrorists, he noted. The U.S. must work from the inside out by developing relationships with those countries’ governments and people.
Intelligencer/Wheeling (WV) News-Register 9/12/06
http://theintelligencer.net/News/articles.asp?articleID=10443

[Donna Zen]

43. Thanks for the link:

It should be remembered that those are just snips from the whole speech, and that he was just providing a background for his main points.

Anyone can write anything they please, but the least they can do is fact check.

There is another thread I've been avoiding about aaaallll Democrats being imperialists. Bullshit. I don't know what every Democrat has said, and I suspect some of them as being "subtle" imperialists, but I know that Wes Clark has spoken about this concept. He totally rejects the idea of America as an empire.

Sorry...I'm short on tolerance for this foolishness especially when it is on display with such a vengence.

Thanks again Frenchie.

[alvarezadams]

45. Well, whatever

The success of the insurgency is due to foreigners. Whoda thunk it?

And to think that I am "ill informed".

"Clark is as a close to an expert as we are going get on this region."

Gawd help us.

"Talk/write less and listen/read more is sound advice. Save your projection."

That's rich.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Many don't.....and if you think that Clark is preaching to the choir....

unlike others we know....he's not. he is attempting to educate those who need it, and persuade those who might have an inkling, and reinforce those who suspect it.

You see, things are more complex and require more than just poopooing what others do and say to try to keep us from taking steps back.....

While others take giant leaps forward and back....there are some of us who understand that it's about much more than that. It's very much about putting one foot in front of the other in order to get move forward.

And yes, Wes Clark is an expert, whether you like it or not.

No one can be first in their class at West Point, named Rhodes Scholar, receives a masters from Oxford in economics/politics/philosophy, becomes a White House Fellow, earns his rank to the top of the ladder in the military as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Teaches as a professor at West point, becomes a best selling author, an investment banker, the most highly decorated officer since Einsenhower, co-Chairman of Witts & Associates without knowing a few things. Really, I could go on, but I think that's enough.

When folks don't recognize intelligence when it is present before them......then obviously they need to get a clue, or two.

[alvarezadams]

49. You have faith in Clark

with all it entails, including the willing suspension of disbelief.

Things are indeed complex - and giving simple answers just makes those that rely on simplistic manipulation more ammo.

I've heard the "baby step" argument for over 20 years now. Each and every baby step has come to nothing in the face of giant leaps of manipulation. You want "expediency"? Use demogoguic rhetoric calling a spade a spade - "big business is running and ruining the country, they spend millions to make us believe that black is white, that supporting the outsourcing of jobs to third world countries is going to somehow help the American worker, that picking a fight with OBL's enemy Saddam will somehow harm Saddam."

Wes Clark is an expert... military man, with all that this entails. I won't argue about his capacity to execute a pincer movement, but don't expect me to believe that a military man has any particular diplomatic capacity, specific cultural knowledge or even political capacity. War and diplomacy are virtually divorced and military education/experience is NOT exactly reknown for its flexibility, interpretation of nuance or imagination. Quite the contrary.

He's been successful? Certainly. An Oxford MA means 4 years of college, a Rhodes Scholarship is awarded on the basis of "The requirements for applicants are high. Rhodes' legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged: literary and scholastic attainments;
energy to use one's talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship; moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one's fellow beings." A WH Fellow is a paid intern, usually chosen (one of 11-19( through political patronage. One could throw a stone in Washington and hit a dozen men with similar experience.

In a machine such as Washington is this necessarily a good thing? Should a member of the machine be better considered because of his rhetorical response - or from his beliefs and actions? His first campaign was based on jingoism and "leadership" (something I distrust in anyone who comes from an authoritarian background such as the military), plus neoliberal tax provisions. He supported and voted for Nixon and Reagan and is associated with the CSIS, a right-wing, neocon thinktank (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/csis.html).

Oh - I recognize his intelligence. I do NOT recognize a man with hopes to change the status quo. Anyone who voted for Reagan and Nixon and worked with CSIS can only be considered a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[FrenchieCat]

54. It is unfortunate that you are willing to attempt to denigrate a

Democrat here at Democratic Underground.

Clark, Zinni, Albright, and many others belong to a wealth of national security organizations. If that's makes one not to be trusted in your book....so be it. There are also politicians that have associations and ties that I am sure you disapprove of. Some appeared at Bildenberg meetings, and others speak regularily at APAIC functions, and others still have in the not so distant future belonged to the DLC. I would presume that in your book they all evil, because if so, that crosses Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry and quite a few others off your list and you should certainly get "busy" ragging on them too.......now, before it is too late....and certainly right before election 2006....as they must be running too....like you must think Wes Clark is running and is worth the kind of attention you are paying him!

you say....I won't argue about his capacity to execute a pincer movement, but don't expect me to believe that a military man has any particular diplomatic capacity, specific cultural knowledge or even political capacity. War and diplomacy are virtually divorced and military education/experience is NOT exactly reknown for its flexibility, interpretation of nuance or imagination. Quite the contrary.

I beg to differ with you on that:

Dayton Peace Accords architect Richard C. Holbrooke; retired Gen. Wesley A. Clark, who headed the U.S. military team during treaty negotiations; and Lord Paddy Ashdown, the international community's high representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, will travel to Dayton Nov. 17-18 to participate in an international policy forum on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the historic treaty.
http://www.udnews.org/2005/10/dayton_peace_ac.html

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060541644/qid=1114936910/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7692952-2877630?v=glance&s=books
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html

WASHINGTON, August 9, 2000 — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Bill Clinton today in the East Room of the White House, joining 14 other distinguished Americans who will be honored at the ceremony with the nation’s highest civilian award.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded to people who have made especially meritorious contributions to U.S. national security, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors. The medal may be bestowed on citizens of other nations and may be awarded posthumously.
-----

Clark's citation hailed the retired general as a soldier, scholar and statesman, respected for his military expertise, keen intellect and diplomatic skill. It specifically cited his roles as a key negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords and as head of U.S. European Command.

Clinton will recognize the individuals at a White House ceremony on Wednesday, he announced Thursday.

The award recipients are:

• Sen. John Chafee, who died last year, served as a Marine lieutenant in the World War II battle at Guadalcanal and fought in the Korean War. He was a state representative in Rhode Island, governor of Rhode Island and secretary of the Navy. In the Senate, Chafee was a champion of environmental legislation and worked to expand health care and reform foster care.

• Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who as supreme allied commander of NATO led the alliance to victory in Kosovo. Clark graduated first in his class at West Point, served in Vietnam and helped negotiate the Bosnia peace accords.

• Jesse Jackson, considered both an asset and a pest by the Clinton administration, frequently is invited to White House events even though he flirted briefly with the idea of running for the Democratic presidential nomination. Jackson was with the Clinton family after the president told the nation of his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky, but drew the ire of Clinton advisers last year when he ignored their warnings and went to Yugoslavia to retrieve three American soldiers held as prisoners.

• Retired Adm. William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who also served as commander of the Middle East Force in the Persian Gulf, head of Navy plans and policy and commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.

• Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund. She was the first black woman admitted to the Mississippi bar and first black woman elected to the Yale University Corp.

• John Kenneth Galbraith, a leading economist, taught economics for nearly 30 years and has written more than 30 books. During World War II, he was largely responsible for the Office of Price Administration's record in controlling inflation. He advised Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and also served as U.S. Ambassador to India.

• Monsignor George Higgins, adjunct lecturer at Catholic University, has spent more than 50 years working to ensure worker justice. He has been honored several times by labor groups and once was described as the "labor movement's parish priest."

• Mildred "Millie" Jeffrey, a women's labor and Democratic Party activist, was the first female to direct a department of the United Auto Workers. She worked for the UAW from 1945 to 1976 and served on commissions during the Kennedy and Carter administrations.

• Mathilde Krim, who founded the AIDS Medical Foundation in 1983, was one of the earliest leaders in the effort to find a cure for AIDS. She has worked on topics ranging from cancer research to human genetics and her foundation, which joined with the American Foundation for AIDS Research in 1985, has poured millions of dollars into AIDS research.

• George McGovern, a Democratic nominee for president in 1972, currently is the U.S. representative to the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization, where he is helping to develop a plan to address the food needs of 500 million people -- half the world's underfed -- by 2015. He was elected to the House in 1956. In the Senate, he led the expansion of the food stamp program.

• Cruz Reynoso, a private lawyer, teaches law and serves as vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In 1982, after six years on the California Court of Appeals, he became the first Latino to serve on the California Supreme Court. He also has served as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

• The Rev. Gardner Taylor, an author and early civil rights supporter, has been called the "dean of the nation's black preachers." Under his leadership, his church, Concord Baptist Church of Christ in New York City, became the most prestigious black church in America.

• Simon Wiesenthal, a Nazi concentration camp survivor, has devoted his life to finding evidence to prosecute Nazi war criminals. In 1977, he founded the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which works to fight bigotry and anti-Semitism. President Carter presented him with the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal in 1980 and he received the French Legion of Honor in 1986.

• Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan has represented New York in the Senate since 1977. A strong supporter of Social Security, he is the only person to serve in the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet, including two ambassadorial appointments, of four successive presidential administrations, Kennedy through Ford.

• James Edward Burke, former chairman of Johnson & Johnson, is chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. He has helped develop the National Youth Media Campaign and worked to discourage young people from using drugs.

In reference to Clark's Tax policy.....please note the following--
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

[alvarezadams]

56. Denigrate?

I have said nothing untrue about the man.

He voted for Nixon and Reagan. He is associated with a neoconservative thinktank.

As for the Gores, Kerrys, Clintons et al, I DO rag on them all the time. We need NEW leadership, unblemished and disconnected from the corporatist machine, disassociated with the policies that the current misadministration have imposed.

You realize of course that Clark serves on a number of boards in order to foster military-industrial contracts of course.

I am not saying that the man is all bad. Far from it. My beef with the fellow is that he is:
A. Part of the machine that needs to be dismantled.
B. A neocon in sheep's clothing.
C. A military man with a military man's strengths and limitations.

If you think that out of 300 million he's the best man for the job, vote for him. Support him to the best of your ability - that's your right. It is MY right and OBLIGATION to point out his (and many other politicians') shortcomings. Just because a person wears a "D" on his shirt doesn't mean I must support him - just as so few "D's" support Z. Miller.

What is disconcerting is how viscerally personal you folks take any aspersions against your chosen candidate. It reeks of iconolatry which is especially out of place with regards to rather bland politicians.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Who's what?

how viscerally personal you folks take any aspersions against your chosen candidate.

LIKE THIS, YOU MEAN?
It reeks of iconolatry

Please list the contracts Wes Clark has fostered with the Military Industrial Complex.

you calling Wes Clark a neon con is a lie, and if you think note, Please link your factual sources as to what makes him a NeoCon.


Thank you.

[alvarezadams]

50. I was being sarcastic

[Donna Zen]

51. So that's how extremists do it?

You just make shit up. No one said that the "success of the insurgency is due to foreigners." Your folksie "Whoda thunk it?" doesn't make your lie the truth, nor does patronizing get to masquerade as honest dialog.

You said: What of the opposition that is NOT being sponsored from abroad or that is being sponsored by ad-hoc groups? That would be the Baathists, many of the tribes, and the fundies. Ooops - that's virtually all of the opposition except for Sadr and a couple of others.


I disagreed about the foreign funding for that Sunnis etc. They are receiving funds. Rather than accept that someone may actually be interested in the subject, you mocked the response and created a sentence/concept that I never said.

The success of the insurgency is due to foreigners.

Of course, I didn't say that. Putting words in others peoples' mouths should remain off of DU and stay on ABC.

Your arguments are curiously superficial. I'm bored and done.

[alvarezadams]

53. Run away

Deadly rabbits!

Why is it that you folks see fit to post disrespectfully, ignore contrary arguments, and then go off in a huff?

I "make shit up"? That's a challenge. What "shit" have I made up?

[FrenchieCat]

58. Hey DonnaZen! Talk about Runaway! Look whos "gone"! n/t

[Donna Zen]

59. How can you tell?

I don't mind when people disagree, I don't mind when uninformed comments are made, I don't mind people who support other candidates, but I do mind when someone has nothing to say and thinks that they are profound.

Writing words for me was the last straw. The entire exchange had taken on an absurd dimension. Nothing. So...nothing is gone.

[FrenchieCat]

60. lookee at profilee of alvarezee.....

;

[Donna Zen]

61. gotcha

n/t

[Joe for Clark]

23. Its not that,

Its judgement, ability to recognize situations.

He is a general officer. He is also a master in economics and philosophy.

We elect someone to make decisions for us, that will effect us.

I really do not agree with him 100% on issues, but I do trust his judgement. Even if I don't agree with him 100% of the time, knowing he has more information than I do, I sure listen to him.

Clark could get us into messes - maybe - but he is also the last American to win a war - and he knows the costs. I trust him. Thats the difference.

Due respect, he is one very smart guy.

Joe

[CarlVK]

28. Amen. He's plugging the dyke with all the fingers he has.

And you are correct that it's guys like him that author foreign policies that get us into messes like this. I'm happy to hear someone else say it too. We will never stop this runaway train until we curtail our appetite for military adventures and interventionist policy.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Why don't you substantiate your statement....instead of spewing

shit from your keyboard?

We will never stop this runaway train if the likes of those who pretend to say something that equals to saying nothing attempt to undermind those who are experienced and have studied such matters; in other words, your statement is nothing but an opinion backed up with absolutely not a damn thing.

Thus far, you have done this repeatetly in multiple threads at the mention of Wes Clark....and yet, when asked to elaborate, you come up with more mindless dribble lacking any substance.

General Clark is making a difference in the debate going on in this country....whether by making sure to continue to hold George Bush accountable for 9/11 and making as many as he can possibly make aware that we are not "more safe" under the Republicans' and George Bush's tenure.

You, on the other hand, are making not a difference at all, besides participating in the circular firing squad that doesn't in any way stop what is happening from happening.....nor are you changing any hearts and mind from changing how they might vote in the upcoming election.

[blm]

19. Great - Clark and Kerry on same page - Russia had TONS of WMDs and no one

thought Reagan shouldn't work every angle to prevent a war. They gave him all the support in the world.

Bush has decided that war is the FIRST option. What would Bush have done with the USSR who really WAS pointing nuclear weapons at us?

[CarlVK]

29. LOL that's because you would have been VAPORIZED

Face it, the big reason that Iraq/North Korea etc. are picked on is because they CAN be. We didn't mess with the big boys because we didnt want our landscape to be charcoal.

[indepat]

24. General Clark obviously didn't get the word 9-11 is all Clinton's fault

[Dinger]

26. That's My Wes!

He could lead the revolution if we get doebolded in November!

[mcscajun]

27. Said it before, I'll say it again: I Stand with the General.

Go, Wes!

:patriot:

[Sparkly]

30. Right on, General!!

"...the generals and the admirals, they’re the last ones to want to go to war."

Wish that were better understood!! :thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

32. It is by those who actually "think"...as opposed to those who want us to

think that they think.

Of course, there's a world of difference between the two!

[Auntie Bush]

34. A kick for my man, WES CLARK!

What you guy's said! (Except for a few idiots that don't know their ars from second base)

[libodem]

35. He's right

9/11 happened on George Bush's watch and there were any number of ways it could have been prevented. That is why they are so defensive and trying to blame anyone else they can. The man was on vacation 40 days of his first 9 months of office. Whoo hoo, hello?

[libodem]

36. He's right

9/11 happened on George Bush's watch and there were any number of ways it could have been prevented. That is why they are so defensive and trying to blame anyone else they can. The man was on vacation 40 days of his first 9 months of office. Whoo hoo, hello?

[lisainmilo]

37. I listened...He is awesome!

You can tell he knows what the hell he is talking about. He is awesome!

[samsingh]

44. good for him to say it

[True Blue Believer]

47. Why Wes Clark MUST Be Our Next President

Clark is not only our best hope of our party winning the next election, he is also the absolute best prospective president out of all of the possible candidates. I intend to do all I can to campaign for Clark, just as I did in the '04 elections. My guess is that Clark has been spending the past couple of years just watching how the campaign "game," which is unfortunately what it is, is played. As the guy who was at the head of his class in almost every class he took at West Point, I suspect he may have learned a lot in that time. It's good to see his face out there, and hear him talking common sense, unlike our present leaders in the WH.

Clark didn't do all that badly in the '04 primaries in any case, coming in third in New Hampshire, in the first election he had ever run in. Not bad at all, considering that the lack of funding and media coverage made it impossible to compete with the pros who had been planning their campaigns for years and had treasure chests to fund them, while Clark was drafted to run only a few months before the primaries began. The fact that he waded right on in shows his devotion to country, IMO.

Many people, including myself, at first are shocked at the idea of running a retired General for president, expecting hawkish politics from a military man. But Clark is nothing like that. This is a military leader who won a war without losing a single troop while bringing an end to the Serb's "ethnic cleansing," and is credited with saving as many as a million lives in doing so. Who could possibly be a better choice to repair the God-awful damage the Bush WH and GOP Congress have inflicted on this country and the rest of the planet? Who better to bring the Iraq war to an end and to go after the true enemies of this nation, Al Qa eda and other terrorists who mean to destroy our country?
Who better to bring an end to this insanity in Iraq and reunite the American people?

This man is just brilliant, and has many, many ideas as to how to go about getting America back on track, as well as proved diplomatic skills, vast knowledge of the other nations of the world, and years of experience working in an administrative capacity. What most important though is that he really loves this country and really cares about the American people and where we are headed.
I hope my fellow Democrats will go visit Clark's web site and learn more about this fellow true believer in what's best about America.

Clark being elected president would be the best thing that has happened to this country in a very long time. The right man at the right time.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Great outstanding first post and Welcome to DU

If this is the kind of reading I'm going to be doing when I see your handle, then I look forward to it! :thumbsup:

[Cameron27]

52. Let me second that welcome!

"The right man at the right time."

:toast:

[SDDEM06]

55. I will be in New Hampshire or Iowa as soon as he announces.

I never thought I'd support a general for president, but he's not just any general...

[senseandsensibility]

62. I love Wes

I'm very liberal, even by DU standards, but I love Wes. I hope he's our nominee.