Reply #44: Here you go [View All]

[Tom Rinaldo]

A lot of DUers are familiar with Frenchie Cat's postings; here are a few things gathered from a personal blog she ran. I have lots of links on this stuff also and at some point maybe we will all go through reliving the 2004 primary wars regarding Kosovo again if you insist. War is never precise, that is where the expression "the fog of war" came from, but I am proud of what NATO did to prevent genocide in Kosovs, even though a slew of Milosovic apologist Serbian nationalists have made an industry out of turning out propaganda to attack NATO's intervention to stop that right wing strongmans murderous goal of ethnic cleansing and "Greater Serbia":

This is all taken from Frenchie's old blog, RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/nato_commander_19972000/


KOSOVO & Wes Clark as NATO Commander 1997-2000 Archives
October 1, 2006
SHORT HISTORIES ON THE BOSNIAN & THE KOSOVO CONFLICT
The Bosnia War occurred prior to the Kosovo War. U.S. Troups, via NATO were more involved in the latter than the former. The Bosnian Conflict(a civil war), were approximately 200,000 were killed, was ended via the Dayton Peace Accords of 1995. Holbrook and Wes Clark were instrumental in writing up the treaty.


Continue reading "SHORT HISTORIES ON THE BOSNIAN & THE KOSOVO CONFLICT" »

Posted by Catherine Mc on October 1, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink

October 2, 2006
THE EARLY DEPARTURE
Elizabeth Drew
New York Book Review
Clark has been open about the fact that he was hurt when his command was cut short. He offered clues about why he was treated so badly in his first book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat, published in 2001, and recollections of highly placed civilians in the Clinton administration confirm what he wrote. 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).

According to three former Clinton aides, when Clinton approved the list of appointments submitted to him by Cohen, including the selection of General Joseph W. Ralston as the new commander of the NATO forces, it wasn't made clear to the President that this would cut Clark's term as the supreme commander by nearly three months. (Of this, Clinton later said at a press conference in Europe, "I had nothing to do with it.") Despite having been treated badly, Clark continued to serve for the following nine months. Clinton was reportedly furious when he realized the mistake that had been made, but he didn't want to go back on it lest he look indecisive, or further alienate military officials, with whom he had been on bad terms since the beginning of his presidency.

To make sure that Clark's dismissal was a fait accompli, the Pentagon immediately leaked the news that he had been fired, thus denying him the dignity of being allowed to announce his own retirement. Several members of the Clinton administration believe that Clark was treated in an extremely unfair, even cruel, manner. This treatment continues. Cohen, who had originally declined to comment, said on CNN on October 15 that "there was friction between General Clark and myself. And, frankly, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on his political aspirations. I made a judgment during the time that he was serving as head of NATO, SACEUR. And I felt that the ax, as such, when it fell, spoke for itself."
snip

Clark's conduct of the Kosovo war, and his earlier participation as the US military negotiator in the meetings in Dayton following the war in Bosnia, earned him the admiration of several of the civilians he had worked with. Strobe Talbott, then the deputy secretary of state, reminded me recently that Clark is, after all, the only Supreme Allied Commander of NATO who actually had to fight a war, "and it ended in victory." Talbott told me that he found Clark to be "extraordinarily determined and able, and open to working with diplomats and civilians, US and foreign." Talbott pointed out that Clark, in commanding the Kosovo war, had had to deal daily with nineteen nations.


THE UNAPPRECIATED GENERAL


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.

Continue reading "THE EARLY DEPARTURE" »

Posted by Catherine Mc on October 2, 2006 11:33 PM | Permalink

October 13, 2006
Smear Debunked - "Clark would have started WWIII"
Here are a few of views of the Gen Clark/Gen Jackson hyperbole smear that originally stemmed from British Gen. Jackson’s comments that Clark wanted Jackson to start WWIII, a story which was originally reported by Gen. Clark in his book Waging Modern Wars. In addition, I include a few articles and their links on who General Michael Jackson is; quite a character who was later removed from his command of K-For control due to his insubordination.

And note the fact that Gen. Jackson’s insubordination encouraged President Putin invading Chechnya--


Continue reading "Smear Debunked - "Clark would have started WWIII"" »

Posted by Catherine Mc on October 13, 2006 9:32 PM | Permalink

November 27, 2006
"Boots on the Ground" not High Altitude Bombing in Kosovo was favored by Clark!
The Unappreciated General International Herald Tribune The General Who Did Too Good a Job By Patrick B. Pexton Tuesday, May 2, 2000; Page A23 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1 He ordered 50 Apache attack helicopters to take the battle to the Serb ground troops, only to see the force reduced in size and then left to sit in Albania while the White House and Pentagon fretted about casualties. Clark also was right about readying troops for an invasion. The preparations for a ground war helped persuade Milosevic to surrender.
Elizabeth Drew
New York Book Review


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.)

Clark's view on Kosovo, shared by Tony Blair and other European leaders, was that Clinton, by stating that ground troops would not be used there —a position Clinton took for domestic political reasons—gave the Serbs a military advantage. Similarly, Clark wasn't allowed to use helicopter gunships for fear that they might be shot down, despite the fact that the helicopters didn't need to fly over Kosovo itself and the helicopters' missiles could have been more precise in hitting targets than bombers flying at 15,000 feet.

The argument over whether there should be even contingency planning for the use of NATO ground troops in Kosovo (at the time, it appeared that they would have to fight their way in) caused a serious clash between Clinton and Blair, particularly when they met in April 1999 at the White House residence on the eve of a NATO summit.

A close Clinton associate has told me that "to this day" Clinton regrets that he removed the option of ground troops.

Clark's conduct of the Kosovo war, and his earlier participation as the US military negotiator in the meetings in Dayton following the war in Bosnia, earned him the admiration of several of the civilians he had worked with. Strobe Talbott, then the deputy secretary of state, reminded me recently that Clark is, after all, the only Supreme Allied Commander of NATO who actually had to fight a war, "and it ended in victory." Talbott told me that he found Clark to be "extraordinarily determined and able, and open to working with diplomats and civilians, US and foreign." Talbott pointed out that Clark, in commanding the Kosovo war, had had to deal daily with nineteen nations.

Berger, who has not endorsed any of the presidential candidates, also speaks highly of Clark. Richard Holbrooke, under whom Clark served at the Dayton negotiations, is a friend of Clark's and supports his candidacy. Michael Gordon, the Times's able military reporter, who covered the Kosovo war, wrote of Clark in early October that "while NATO's military campaign was not perfect by any means...the general's judgment of... critical issues seems pretty solid when viewed in perspective; a humanitarian wrong was righted and NATO won its first and only war."
—October 22, 2003


Continue reading ""Boots on the Ground" not High Altitude Bombing in Kosovo was favored by Clark!" »

Posted by Catherine Mc on November 27, 2006 11:11 PM | Permalink

December 27, 2006
Kosovo was "about" Genocide, not oil or anything else "nefarious"
the potential results of the Genocide that might have been (cause i've seen them before), the fact that it was stopped and the undeniable truth that people's lives were saved, albeit, not every single last one of them.

Some only see the bombing and believe that there should have been a better way, although we don't know what that way would have been, as we can only guess, because we also don't have an outcome to discuss that actually occurred.

In the end, I am a realist who looks at the end results of that intervention understanding that not intervening would have been worse, and I am glad that it turned out as it did....understanding that perfect is usually not possible in the case of forced intervention and war.

It is true that some on the left are Idealists who looks at the end results feeling that it could have been done better doing something else, something that one cannot be certain as to the results because it never happened, but still feel compeled to criticize known results.

Wes Clark is a great man, and is a great General, not a perfect man nor a perfect General. that's my opinion based on my research.
Some may have forgotten about the 200,000 dead Bosnians prior to Kosovo, as well as the 800,000 dead Rwandans.....something Clark never did forget...and therefor felt that the Kosovo mission was urgent.

Clark says it better here:


"If we have learned but one thing in the tragic breakup of the old Yugoslavia, it is the need to act early and robustly in a crisis. The United States, as the leading power in NATO, should know this best of all. In 1991 America stood by as the United Nations and many European nations tried unsuccessfully to cope with devastating war in the Balkans. Some 200,000 casualties and 2 million people made homeless, capped with the gruesome massacre of more than 5,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, finally pushed the United States and NATO into action. In 1995, when the United States pledged to commit American troops to enforce peace alongside European allies, we brought the hostilities to an end.

In 1999, as ethnic cleansing grew in Kosovo, NATO backed up unsuccessful diplomacy with Operation Allied Force, which reversed the Serb violence and ultimately led to Slobodan Milosevic's being removed from power and delivered to The Hague in June for prosecution. --

Wesley Clark OPEd
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2164&l=1

Continue reading "Kosovo was "about" Genocide, not oil or anything else "nefarious"" »

Posted by Catherine Mc on December 27, 2006 11:28 PM | Permalink

January 10, 2007
General Brass on Wes! But what about the Shelton Smear?...Well that was "Just Politics"...doh!
During the last presidential Democratic Primary, there was what I would term a "swiftboat whisper campaign" that began as soon as General Clark, the most decorated officer since Eisenhower, decided to enter the presidential race. Whisper campaigns are what members of the GOP do best (see Bush vs. McCain, Bush vs. Kerry. Allen vs. Webb), in particular to anyone who threatens their monopoly on National Defense or their political well being and in most cases if there is little else in harmful "noise" at hand.

The attempted swiftboating campaign revolved around the unsubstantiated opinion of one General Hugh Shelton who uttered a smear against General Clark when asked if he would vote for the man. Gen. Shelton, a Republican, who just happened to have been the military advisor for John Edwards, another Democratic candidate who was running at the time, responded by attacking Wes Clark's integrity and character but conveniently left out the fact that it was he, Shelton, who had played a major role in Clark's early retirement in 2000.

John Edwards was queried in writing by the Clark campaign as to why he would directly associate with someone speaking nonsubstantiated smears against one of his Democratic challengers yet call himself a "positive" campaigner? "By associating with General Shelton on this campaign, you seem to have given in to the negative politics that you say you have risen above," Clark's Communications Director wrote to John Edwards.....to which John Edwards snootily replied without really addressing the issue of the smear; "Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction".

Although Shelton never publicly elaborated further than his initial statement, low and behold, our Corporate press didn't "bother" to request further clarification from Shelton, , but instead went on the hunt, armed with the smear, to locate co-operating opinions from the rest of the military brass. As hard as "they" tried, "they" couldn't find any other high ranking generals to back up Shelton's comments, and "they" had to dig deep to find a few who had never worked with the General, but had "heard" of him. In fact, what the press found was that many of the General's cohorts held and hold the General in High opinion.

General Colin Powell on CNN - 9/28/03: "I've known Wes Clark for 20 years. He's one of the most gifted soldiers that I have ever had work for me. And beyond that, I really feel it's appropriate for me to recuse myself from any further comment now that he is a political candidate."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/28/le.00.html

The Late Col. David Hackworth who initially pinned the "Perfumed Prince" tag on Clark, but later recanted commented on the whispers...."No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point , which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor."
'All this book leanin' is unbecoming for an officer. The yankees got all the smart ones, and look where it got them."
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/008539.html

General McCaffrey:
"(He-Clark) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html
McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1044293,00.html
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html


Continue reading "General Brass on Wes! But what about the Shelton Smear?...Well that was "Just Politics"...doh!" »

Posted by Catherine Mc on January 10, 2007 9:25 PM | Permalink

January 14, 2007
HERO - What Feat Qualifies one for that Title? PART ONE of a Series-
In this day and age being heralded as an everyday plain ol’ ordinary Superstar Hero is a “mixed” bag, at best. In particular if it is the media that’s doing the heralding. One only has to recall the initial stories on Iraq Hero Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Afghanistan/football Hero Pat Tillman . The hero status given to these two young people was somewhat reworked by the facts and their initially reported heroics were long ago toned down; for Lynch, because the original heroic notion didn’t stand the test of the facts , and for Tillman, because what made him an hero became overshadowed by a possible cover up with his death while serving in Afghanistan. We should remember that Pat Tillman’s earned hero status because he freely chose to join the Armed Forces although he could have earned star status as a pro on a football field and gotten big bucks instead. However, disputed controversies does not a Hero make, and Pat Tillman heroic act was layed to rest as to not bring attention to nefarious governmental actions. In any case, it cannot be disputed that for different reasons, both Lynch's and Tillman's “hero” status were repackaged to simply --Two young brave people no longer talked about as the paragon of glorified hero-hood.

The media currently has three high profiled “heroes” that they showcase consistently. Coincidently these “heroes” just all happen to be rumored or confirmed candidates in the quickly approaching 2008 presidential race. All have had the hero label surgically implanted by the corporate media as though it is part of their names; POW War Hero Sen. John McCain , 9/11 NY Mayor Hero Rudi Giuliani , and Common/Poor Man’s Hero John Edwards who's legendary feat in the name of poverty are still "a work in progress".

These notables' are fortunate that the media is heralding them as "special", but my questions is, are they really heroes, or are they just wearing the label gifted them by the media or bolder still, that they have crafted themselves?

I’m one who looks beyond the labels to the facts surrounding the pronouncements and since Hero Rudi’s profile in courage has come under scrutiny as of late , I”m wondering how much longer he will be allowed to keep his title?

In reference to McCain, I believe that his profile in courage as a POW has been questioned for many years, althought the media has yet questioned their gift to him. There are those souls who would prefer to simply calling John McCain a “survivor” rather than a Hero.

In terms of concrete actions for the poor, prior to his 4 years run for the presidency, I can’t locate anything in John Edwards' 6 years legislative record worth mentioning in reference to the direct issue of his assisting the poor. Certainly Edwards’ has made many laudable statements in reference to poverty since late 2003, and effectively gained himself a short lived gig at a poverty center as proof which isn’t a bad thing, but Heroics are based on much more than what comes out of someone’s mouth when they speak, or situations created after the fact of making their grand aspirations known. Heroes are about action; actions performed while incurring personal risk. In the three men I have listed and who have been lauded as heroes, I find no such documented chosen risks.

In fact, what exactly is a Hero defined, and what does the word really mean?


he·ro (hîr'ōo) Pronunciation Key , n. pl. he·roes
1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.
3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.
4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.
5. Chiefly New York City See submarine. See Regional Note at submarine.

I personally choose the number 2 definition of the meaning; “A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of p urpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life”.....and I would add one additional phrase.... and sacrificed personal comfort. In searching for profiles of heroes, I find a couple, but not the ones heralded and labeled so by the media.

John Kerry really was a bonafide hero of presidential timber, from all that I see. Not so much for his (now controversial and unfairly disputed) stunt in the military as so much what he did when he returned from serving his country. John Kerry took risk, layed aside personal comfort, and testified and agitated against a controversial war in 1971. That was 35 years ago, but John Kerry is still a hero specifically for this act, to this day. Certainly if the John Kerry that was so ready to sacrifice himself for a cause he believed in had manifested in a forceful form in 2004, John Kerry should and could have been president...which goes to confirm my suspicion of the media; one who was hero yesterday, may not be tomorrow's.

A personal favorite hero of mine is Gen. Wesley Clark. His is a story that repeats Hero several time over a life span. Certainly Clark was a Hero based on his Vietnam valor, having been shot 4 times and still managing to lead his platoon to safety.

So what has Wes Clark done to deserve my Hero label? Well, there are several things, which is why this is a multiple part series. I'll start with this story here written up in an Esquire article, based on Richard Holbrook’s book, “To End a War”.


Continue reading "HERO - What Feat Qualifies one for that Title? PART ONE of a Series-" »

Posted by Catherine Mc on January 14, 2007 4:29 PM | Permalink

January 17, 2007
The New Yorker's "General Clark's Battles"- Author Peter Boyers deliberately set out to get Clark
The article, "General Clark's Battles" was a negative read to those who read it at a crucial time, as the 2004 Primaries were warming up. As it was published in the "respectable" New Yorker Magazine, many liberals who subscribed to the monthly received this article on General Clark via the mail.

The problem with the article is not only did it provide false information on Wes Clark's battles with the Pentagon during the War in Kosovo, but as importantly, the views espoused in the story were blatantly biased and one sided. The truth was that the author was shown to have a clear agenda against the General.

There were quite a few questions posed to Mr. Boyers by other (more) respectable authors, but he never bothered to answer:

First from Fred Kaplan over at Slate:


Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, at 7:13 PM ET
snip
Kosovo was the United States' first post-Cold War experiment in "humanitarian intervention." Clark, who was the U.S. Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (and who, before that, had been a military aide in the Dayton negotiations over Bosnia), supported going to war in order to protect the Kosovars from the savagery of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. Secretary of Defense William Cohen and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had no taste for interventions of practically any sort, opposed it. That much, Boyer has right. But much else, he does not.
more


Then Matthew Yglesias writing in the Prospect also stepped in....

Boyer Plate Who is New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer -- and why is he after Wesley Clark? By Matthew Yglesias Web Exclusive: 11.14.03
This week's New Yorker contains a profile of Wesley Clark with a striking thesis -- that the general's "military career, the justification for his candidacy, may also be a liability."
snip
Boyer appears to have made something of a career for himself as a conservative interloper at otherwise liberal media outlets. Back in 1992, his sympathetic profile of Rush Limbaugh for Vanity Fair drew praise from the conservative Media Research Center as being "fair." In 1997, as a Frontline correspondent, Boyer promoted one of the more obscure "scandals" of the Clinton years in a show (titled "The Fixers") based around an allegation that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown had been involved in a complicated scheme to convince a Hawaiian couple to buy an Oklahoma natural gas company. An independent counsel appointed to investigate the matter filed no charges against Brown.
more




If you read these two articles in full, you'll understand that the New Yorker Article was a "Smear" job on Wes Clark and nothing more.




Posted by Catherine Mc on January 17, 2007 3:04 AM | Permalink

January 31, 2007
Defending Wes Clark- re: The Nation & Matt Taibbi's True Colors
The inside scoop on Nation writer, Matt Taibbi, and his motives for writing that horrible worthless "inside" story on Clark's first campaign.

As Taibbi's described Clark's eyes, Taibbi's eyes were affixed on gaining revenge for his Best Friend, Slobodan Milosovic.....reknowned dictator and murderer of hundreds of thousands who eventually found himself in the Hague for crimes against Humanities prior to meeting his untimely death in 2006.

The Nation received several hundred pieces of mail, which they conveniently "judged" as an organized response from Clark Supporters! Well, imagine that! Not only are Wes Clark's eyes like a turtles' (?) but they hold hypnotic powers too (as was rumored by the Right Wing)! If he can get "hundreds" to write personalized responses to one publication, maybe he should be elected President! Or at the very least, why didn't Clark just simply hynotized Malosovic, Taibbi, The Editors of the Nation, and for that matter, the primary voters in 2004? Sadly, even the left knows how to dispel the legitimacy of even hundreds of letters to their Editors, which would prove them right and everyone else wrong, considering the piece written was subjective to a degree of extremism! Guess one would have no other choice than not writing to a magazine that they subscribed to under these circumstances! I mean, why would a one writer have any reason to be biased while hundreds would? Me, I just consider the Nation's rebuttal and characterization as Intellectual dishonesty!

The original blog entry provide many links here that you will not find in the text of my repost of the original entry. Go there for information that gets much deeper into the story of Matt Taibbi; the prime example of a journalist gone wild!

Saturday, November 29, 2003

Matt Taibbi's True Colors

For years now, I've turned to The Nation mostly for its terrific cryptic crosswords. But they also print articles, and, from following a Clark list, I learned that the current issue of the mag features a remarkably pointless pile of drivel allegedly concerning Wesley Clark, and written by one Matt Taibbi. Although the best part of the magazine, the puzzles, regrettably, don't seem to be available online. Even more regrettable, the drivel is.

The article suggests that Taibbi's wholly negative view of Clark and his supporters comes from his observation of the campaign; in fact, it goes back several years. Through the late 90s, Taibbi lived in Moscow where he co-edited and helped write an English language magazine called The eXile. The eXile was, to put it mildly, opposed to the war in Kosovo. In his writing Taibbi was an open apologist for some of the most notorious crimes of Slobodan Milosevic and his associates. Taibbi wrote a long article implying that the January 15, 1999 massacre of Albanian civilians at Racak never happened. The evidence of a massacre at Racak is extensive; according to Human Rights Watch, which took extensive testimony from survivors:

Precisely how the twenty-three men were killed by the police on the hill outside of Racak remains somewhat unclear. But witness testimony, as provided here, and the physical evidence found at the site by journalists and KVM monitors, makes it clear that most of these men were fired upon from close range as they offered no resistance. Some of them were apparently shot while trying to run away.

Journalists at the scene early on January 16 told Human Rights Watch that many of these twenty-three men also had signs of torture, such as missing finger nails. Their clothes were bloody, with slashes and holes at the same spots as their bullet entry and exits wounds, which argues against government claims that the victims were KLA soldiers who were dressed in civilian clothes after they had been killed. All of them were wearing rubber boots typical of Kosovo farmers rather than military footwear. It is possible that some of these men were defending their village in the morning and then went to the Osmani house once they saw the police entering the village. However, they clearly did not resist the police at the time of their capture or execution.

The massacre at Racak plays a prominent role in the indictment of Milosevic and his cronies for crimes against humanity. But Taibbi claims it was all a con job. To support this fantastic charge he offers no study of the evidence, but simply an examination of the resume of one witness, an American diplomat named William Walker who, as an official of the Kosovo Verification Mission of the OSCE, was among the first foreigners to enter Racak after the atrocities. Mr Walker, it seems, was previously stationed in Central America during the Contra War and related conflicts of the 1980s. Therefore, he is obviously CIA, proving clearly that the Racak massacre must have been a CIA trick. If Mr Walker were the only witness, that would be an ad hominem argument, but at least an argument. But since Walker 's statements were backed by many statements of survivors and other international observers, his own background is simply irrelevant.

The first armed NATO intervention in Yugoslavia took place at the end of August, 1995. The primary cause was the Srebrenica massacre which took place the preceding month, but the immediate spark was an artillery attack on the Sarajevo market that caused over 100 civilian casualties. Another Taibbi article suggests that this attack was staged by the Bosnians, as a plan to obtain NATO support by murdering their own people and then framing the innocent Serbs.

Despite its moral posturing about Serb ethnic cleansing, NATO itself has provided air cover for the same kinds of atrocities it now accuses the Serbs of committing. In 1995, NATO planes, responding to what many now suspect was a Bosnian-government-staged massacre of Muslim civilians, attacked and crippled the Bosnian Serb army with punishing air assaults.

It is true that this claim has been made by such as Radovan Karadzic, not the most credible of sources, but good enough for the Nation. But it was categorically rejected by the UN (see paragraphs 438 - 441 of link) for good reasons, as discussed by Richard Holbrooke ("To End A War", ch 6). It is known that five shells were fired. Four failed to detonate, so analysis of their impact permitted a clear identification of the point of origin, which was in Serb-controlled territory. For the Bosnians to have fired the fifth and fatal round, it would have been necessary for the Bosnians to have known ahead of time exactly where and when the attack would come, in order to disguise their own shell as part of it.

Taibbi's further complaints against NATO ranged from the openly racist ("The Serbs are one of the tallest, most beautiful European tribes. Somalis, too, are tall and elegant, as are the Tutsi, who actually call themselves `The Tall People.` Why are the most beautiful tribes being wiped out by the squat and ugly?") to the highly personal ("Until a few weeks ago, Western men in Moscow could always count on being given special attention by that most precious of God's creatures, the Russian dyevushka.... Not now. Thanks to the NATO airstrikes, the White God has become the White Devil. All bets are off.... The days of E-Z sex and multiple partners in a consequence-free environment are over, thanks to America's sexually-demented president. Now, dyevs don't swallow. They just spit. All because your stupid country had to go 'n' bomb the Serbs.")

The general practice, rather conspicuous above, of going the extra mile to be as offensive as possible was a habit of Taibbi and The eXile. One Taibbi essy, under the title "God Can Suck MY Dick", says:

After 9/11, I'm certain: every last person who believes in God should be swept off the streets, captured with big nets, thrown into maximum-security institutions, and forced to knit oven mitts and play Lite-Brite with each other until their deaths.

Despite what you may think, God people are not just incredibly stupid. They're dangerous. They make possible every kind of human idiocy. Why? Not just because they tend to be zealots who try to force their point of view on other people (indeed, most religions consider non-believers lost or damned); not just because they do things like level the World Trade Center or strap dynamite to themselves and walk into abortion clinics to kill teenage girls they don't even know. No, the big problem with God people is that they make patent absurdities a central fact in the lives of entire populations, so that if anyone by chance wants to live a reasonable life, he has to do so in private, apologetically, like a man walking half bent-over through a crowded subway car because he has an erection in his pants.

Some of The eXile's outrages, such as the above piece, at least make a point. Others are adolescent transgressions of the worst kind, offensive for the sake of being offensive, without actually saying anything interesting, or making any noticable satiric point, or even being tastelessly funny. Certainly after a taste of The eXile, it is unsurprising that Taibbi adopted the persona of a porn director for his 'research' into the Clark movement.

As for the article itself, there's little to say. There are few facts to debate; Taibbi deals mainly in pointless anecdotes and personal opinions. He begins by looking deep into the eyes of various candidates. In the eyes of Kucinich, he finds limpid pools of sincerity consistent with Kucinich's standing as the writer's chosen favorite. In Lieberman, he finds humor - perhaps the gentleman from Connecticut also finds it clever to pick out random strangers and talk to them about having sex with their mother's corpse. In Clark he sees nothing, although the nothing seems to resemble a turtle, and there's a picnic basket in there somewhere. See, it's a metaphor, and if you're too clueless to understand, just do what Matt would do: read the article over again, changing every noun to 'penis'.

Matt then goes undercover to attend meetups with Clark supporters, who make valiant attempts to be polite to him although he is telling bizarre lies that they probably see through. As a result of this daring investigation, he is in a position to report that Clarkies want to defeat Bush and consider that more important than memorizing every detail of Clark's platform. Not many reporters could dig up this discovery in a month or so of research - most would take more like 5 minutes.

Taibbi is at pains to challenge Clark's bona fides as an anti-war candidate. "It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.... o person who found the Iraq war morally repugnant could have gone on television and talked sunnily about how this or that weapon was ravaging Iraqi defenses. I remember watching Clark on CNN, and at one point he was actually playing with a model of an A-10 tank-killer airplane, whooshing it back and forth over a map of Iraq, like a child playing with a new toy on Christmas morning. A person who was genuinely opposed to the war as wrongful killing would be sick even thinking about such a thing." True, Clark is opposed to fighting the wrong war for the wrong reason in the wrong way, but that isn't good enough for Matt. Any true anti-war man would be opposed to all wars - except for those fought by tall and beautiful tribes to eliminate the unpleasantly short and ugly.

Taibbi also drops broad hints that Clark's 'true colors' involve some sort of military-electoral coup. Clark is compared variously to Caesar, Cincinattus, and Nixon. And what does the would-be dictator like to eat? Napoleons - hint, hint.


March 3, 2007
Dear Amy Goodman, Wes Clark's facts on the 1999 RTS TV Station Nato Bombing are Accurate
I watched Wesley Clark's interview with Amy Goodman via Democracy Now yesterday. I enjoyed the interview so much, I was moved to write Ms. Goodman a letter. I addressed such to: [e-mail]

Dear Amy Goodman & the Producers of Democracy Now,
I wanted to thank you for the interview that you conducted with General Wes Clark and recently aired on your television program. As the first 4 Star General to proudly call himself a Democrat,
I'm encouraged that many of your viewers got to see Wes Clark answering your questions without the now routine antagonistic gotcha format often time seen. As one very closely related to members of the armed forces, I'm glad to see less blame fall on our military, and greater accountability given to our civilian leaders, who have much more say on our Foreign Policy and our ultimate action in wars.

I found Wes Clark to be refreshingly honest, even if at times I didn't totally agree with his take on certain issues. I believe that authenticity and reasoned competence are important factors required for anyone involved in politics and discussions about war and peace.

In reference to one of your questions posed on the NATO Bombing of the RTS Studio, I did some internet research and found Wes Clark to have answered your question truthfully. It does appear that the station was adequately forewarned, and it does appear that Pres. Milosovic bears responsibility for the ultimate deaths of the 16 who died due to the NATO bombing. Had the warnings NATO and Gen. Clark gave been heeded, the 16 would not have perished.

I am enclosing my internet research thus far as to the truth of that incident. I would suggest that you order the award winning book, "Silence on Aberdareva Street" by Zoran Janjic being discussed in several of the articles I am linking.
Respectfully,
XXXXX

-------------
Author of book 'Silence in Aberdareva' claims: Milosevic sacrificed RTS employees 'Dan graf', a publisher of Belgrade, published a book with proofs that former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic sacrificed on purpose 16 employees of Radio and Television of Serbia during NATO air strikes on our country in 1999. In the book it is further claimed that the action was carried out in cooperation with then Yugoslav Army and top officials of RTS. The aim was getting of decisive advantage in propaganda war against the international community.

Zoran Janic, the author of the book called 'Silence in Aberdareva' points out that from the documents and reliable testimonies it can be concluded that NATO and even its commander in Europe General Wesley Clark had informed Milosevic on time about their intention to bomb RTS. Former RTS director Dragoljub Milanovic is the only serving prison sentence for the death of 16 RTS employees, although it is obvious that several other of them knew in advance what was going to happen. 'The Army had not only the transcript of the intercepted conversation between the pilot of the combat jet that took off at Aviano, Italy, but as it turned out later on, knew about the attack three days in advance', the author of the book says.
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0604&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=A&P=18710


Vesna Peric Zimonjic
Inter Press Service English News Wire
05-03-2006
BELGRADE, May 2, 2006 (IPS/GIN) --
A book by a Serbian journalist has again stirred controversy over the NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia building in Belgrade in April 1999. Sixteen people were killed in the attack. The book "Silence on Aberdareva Street" blames the Serbian regime then led by
Slobodan Milosevic and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for the bombing. "This was a premeditated sacrifice of 16 innocent people by the regime, with the aim of scoring a propaganda point," author Zoran Janjic ...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-122938074.html
---------------
Letter to Carla Del Ponte
Jasmina Tesanovic's blog -
28.09.2006, 18:17:22

Dear Mrs. Del Ponte,

Referring to the trial of former Serbian State officials for the crimes committed in Kosovo during the war there I want to attract you attention to the fact that these people, this criminal group, did not kill only the OTHERS, that is people of other nationalities, but also people of their own nationality, their compatriots, when it suited them. One of the particular crimes was the act of deliberately targeting 16 employees of Television Belgrade (RTS) to win the propaganda war with the West. For that crime nobody was convicted except the former RTS General manager Dragoljub Milanovic, who was sentenced to 10 years on charges of negligence, that is, he was accused of violating a governmental order about evacuation from the TV building. There is a book about the crime, which came out in Serbia in April "Silence in Aberdareva street" which summarizes brilliantly all the existing evidences and even offers some new evidence that the top Serbian State and Military officials of the time knowingly left the television staff to be killed since they had been informed previously about the upcoming NATO raid.

In connection with the crime there are at least three indictees in the Hague: there is former Yugoslav Army Chief of staff, General Dragoljub Ojdanic, the Third Army Comander General Nebojsa Pavkovic and the former Serbian President Milan Milutinovic, who also was a member of the Supreme Defence Council.

The latter two, Pavkovic and Milutinovic, had already suggested that, under certain circumstances (and surely under pressure) they were "willing" to speak about the RTS workers’ victimization. Indications for this can be found on pages 127 and 308 (footnote No 231) of the book, writtenby Zoran Janic.In the case of Milutinovic, who was Serbian President, as well as the Supreme Defense Council member (with Milosevic and President of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic) and at the same time CiviDefense Head (and thus in charge of committing the Federal Government order about the RTSbuilding evacuation), the indication that he would talk about the crime arises from his confirmed and well-known cowardliness since, after Milosevic's fall, he offered the new authorities his cooperation swearing to be loyal. During the Kosovo war, in Milutinovic’s office had been where he and other officials coordinated the propaganda war for several months (pages 258-260). His guilt regarding the RTS staff victimization was written about in the book on pages 30, 197 (at the end of the footnote No 150) 212, 253 i 254, 258-260, 309 i 314-316, including the whole last chapter of the book "Silence in Aberdareva street".

Dear Mrs. Del Ponte, these families are grateful for your readiness to help in our fight for thetruth about the concrete crime committed by the Serbian State officials, the crime in which (according to the book) all the key Milosevic criminal state institutions, including army and secret police, were involved. I believe that the crime, committed on their compatriots, can also be brought under the category of war crimes. If not, then the investigation, although restricted (moguæi dodatak: as it may be), would force Pavkovic, Milutinovic and the former head of the Secret police Jovica Stanisic to admit some new facts about the circumstances of the crime. In this case they have nothing to lose since their boss is dead.

On the other side, the Serbian Special Court for organized crime, if it agreed to deal with the RTScase, according to the evidence provided in the book "Silence in Aberdareva street", would losepretexts for not having grounds for carrying out a proper investigation. In such a proper investigation, its findings would be that the former Serbian State officals were guilty of a premeditated act of murder. Since the victims are Serbs, rather thanmembers of the other nationalities, it would be an opportunity to talk about Milosevic and his companions as killers. May be this would bea step towards reconsidering the Serbs’ own guilt.

Yours sincerely,
Zanka Stojanovic
( in the names of the victims families)
http://blog.b92.net/node/2309 also at http://www.blogodak.com/2006/09/page3
------------------
Award for Book "Silence in Aberdareva Street"
(Danas, p.1/October 24, 2006) ]
The award Dusan Boagavac which the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS) grants for journalist ethic and courage was given to Zoran Janic, a journalist and publicist, for the book "Silence in Aberdareva Street". The award will be presented on 26 October, on the NUNS premises.
http://tinyurl.com/yow8fo
----------------------

Serbian authorities were informed about RTS bombing beforehand
Belgrade, 16:11
Recently deceased Serbian and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic had deliberately sacrificed 16 journalists killed in the building of the National Broadcaster RTS during NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. This is stated inthe book "Aberdar's Silence" authored by Zoran Janic and issued by Belgrade-based publishing house "Dan Grafa". The book contains evidence accounts on the involvement of the, then, top Serbian officials, SCG Army and RTS executives in the bombing of the building, aimed at winning the propaganda war against the International Community. The book cites official records dating a few days prior to the attack, such is "the death toll would be acceptable with respect to the achieved propaganda effect." "The documents and confirmed witnesses' testimonies leave no doubt that the Commander of Allied Forces for Europe, General Wesley Clark had notified Milosevic in due time on NATO's intention tobomb the building of RTS", reads Janic's book.

"The top men in RTS were Milosevic's closest aides. During the attack, they were hiding in the vicinity of the RTS building, in order to appear at the scene immediately after the blast and broadcast the material which was to deliver the final blow to the international community", the book further says.

Besides Dragoljub Milanovic, the general director of RTS at the time, who is the only convicted thus far, his assistant Jovan Ristic, RTS Secretary Dusan Jakovljevic, and editors MiloradKomrakov, Tatjana Lenard and Dusan Vojvodic had information of the imminent attack, the book reads. "The Army knew about the impending attack three days ahead", Janic alleges in his book. He quotes a man, claiming he had witnessed a conversation between Slobodan Milosevic's son Marko and Major-General Aleksandar Bakocevic, which took place in a restaurant in Pozaravec a day ahead of the attack. According to his source, the interlocutors agreed that "the number of victims would be acceptable comparing with the propaganda effect", reads "Aberdar's Silence".
Makfax Independent News Agency
http://tinyurl.com/28zbfz
(I located this last article a while ago, but the link is no longer active. I have inquired with the reporting news agency about securing a "PDF" of the original article)
--------------------------------

The best books in Serbia today are being written in our courts. Our transcripts may be our only real literature. It is sure that "Legija," that hero of the criminal underground, is writing his own books. His third publication was heavily promoted at the recent book-fair in Belgrade. I've yet to read this masterpiece of his, but I know that it sold like crazy. It certainly outsold, by far, a prize-winning, factual book by an actual Serbian journalist Zoran Janic, which detailed a sinister war crime by Milosevic, in which that recently-deceased dictator, as one part of his gaudy panoply of war-crimes, sent sixteen Serbian TV technicians to meet their certain doom in a building bombed by NATO.

http://cobrapost.com/documents/lstars.htm



Posted by Catherine Mc on March 3, 2007 5:20 PM | Permalink