The savaging of Wes Clark

[Zuni]

This comes from the hardcore left, and the rightwing.
The hard left, especially those crackpots around Ramsey Clark (Milosevic's attorney), the IAC and A.N.S.W.E.R., who are for anyone the US is against call Wes Clark a war criminal. It is clear to me that most of these left wing nuts will call any American General a war criminal and any American effort a war crime. That is just what they do. During Kosovo, the IAC and Ramsey Clark held Serbian Nationalist demonstrations, sent delegations to hang out with the Serbian government, deny that acts of genocide were being committed against the Kosovars by the Serbs etc. It is their way, and they will attack any American foreign policy.
Not only that, but they will, in any instance, blame America first.
Counterpunch and other organs of the extreme left are currently savaging Clark for non existent war crimes. Of course, civilians did die, but they were results of pilot error or bad intelligence--hardly wesley Clark's fault. The various governments in NATO demanded no civilian casualties and Wes Clark worked very hard on targetting to prevent them---vetoing a number of targets because of possible collateral damage to civilians and civilian property.

The Right hates Clark for three main reasons.
1. He is military, but is a democrat and a liberal. The GOP wants the nation to think they are the party endorsed by the military, and are tough on security. They want the public to think of democrats as limped wrist appeasers. Wes Clark is a distinguished officer, with a strong record and the title of Supreme Commander like Eisenhower.

2. He was Bill Clinton's choice for NATO command. I have heard constant theories about how he is a Clinton plant, a trojan horse for Hillary etc. Anything remotely associated with the Clintons is a prime target for their venom and slander.

3. He fought against Orthodox Christians on the side of Muslims. Tonight I listened to some of Michael Savage's show, and he seemed to believe that the Muslims started the war, they were a front for Al-Q (although their could have been AL-Q contingents) and that they were infinetly worse than the Serbs. He seemed to try to convince that the atrocities were from both sides, and although the KLA committed atrocities without a doubt, the vast majority of the crimes were committed by serbs.


I also hear all this talk of wether Wes Clark was truly anti-war before the war. I do not know how committed he was to the anti war movement, but I did sense a real skepticism about the admin's effort in his CNN commentary. He was critical enough to have Republivcan's lash out at him many times in the last months.
His critiscms were not the same as you would find at an ANSWER rally, but throughout his commentary he dealt the adminstration subtle blows.

I am sure, being a Vietnam Veteran, he did not want to be overly outspoken against the war, even if that was his private stance, on nightly television.

Even so, even if he wasn't critical enough, what does it matter? Many people, even myself, believed that Saddam might well have WMDs, and there might be a danger in the future from Iraq. I wasn't pro-war, but I wasn't nearly as anti-Bush as I am now. He opposes the Bush policy now, speaks against the Bush admin, and he wilol run with a platform that will try to fix the mess Bush has gotten us into.

I think Wes Clark is a good man and a good candidate, and after the absolute savage attacks on him all day, I felt something needed to be said in his favor.

[TakebackAmerica]

1. Thanks for the great letter.

Right on. I'm with you 100% on this.

[IranianDemocrat]

2. You're right.

The people who smear Clark on this board are the marxist tinfoil hat and green party loonies.

[roughsatori]

3. Yes none of us are good Democrats who voted for Raygun (sic) like Clark

And if he did speak at a Republican fundraiser that is repulsive. Of course, the hysterical-moderate Clark apologists won't be bothered by that in the least.

[Zuni]

6. how do you know who he voted for?

And who he voted for in the 1980s is an issue?

[roughsatori]

9. Yes I read that today (someone also linked the story) he said

I imagine I may have voted for Reagan. Maybe he just forgot. Sorry, if it is verified, he has lost my vote even if he wins the primary. It is fine that members of DU voted Republican in the past but they are not running for president.

[oasis]

15. Clark told Tweety Mathews today that he voted for Gore.

BTW, Hillary worked for the Barry Goldwater for president campaign way back when.

[roughsatori]

14. Do a search with keywords: Clark Reagan imagine voted

I just did and you will get about 4 threads debating this just from today.

[dfong63]

16. because he admitted it

how do you know who he voted for?

we know because an interviewer asked, and Clark answered.

enter wesley clark
``Only this month did Mr. Clark announce that he is a Democrat. He told us in an interview the other day that he is new to the party -- it's not that he'd been a Democrat all along and kept his affiliation private for reasons of propriety. Asked whether he had voted for Republicans along the way, Mr. Clark said, "I don't even remember." Had he voted for a Republican for president? "I imagine that I voted for Reagan at one time or another," he said.''

actually, as others have already pointed out, Clark's answer is worse than just admitting it. by fudging, saying he "doesn't remember", saying he "imagines", he's showing that despite his lack of political experience, he's picked up the worst trait of some politicians. if only he'd come right out and said, "I voted for Reagan, and now I wish I hadn't," or even, "I voted for Reagan, because he made me proud to be an American," then i for one could forgive him for that.

but please spare us the horsesh*t about not remembering. first in his class at west point, and a rhodes scholar, and the guy can't remember whether he voted for reagan??? that is an evasion. and, after months of waiting for him to announce his party affiliation, and more waiting for him to deign to declare, i've had enough of Clark evasions.

[madfloridian]

4. Know how you feel....I feel that way when Dean is smeared.

None of us should do it.

[Zuni]

5. I like Dean too

and he was the main target from the right because of his popularity before today.

[kysrsoze]

10. Yup. Hope Wes can stand up to it

I wonder how many people confuse him with Ramsey Clark? He he.

Go Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean! :toast:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kysrsoze]

12. Last time I checked, Bosnia et al were relatively conflict-free

BTW - please post your (credible) evidence on bombing civilian targets other than an accidental bombing.

[sasquatch]

20. Watch bowling for Columbine

That is all the evidence you need

[Zuni]

30. that is your evidence?

a propaganda film by Michael Moore (one with many documentable errors as it is), who has endorsed general Clark?

[sasquatch]

34. He hasn't endorsed Clark solely

He also has endorsed Kucinich and Dean. The footage in the movie is news footage of an obvious hospital. There arn't any inaccuracies in the film he just changed one scene because it offended people. All the stuff in his film is authentic and it is not propaganda what the hell are you a repug lite. If you are leave and go join the party of Satan and leave my party alone and stop trying to destroy it.

[Zuni]

39. huh?

I am not Repug lite. I don't nessecarily agree with something because Michael Moore puts in a film. I am not even a fan of Michael Moore. I hate his films-- they are childish, simplistic, arrogant and are designed to push his view without a solid analysis of the facts. That doesn't make me any less of a democrat. I am more of an old school new deal type rather than a modern liberal.

PS-- Any film that is designed to convey one point of view, riducule opposing points of view, and push an agenda is propaganda. A documentary would show all of the story, including opposition views.

[sasquatch]

42. There you go again

You obviesly didn't watch the film all the way through to the end. So you are a Limbaugh sympathieser whether you like it or not. The film wasn't about guns it was about racism and fear mongering in the media. He said it himself "guns don't kill people, Americans kill people". A new deal democrat BTW would support a Dean or Kucinich. Not a DLC limpwrist like Clark who will give the repugs pretty much everything they want.l

[Zuni]

46. I do support those two

and I like Clark. So sue me.

[w4rma]

51. IMHO, that's extremely harsh, sasquatch

I haven't Moore's film, nor has most of America. I'm a Democrat, and our political party has to appeal to most of America. Let's not try to make it appeal to less than most of America. Okay? :)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sasquatch]

18. The link is posted in the lounge

They showed him Briefing the DLC at their annual meeting. Don't you dare call me a left wing wacko if you don't want to be verbally ripped apart limb from limb.

[Zuni]

21. That doesn't mean

a lot. He is trying to get the various elements of the Democratic Party to back him. His views are pretty liberal, far more so than Lieberman.

[sasquatch]

28. John McCain is farther left than Lieberman

So that isn't saying much. The DLC wants him because they know they're guys LIEberman, Gephart and Edwards don't have a snowball's chance in hell. So they do what half ass republican thing they always do which is get someone else that can maybe save their sorry corporate whore asses.

[Julien Sorel]

47. LOL

One of the funniest posts I've seen in ages.

Oh please! Don't hurt me! Don't call me mean names on a message board!


Left wing? Maybe, maybe not. Wacko? Well, that one is pretty obvious.

[Zuni]

19. Marshal Tito killed over 100,000

people shortly after WWII, and that shut most of the opposition up. In fact Milosevic turned Clark into a hawk by saying he would do to the Muslims what the Titoists had done in 1946 to the Muslims in a certain area--kill them all.

Wes Clark commanded an effort to stop the serb military. He was only allowed to use air power. He did the best job he could, minimized civilian casualties (which were very low for a 78 day bombing campaign--single air raids in WWII caused more casualties--like the 3 day German raid on Belgrade in 1941 which killed 18,000--many times more than in the 1999 Kosovo campaign)

What civilian targets did Clark order to be hit? He had a legal team that advised him which targets were allowed to be hit under the Geneva convention and other international laws. He vetoed many strikes on many things because they could not be justified as 'pure' military targets.

The NATO countries worked very hard to prevent casulaties..
And who said Clark is a big buisness candidate? His views are classic liberal views, and I like his views alot. They are no way right wing--he is a progressive in a military uniform.

[sasquatch]

24. He blew up a hospital on April 16th 1999

Look you guy's are making a huge mistake getting behind Clark. Back Dean or Kucinich in the primary's and keep Clark around as a VP.

[Zuni]

26. Was it Clark's fault?

It could have been pilot error or bad intelligence. I seriously doubt that NATO just decided to bomb hospitals.

[sasquatch]

32. Could be

Look we've got the military technology to put a bomb in your living room from three thousand miles away or thurther. So you can't say he was trying to hit "solid military targets" when he's putting bombs close to hospitals.

[Zuni]

35. The Chinese Embassy

was hit because of Intelligence errors which showed a Serb intelligence office there. Clark did not intend to hit the embassy, but bad intelligence got NATO into a bind.
And smart bombs miss and pilot error is still a major factor, especially with laser guided weapons.
I seriously doubt Clark just decided to target hospitals.

[sasquatch]

40. But, you can't rule their side completly out though

[IranianDemocrat]

27. Kucinich will be president when monkeys fly out of my ass.

That guys should drop out.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zuni]

33. Dean and Kucinich

are my other candidates. Wes Clark is my favorite. His views , as he has recently expressed them are close to mine, and so is his manner of analyzing issues. I tend to be put off by ideologues and partisans--his nuanced, balanced views of issues that tend to show both the upside and downside, appeal to me strongly.
He thinks like me, has a high level froeign policy exp. is articulate and can beat Bush without a doubt.

[sasquatch]

45. I like the fact that you support Dean and Kucinich

I'm warning you though BE CAREFUL AROUND CLARK.

[Zuni]

25. I know my Balkans

The Muslims are seen as descendants of the Turks by many Serbian ultra natioanlists. Indeed, albanians and bosnians were often reffered to as Turks. The Muslims, and the Croats both had thousands of people fighting with the Nazis--there was even a Bosnian Muslim Division of the Waffen SS--the Handschar division.
The worst Balkan killer in modern times was Ante Pavelic, the Croatian Ustashe leader who was a fanatical Nazi ally and a genocidal maniac with the blood of millions on his hands

[sasquatch]

41. You're proving my point then, that it's one big mess

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. You know

This is ironic, but it seems these days that the
best candidates are the ones who are savaged.

Look at it this way... they savaged Dean
now they savage Clark... their real
nightmare will be Dean\ Clark, or Clark \Dean.

Point is, the more afraid they are of a candidate, the
more they will attack like dogs, to the point of slander.

Now the left has to understand (and I mean our own
loons), yes our military has done things that it is not
proud of (May Lai) but attacking a general just as a knee
jerk reaction is just stupid... do so on the program
he offers to the campaign, but not on what he did under
orders (and in his case to prevent further genocide, which
was very real)

Shame, that the loons on both sides attack the person, and
not the ideas.

by the way by this same standard George is a really weak
candidate since he was rarely, if ever, attacked.

[Maple]

11. Name the American who said:

'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'

That's politics guys.

[Pastiche423]

17. Harry S. Truman!

[Maple]

23. Ta da! You win a yak!

Report to the lounge.

[dfong63]

22. could it be,

the same one who said, "I don't give em hell, I just tell the truth, and they think it's hell!"

[Maple]

29. Okay, you get the Yak's thong

because you didn't name the speaker directly.

But you did come up with another quote of his...so we'll make it an unused thong. :D

[juajen]

37. Well said, however

I hate it when the heat comes from our own kitchen. I am a "bleeding heart liberal" who had five brothers in the military, a couple of them doing some very important things in service to our country. I am proud of all of them and especially the two who gave more than our other siblings. I'm sure they did not always like what they did; but, they believed in the greater good and the absolute need to have a military to protect and serve.

The same is true of General Clark and you who disparage him and his deeds need to be absolutely fair and accurate with your "facts". You know better than anyone else, the amount of disinformation that will be flooding the media. The more popular and threatening the candidate, the more trash will be printed about him. In attempting to defeat *, please make sure you do not defeat the democratic cause; support your candidate during the primaries, and then get behind the choice of the majority with everything you've got. DEMOCRATIC UNITY NOW IS VITAL.

[madrchsod]

31. right now

the united states defense is in control by a old man who has lost the respect of a great many military leaders in this country.also the president was awol or worse in veitnam,these military leaders know this. they also know that if we start another war somewhere where there is a creditable defence we will lose thousands of troops. i`ve said this since the start of the war,there must be generals in our army who now know who those german generals felt when they realized hitler was mad.
and as for the balkans-that can be laided at the door step of bush 0ne. they didn`t want to get involved ,they were more worried about firing saddam. so the balkans spiralled into mass murder and clinton couldn`t look away any longer.

[rosalux]

36. I am a Marxist, but I am not condemning you.

I am a Marxist who disagrees with capitalism and capitalist wars. I will, as a marxist, support the democratic candidate because I hope they will be more likely to promote policies that favor us workers over the wealthy than the republicans will. I am sure I would disagree with many of the viewpoints of others on this list, but you won't see me namecalling and being hateful. Let's work together on what we do agree on, and leave the namecalling to our common enemies. By the way, from the right wing's point of view--all of us are loonie Marxists!

[Zuni]

48. Social Democrat

I like a more socialized market economy, with certain things like health care, public transport, education including some college provided and some wealth redistribution through progressive taxation. I am not a true socialist, and not a true capitalist.

But I will vote for the liberal/progressive that can beat Bush and I think Clark or Dean can do it.

[Zuni]

49. BTW

Thank you for not namecalling--we have to be unified to beat Bush and the Rove Hate machine in 2004. That is not going to happen with all the trivial arguments over nuances of policy. Simply, we must all work together and stop with the attacks on each other.
We should find good things to say about all of Bush's potential opponents, becvause they are all a damn sight better than 4 more years with him.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Let's separate the war in the former Yugoslavia from Wesley Clark

No doubt in my mind that war crimes were committed by the US in our bombing campaign in Serbia, such as the bombings of the power plant that provided electricity to Belgrade, the Chinese Embassy, and Serbian TV, among others.

It was no secret that the CIA relied on Al-Qaeda to recruit Chechen, and other Islamic jihadists, for the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army.

The role of NATO in the Serbian campaign is viewed by many reputable human rights advocates as having violated the UN Charter and international law.

While Milovan Milosovic is facing trial for genocide at The Hague, I must point out that he was not the first Yugoslavian leader to engage in ethnic cleansing. That dubious honor goes to the late President of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman.

There is also little dispute of EU's own failure to prevent genocide in the Balkans, partly fueled by the pathological fears about an Islamic government in Europe.

The entire breakup of Yugoslavia was a major cluster fuck in which the entire international community bears responsibility, this includes the UN, the EU, Russia, and the US.

It is quite appropriate to raise questions about Wes Clark's conduct as NATO commander during the Serbian war. However, a cursory examination of Clark's command of NATO reveals no glaring acts of war crimes, particularly when compared with the actions by General Tommy Franks. Unlike the obvious illegal war of aggression that Franks planned for, and conducted against Iraq, Clark had at the very least a legal framework to operate from.

Let's separate the war in the former Yugoslavia from Wesley Clark. One cannot even begin to point fingers in the direction of Clark, without first taking into consideration the context of the war, and the role that NATO, the UN, Russia, and the US played. By the time we get through the entire cast of characters in this sorry episode, we may come to the conclusion, as I have, that Clark's conduct and behavior during the war in the former Yugoslavia was honorable and stands to close scrutiny.

Here is a 1999 WSWS article about the war in the Balkans that you should read as background:

The US and ethnic cleansing--the case of Croatia
By David North
15 April 1999

If the first casualty of war is the truth, the second, it would seem, is the capacity for critical thought. Beneath the mind-numbing pressure of unrelenting propaganda--centered on the fate of the Kosovar people--a large number of usually intelligent people are losing their political bearings and supporting the US-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. "Normally"--i.e., when there is no war in progress--they oppose imperialism and militarism. As a general proposition, they are against the waging of war for markets, profits and other geo-political strategical interests. But this war is different: it is being waged for "human rights," to save lives that are threatened by racially-motivated atrocities being committed by the military forces unleashed by the Yugoslav government. In such a situation, it is argued, one is left with no choice but to accept the necessity of war to stop the barbarism known as "ethnic cleansing."

This position seems, at least on the surface, very reasonable. After all, who possibly can argue against the moral imperative of saving lives? A political criminal--Milosevic--has been identified. The images of his numerous victims have been broadcast all over the world. If bombing is what it takes to deal with this criminal and end the carnage, then so be it.

However, if the history of the 20th century teaches us anything, it is to beware of such "self-evident" justifications for the wars waged by the major capitalist powers. In weighing the explanations offered by the United States and its West European NATO allies for this or some other military intervention, one must never fail to distinguish the various good reasons --i.e., those couched in suitably altruistic and moralistic terms--from the real reasons--i.e., considerations of international imperialist power politics and commercial-financial bourgeois class interests.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/croa-a15.shtml

In conclusion, I think that Milosevic has presented a vigorous defense during his trial at The Hague. I am curious if this man, whose sanity has come into question on more than one occasion, will be acquitted by the international court.

[dfong63]

50. does this count as a war crime?

helping raise funds for the repubs? info found by Mairead in just when and why did clark become a democrat?

this ought to qualify as something akin to a war crime, for a man who wants to be the leader of the dem party.

WTF???? cmon folks, we can do better than this.