Citizen Clark: Why Electing a Mass Murderer would be a Bad Idea

[seventhson]

Found this article at anti-war.com but I agree wholeheartedly with its analysis.

I am starting to feel like I am among a growing minority overcome by growing tides and bleating groups of Clarkizons toutying his "antiwar" and "democratic credentials.

That criminal whore right winger on CNN with Bill Hemmer and Soledad every morning was just GUSHING about Clark beating Bush just a minute ago.

Have we at DU become the howlers for a war criminal to beat Bush?

There are simply too many of these kinds of reports to make me feel anything other than utter contempt for Clark and his supporters. He could possibly even be worse than Kerry (although Kerry would probably make him Secreatry of Defense)


Anyway - here's the article that gave this topic its subject line by a European journalist who covered Kosovo:

http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html

Here's an excerpt for those loathe to travel:


Candidate Number Ten

Wesley Clark, former US Army general and Supreme NATO Commander in Europe, announced Wednesday that he will run for President of the United States in 2004 as a Democrat, joining nine other Democratic candidates vying for the opportunity to challenge George W. Bush.

Incongruously, Clark supporters and mainstream media seem to purport that he is running on an "antiwar" ticket. Only a few, including the Christian Science Monitor, believe that Clark could outflank Bush in his belligerence.

It's as if everyone has forgotten Wesley Clark was the Bomber of Belgrade, the highest-ranking military official in a cabal that systematically violated international law, the NATO Charter (and with it the US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2) and committed the greatest crime under the Nuremburg principles: that against peace.

Even Michael Moore, the gut-punch filmmaker who challenged the NATO attack (after a fashion) in his Oscar-winning feature "Bowling for Columbine," recently gushed over Clark. What has possessed all these people to believe that the answer to George W. Bush's policy of Global Balkanization lies in a man whose hands are drenched in Balkans blood?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. so

uh....

the point?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

5. What point?

There rarely is a point to these things.

[meegbear]

2. "Bomber of Belgrade"?

You sound like those right-wing nuts who call Janet Reno "The Butcher of Waco", whose actions must be avenged.

[wyldwolf]

3. Haven't you said you were leaving DU several times?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. So Bill Clinton is a war criminal?

Clinton was Clark's commander-in-chief. Clark did what he did under the orders of NATO. Should Clinton and Clark be hauled before the International Court for war crimes?

If you really believe he's a war criminal, let's get him in court ASAP. Now's the time to do it, when there's lots of publicity.

[nolabels]

36. The questions I would like to ask you do you believe him a hero?

1.Have you served in the military?
2.Where you ever in a war zone as a combatant?
3.Have you had any family members killed in a war zone?
4.Do you think killing people could solve problems?
5.Is it brave to drop ordinance from 20,000 feet in the air?

[BlueEyedSon]

6. "Even Nader would have bombed Afghanistan"

(in response to 9/11)
--quote from comedian David Cross.

I guess there is a place for a pure anti-war agenda. Just not on this planet.

[TorchTheWitch]

8. yawn

Should Clinton and Clark be hauled before the International Court for war crimes?

been there, done that. vindicated. you sure don't keep up with the news when it happens, do you?

this gets so tiresome.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. In my best Joseph Welch voice

"Sir, have you no decency."




on edit- this is intended for the original poster....

[Caution]

7. Have you actually read this article?

This article was written in support of Slobodan Milosovich. Now go and read some of the transcripts of the evidence presented thus far by the prosecution in this case. This is all a total crock of shit (and no I'm not a clark supporter). Please use reputable sources when accusing someone of being a wholesale war criminal. This isnt exactly a small charge, you are accusing a man of the worst types of crimes imaginable. Based on what? The words of a regime that is actually on trial for war crimes, where actual evidence has been presented and is currently being deliberated. This is a t least the second time you have mentioned the bombing of TV stations in belgrade as a source of a war crime. What the hell are you talking about? TV stations are used for command and control in times of war, are used as propaganda tools in times of war (which anyone who has studied war will tell you can be as important as the actual troops on the ground). Do some damn research, find some ACTUAL relevant evidence before you levy a charge as serious as this. You sound like Ann Coulter shrilly proclaiming that all liberals as traitors.

Fine you may be a pacifist, who believes that anyone wwho participates in war is a terrible person. If that is so, base your argument on that but don't base it on specious, second-hand info provided from an obviously biased and questionable source.

On Edit:

Let's take a look at this article you present as "proof" of war crimes quickly:

point one: war crimes in kosovo. One sentence sums it up rather neatly:
"Unlike Slobodan Milosevic, who was accused of "command responsibility" for alleged genocide and crimes against humanity in the Balkan Wars without a shred of reliable evidence, there is plenty of proof in Clark's case."

I will not take the word of a Milosevic collaborator, because i have in fact been following this case and Milosevic will go down in history as a war criminal and probably the worse since the Khmer Rouge.

Point Two:
Russians take a military installation without informing the US of intentions to do so and are in the way of a UN sanctioned military campaign. Clark orders their removal and someone makes some comment about WWIII. WWIII does not follow from this. Learn to argue effectively. Sounds like a bad idea to attack russian troops, but to start WWIII? hardly.

Point Three:
A single quote from a lower-ranking officer is used to portray a 20+ year military career of success after success as a failure. Do you even recognize blatant propaganda of the most obvious kind?

Point Four:
Here this asshole acknowleges that Clark had nothing to do with Waco. So why even bring it up? Because people only see the headline. He can say "hey i said he had nothing to do with it" but idiots who don't read the article come away thinking that Clark was solely responsible for this debacle.

Point Five:
Specious comparison to Osama Bin Laden (Bush regime tactic. Terra! Terra! run and hide! give up your freedom! vote for me becuase i can protect you!) This comparison is based on the above 4 "points" all of which are total freaking nonsense.

Do you actually get a paychek from Karl Rove or are you just flat out too stupid to see this garbage article for what it is?

[WoodrowFan]

11. Didn't you know

only Americans can be war criminals! People like Milosovich are good, honest freedom fighters! Didn't you get that memo.

[Blue_Chill]

24. Great post.

I couldn't have said it any better.

[German-Lefty]

35. Amen brother

Good old Milosevic was doing a little ethinic cleansing -- war on terrorism. Some Isreals, Russians, and right wingers think killing anything muslim is justified and we had no right to interfere. Stop quoting them.

[clar]

9. This is over the top

get a grip.

[cprise]

10. Yikes

''When the invading British troops encountered the Russians at the Pristina airport, Clark hysterically ordered British commander General Sir Michael Jackson to dislodge them by force. Jackson refused, reportedly saying, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." ''

[Zuni]

14. That is not what happened

Clark ordered Jackson to send troops to block the runway at Pristina with vehicles.
The Russians had told NATO they were not going to move into Kosovo, but soon after, NATO discovered they began moving troops in and were sending plane loads of soldiers to land at Pristina.
Clark was afraid the Russians would try to divide up Kosovo like Germany, and the Russians were very pro-Serb. Clark was afraid they would build up the Serbs in Northern Kosovo.

[cprise]

21. Clark supporters should clear this up

...With credible sources.

I'd be interested in seeing what Le Monde or The Guardian has to say about it.

Anyway, why would Jackson make that comment is he was only ordered to block the Russians?

[returnable]

29. Clark supporters need to clear it up?

This situation has been discussed ad nauseum here (and elsewhere) for weeks now.

It's a provocative pull-quote, but when you do the actual research, it doesn't really have much sting. Clark even discusses the situation in detail in his book. So it's not like this is some buried skeleton.

I would suggest everyone should do a little research before using such quotes.

THAT would clear A LOT of things up :)

[LibInternationalist]

15. Talk about your war criminals...

Mike Jackson was in command at Bloody Sunday, in Derry, Northern Ireland (look it up!) -- AND, Clark did not order them to be dislodged, but to get to the airport first

[Zuni]

19. exactly

Mike Jackson was in command in Derry? In fairness, it does not seem that the massacre was ordered by the command, or even supported--it seems it was a case of the Paras being trigger happy during a protest, especially as it turned into a riot. But the high command did try to cover it up by saying IRA fighters had infiltrated the protests and been armed.

[nomaco-10]

12. Who are you?

I've been struggling with whether or not to even read GD, much less post here anymore. I thought I was joining a think tank full of democrats with one glorious goal, to unelect the selected pResident. Instead, I have to sift thru this kind of shit on a daily basis.
Pacifists, Socialists, Libertarians, Globalists, Greens, Populists, hell, I've encountered a poster here that said he/she was an Anarchist. Is it just plain uncool to be a democrat anymore? Am I in the wrong forum? The name is misleading, you'll have to admit, I thought it was DEMOCRATIC Underground, excuse me.

[Democat]

13. Didn't you know Ralph Nader had multiple accounts here at DU?

Don't worry, once the campaign gets into full swing he'll be too busy bashing Democrats on TV to bother with posting on DU. :)

Don't let the Dem haters get you down!

[salin]

16. Many good analytical minds here

a few prone towards fantasy, and a few blinded by intraparty-partisanship.

The few are not worth shucking the value of the many. Learn those who tend to start discussions (or hijack them) that fall into the latter categories - and skip them. Learn those who tend to start policy/analytical discussions and read/participate on those.

These days it pays to do a little selective reading when it comes to GD. LBN is still pretty great.

[Blue_Chill]

25. Amen

At times it seems that true democrats are the minorty on DEMOCRATIC underground.

[salin]

28. I think that is an unfair overstatement.

Read closely and in terms of the number of posters going gaga over this sort of stuff is small compared to the number of posters engaged in other conversations. Where there are blindspots is among the intraparty tied-to-a-single-candidate faithful that seem to enjoy 'deathmatch' sort of shouting matches. Those are much more common in terms of numbers of posters. But even on those there are an increasing number of fair posters -even those tied to a particular candidate.

I think the sane, the fair, and the thoughtful posters still outnumber the other. Just in our protests of these such threads that these voices get amplified.

[Blue_Chill]

30. "at times"

I know that democrats outnumber the nuts on DU that's why I said "at times" it can be difficult to find a dem. Not most of the time, but every now and then the inmates take over the asylum.

[salin]

32. While I agree that it sometimes feels/looks that way

I still contend that even at those moments there are - in sheer number - more sane postings going on than - over the edge ones.

But there are times it does feel/read that way - I concede that point.

[noiretextatique]

38. is clark a democrat...yet?

seriously...is he?

[Blue_Chill]

39. yes.

he finally announced this a few weeks ago. Check out his webiste (link on the DU home page) for more info.

[noiretextatique]

41. thanks...better late than never

we have a lot of converts right here at DU.

[Zuni]

17. The hands most drenched in Balkan blood

are the hands of the Serbian command, who waged ruthless war on the non Serbians for a decade.
NATO, which was created to defend Europe, was tasked to stop the most outright case of organized brutality in over 40 years in Europe. The balkans were a serious problem, and had not NATO confronted the Serbs, then it could have become far worse.

If NATO hadn't done anything in Bosnia or Kosovo, we would be looking at pictures of mass graves, mutilated corpses and starving refugees and asking 'why didn'y NATO do something to stop this brutality?'

[Kathy in Cambridge]

20. Amen, Zuni

As someone who studied the former Yugoslavia in grad school and whose good friend worked for Doctors Without borders during the Bosnian conflict, I can tell you that had NATO not intervened, there would still be an ongoing civil war and slaughter in the Balkans.

Milosevic and his Bosnian Serb counterparts have gotten their just desserts in the Hague.

[Dookus]

22. Shame on you....

shame!

[birdman]

23. Did Clark kill Wellstone with a jerry-rigged microwave oven ?

or was that Karl Rove ?

Does he belong to a secret society that controls the world ?

or is that Kerry ?

Did he murder all the Kennedy's, Martin Luther King, Bob Marley
and Jimi Hendrix ?

or was that the Bush family ?

It's just so hard to keep all this straight.

I was sitting in a restaurant in Kosovo eating
strawberries when all these bombs started falling.

[kodi]

26. your "clark caused haitian men to grow large breasts" thread was better

BTW clark wets the bed, pass it on.

[DinahMoeHum]

27. Yawn. The Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed syndrome

strikes again.

:grr:

[UTUSN]

31. & We Have a Consensus. Hit "Alert". I Did. n/t

[janekat]

33. Unfortunately, A lot of people fall for this b.s.

We are informed enough to know better.

[maha]

34. I hate pacifists.

Wesley Clark wanted to go into Kosovo on the ground, which would have reduced the number of civilian deaths while putting soldiers at greater risk. Clinton vetoed this idea.

Therefore, the civilian deaths are on Clinton's hands, not Clark's, and I am no Clinton-basher. But that's how it is.

[underpants]

37. LOL

One of the greatest subject lines I've ever seen on DU.

Look I understand pacifists and their commitment but unfortuneately sometimes war is necessary or at least military actions. I have no problem with our efforts in Kosovo and Bosnia, all in all it was the right thing to do.

[diplomats]

40. Good point

about the ground troops.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. First Clark is a war criminal for the air war when others stopped him

from putting troops on the ground. Then he is a war criminal for bombing tanks with DU ( as if he PUT the DU in the bombs) then he is a war criminal for the poker game played wih Pristina which ultimately resulted in Hungary not allowing their airspace to be used.

THEN, he put troops on the ground as he had requested all along and the major fighting was over within a week.

Of course, he is also a war criminal in your book by delousing Haitians at Guantanamo even though it was proven by a poster he wasn't even there.

[Skinner]

43. I'm locking this thread.

I think we've hit a new low -- referring to one of our candidates as a "mass murderer".

Pure flame bait.

[seventhson]

44. Well, I did not expect a parade...Ignorance is so American!!!

And I am not much of an exception.

I decided before responding to do a little research on the author of the article, Malic.

Like the Counterpunch article which claimed Clark was not only a war criminal but also was in charge when guantanamo Haitian refugees were sprayed with toxic chemicals (the truth of which is still unclear to me as there are conflicting reports -- but Clark CLEARLY was involved in Haitian issues and may have had a hand at Guantanamo when the incidents occurred), I posted this article to get discussion going and to vet the issue.

I aslo post this for informational purposes. If I am totally wrong on these issues I weelcome critique and evidence to prove me wrong.

I am still learning about Clark and trying to figure out HOW untrustworthy I believe him to be.

Trust has to be earned, from my perspective and I do not trust any candidate until I know a LOT about them. Trust is also relative. Same with journalists: you must read what theyw riter and hold them up to sacrutiny to see if their opinions and facts hold water.

I found this for a better explanation of Malic's perspective on the war in general. He believes Clark is a war criminal. I tend to agree with him because of his use of depleted uranium - and the massive civilian casualties.

However, I am not clear enough on the history of the war to really say whether it was justified or even conducted in accordance with inbternational conventions.

I DO know that the media lies to us all the time and that what many of us perceive as a clear necessity for a war may well be a corporate fascist snowjob conducted for mucg more sinister regions. And the civiliansd pay the price.

My understanding of the war was in part that there were mineral reserves we wanted to preventy the Russians from, getting.

Was that a worthy purpose as in Vietnam or Iraq it was claimed to be?

I do not have an answer to that.

So my purpose in posting this article is to provide a slant that is different from the right wing flag waving media-blinded gung-ho Clarkite's perspective.

I believe Clark is a corporate fascist sent in by the Pentagon and power elites to derail Dean.

If this is so we have to look at ALL the data on him to determine whether or not ANY of these articles is true.

If you want to know more about the author of this article to assess his "agenda", who resides in and writes in the USA, then please check this out (I found it very educational even if the perspective I am not sure I agree with):


http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m062603.html