Democracy Now!: Wesley Clark Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia

[overground1]

In a Democracy Now! exclusive, General Wesley Clark responds for the first time to in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia, the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.

<snip>


JEREMY SCAHILL: General Clark, on that issue of the bombing of Radio Television Serbia, Amnesty International called it a war crime.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty called it a war crime and it's condemned by all journalist organizations in the world. It killed makeup artists.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew. He had the warning because after he got the warning, he actually ordered the western journalists to report there as a way of showing us his power, and we had done it deliberately to sort of get him accustomed to the fact that he better start evacuating it. There were actually six people who were killed, as I recall.

JEREMY SCAHILL: There were 16.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I recall six.


<snip>


JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of civilians that you essentially were overseeing?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.


MORE...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

[Rowdyboy]

1. One thread using this "headline" has already been locked

Skinner suggested using a title that actually suggests what the article said would be okay.

[overground1]

7. that is the title of the Democracy Now! article - perhaps you should read

If you don't like the title, take it up with the jornalist who conducted the interview and wrote the piece.

Or perhaps you should begin looking at General Clark with some intellectual honesty.

[Rowdyboy]

8. Its not me that locked the thread, my friend, it was Skinner

but you do exactly what you want.

[overground1]

11. It's time the party stops white-washing Clark's record

[wyldwolf]

12. Skinner isn't the party, he is the owner of DU

[tishaLA]

10. I've already listened to the report.

The title is misleading and Clark is honest and forthcoming with the reporter.

[wyldwolf]

2. What line in there did he "admit" it?

Hint: The TV station was a dual use facility - legitimate target by international law.

[JohnKleeb]

3. Do you have to remind me?

I know about this. Sorry, that whole war is personal to me. I know I am in the party minority on Kosovo, and I know that all the candiates but DK or maybe Sharpton supported it.

[Auntie Bush]

4. Here's my polite answer

On second thought...I'd better not say that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. No, he did not.

Change your title. :grr:

[wyldwolf]

6. Here's a reminder:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=196256&mesg_id=197223&page=

"It appears that the title of the article is misleading and does not accurately reflect the interview."

[overground1]

9. he does admit it, except he admits to only 6 of 16 in the radio station.

[wyldwolf]

14. Really? Where? In what line?

Hint: The TV station was a dual use facility. A legitimate target under international law.

[TacticalPeek]

17. No, he 'admits' no such thing; nah nah nahnah nah.

He admits civilian deaths, and expresses remorse.

Having read this Murdoch-titled 'interview' several times, I guarantee you that nowhere does he say he targeted civilians.

The difference between killing civilians and targeting civilians is not trivial.

[LandOLincoln]

23. I don't think Jeremy Scahill and/or Amy Goodman

did themselves any good with this interview. Goodman claims Kosovo was an illegal war because the UN didn't support it, but conspicuously omits to mention that the reason the UN Security Council would never have voted to support it was because of the Russians and their ties with the Serbs.

She also seems to dismiss NATO out of hand, claiming IIRC that there was no real coalition of nations involved in the war in Kosovo. This is a loose paraphrase at best, but it certainly seemed to me to be her meaning.

Scahill is simply incoherent and nearly hysterical, until he finally calms down and begins to listen to Clark.

And nobody is going to win points by supporting Milosevic.



edit because I still can't spell "Milosevic" without two tries

[overground1]

38. This sounds a lot like the Republicans' defense of the Iraq war:

"the reason the UN Security Council would never have voted to support it was because of the French and their ties with the Ba'athist regime."

"seems to dismiss the Coalition of the Willing out of hand, claiming IIRC that there was no real coalition of nations involved in the war in Iraq."

"And nobody is going to win points by supporting Saddam."


Can we maintain some level of consistency here?

[jmaier]

13. Is it my imagination OR

is this at least the 3rd identical thread today, at least two of home with a title that doesn't characterize the 40 minute interview properly at all?

[Rowdyboy]

15. Perhaps I'm not the one that needs to learn how to read...

Or think critically, or behave in an adult manner.

[overground1]

20. yeah, just keep sweeping the Amnesty International report under the rug...

Why can't you handle the truth about your candidate?

[wyldwolf]

25. Amnesty International does not determine guilt or innocence in war

sorry!

[overground1]

16. I changed the title to specify this is the title from Democracy Now!

I had a thread locked once for citing an article and not using the original title as my thread title. Now you want to tell me that I'm not allowed to use the original title of the article?

Which is it?

[wyldwolf]

19. ok, for the third time - demonstrate your knowledge of international law

and explain, based on international law (cite official documents) where Clark did anything illegal?

[Rowdyboy]

21. Which does nothing to correct the innacuracies in the headline

which is why the other thread was locked. Don't believe me? Check Ask the Administrators forum.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Folks, try this thread , it's a fair discussion without misleading headers

Same story minus the editorial spin found on this thread, which, you can see for yourself, is way over the top. Wonder why?

Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=197371

[Rowdyboy]

22. Thanks, Tom, for an adult reply

[overground1]

24. "Clark responds to Democracy Now with Integrity and Character" isn't spin?

:wow:

[LandOLincoln]

26. overground1, I'd appreciate some response to my earlier

post in this thread. Thank you.

[MrSlayer]

27. Nice, misleading headline.

Reads as if he intentionally went after civilians instead of other targets. Just a silly attack ad. I think he defends himself quite nicely.

[not systems]

28. For people who think the title is misleading here is the quote.

JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of civilians that you essentially were overseeing?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.




If the title is not accurate why does he feel remorse.

My thread on this was locked but this quote was correct.


FYI: I think this interview was very positive for Clark and improved my opinion of him.

[tishaLA]

29. Seems to me the correct headline would then be

"Clark expresses remorse for civilian deaths"

[overground1]

31. Take that up with Democracy Now! - they wrote the headline

Now it's bad enough that citizens' voices are censored here quite often, but now the media is to be censored too?

I thought this was "Democratic Underground".
Where's the democracy?

[tishaLA]

40. Who says anything about censorship?

[not systems]

32. Perhaps Clark's supporters on DU demand press censership...

would be an appropriate follow up title.

Clark's handling of the questions was much better than
his supporters reactions here.

[tishaLA]

39. Who "demand(s) press censorship"?

Not me.

Accurate headlines are helpful, though.

[overground1]

30. Thank you!

[MrSlayer]

33. Well.

Saying you are sorry that civilians got killed during operations you ordered is different than saying you targeted civilians on purpose, which is what this headline reads like.

[not systems]

35. The point is he knew they were there and still bombed them.

He does make a good case that Milosevic is to blame and the
court in the Hague has cleared him.

Of course for the dead and their families this means little.

[Hoppin_Mad]

34. But that was BEFORE he became a Dem - So all is forgiven (by many) -nt-

[bigtree]

36. He got pushed pretty bad

Got asked if he was responsible for the bombing of that train on the bridge and he answered that the bridge was the target. He said that it had been investigated. Fine enough I guess to exonerate the airman. I'm less sure that he's not responsible as the head of that operation. He did express what sounded like sincere remorse for the civilian killings. He seems like an exceedingly decent man. I wondered though as I listened to the report whether he should have also taken the blame for the Chinese Embassy bombing. But again he was remorseful and he said that he went to some lengths to warn the leaders there when civilian areas were under target. I believe that he probably operated in the Balkans with an informed restraint. That is no consolation for the people caught in the middle of the conflict. Yet, from a distance, it is the one military operation where the use of an intervention force (through NATO) seemed to have an agreed and workable purpose. The success of our intervention there, which unseated a dictator and his bloody henchmen, is confused by the carnage of the bombings, and the shifting alliances that we employed to get Milosevic. The success of the trial, and hopefully, the future reconciliation between the people of that region will perhaps help us to reason whether these types of interventions will be practicable for confrontations to come. Wes Clark has some of the answers to these questions. We should hear him out.

[nomaco-10]

37. The Clark implosion is "almost" difficult....

to watch. Many of us here tried to warn you about the kind of stuff that was out there and documented on Clark, but you just wouldn't listen. I've even seen several of his supporters jumping ship and jumping on the Edwards bandwagon on du today. Fine with me, the more Clark people that go over to Edward's, the quicker Lieberman and Sharpton get put out of the race.

[newyawker99]

41. Locking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=196256


This is a dupe of a locked thread. The title is misleading because Clark never said what the article alleges.


DU Moderator