Clark Supporters

[raysr]

"Democracy Now" has some disturbing stuff on Clark. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

[Bucky]

1. Democracy Now has been rehashing these old discredited smears for months

Sorry, but they're repeating themselves and calling it a story. How Foxy of them. The story is a fine example of using deconstruction to create ennuendo, but there's nothing really new here. I respect the hell out of DN, but they're really off the rails when it comes to Wes Clark.

The depleted uranium angle and the reasons for the bombing of wrong targets has been gone over extensively. In essense, depleted uranium is not harmful (unless it's shot at you) and the bombing of unintended targets in the Kosovo campaign was the direct result of the bomber altitude restrictions that Euro and American politicians placed on Clark to keep NATO aircraft out of AA range. This greatly hindered the effictiveness and accuracy of the bombing and Clark strongly advised against it before yielding to the civilian authorities on the matter.

[raysr]

2. Yeah

Gotta give Clark credit for stopping in the street and answering all Scahill's questions, most politicos would have scampered off.

[Terwilliger]

3. DEPLETED URANIUM IS NOT HARMFUL?!??!?!

Oh my freaking hamster! WTF are you talking about?

[SahaleArm]

6. WHO reports no effect - Next.

Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

[Frederic Bastiat]

7. Don't confuse folks with scientific facts and data n/t

[dfong63]

4. depleted uranium certainly is harmful

In essense, depleted uranium is not harmful (unless it's shot at you)

that is just plain wrong. sorry, Clark supporters, your man is dead wrong. there's plenty of real info out there, so ignorance is no excuse. here's just one link.

[wyldwolf]

9. I think I believe the World Health Organization on this

[Bucky]

5. I WAY mispoke, or mistyped rather. You're right of course. What I meant...

Was that it's not as harmful as full uranium. I typed in a hurry, for which I apologize. The main point I want to make is that wars are, as a rule, lose-lose situations. Fighting a war "humanely" is always an oxymoron at worst and a relative term at best.

One looks for tools to win fights as quickly as possible as decisively as possible--a key component of the Powell Doctrine, which I support even if Powell no longer does--and the DU armor piercers were a means to an end. There is no doubt in my mind that DU usage is preferable to tolerating ethnic cleansing. That doesn't make it a good decision, only the lesser evil.

It certainly doesn't qualify as a war crime, as some would present it. I apologize for my careless shorthand. I still think stopping the Serbian aggression by any means allowed by international law was a good thing and that the intent of the attacks on Clark in this matter is to emotionalize an issue rather than promote understanding of it.

[wyldwolf]

8. DEM Underground has been rehashing these old discredited smears for months