The Essence of Wes Clark

[xkenx]

Wes Clark inspires like no one since Bobby Kennedy if you get to see Clark in person, or in venues other than where he gets 30 seconds to soundbyte. His speech, reclaiming the flag for Dems. at the Convention nearly took the roof off the building. Elizabeth Drew wrote during the primaries that she attended a Clark rally where the intensity, the loyalty, the response to Clark's words, were unlike anything she has seen since RFK. This guy doesn't have to be a down home charmer--he's himself, which is all about duty, honor, country, and plain talk in easy-to-understand-language. He recently coined the phrase, "Two foot rattlesnake in a box" when referring to not needing to give a priority to going after Saddam Hussein. This guy gets it and has it.
I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question."


2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it; she's worth $100M of free advertising to get out the RETHUG! vote. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

Much needed reminder. real courage - not opportunistic turncoat.
Perle on Clark - October 2002:
"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPrepared ...

and Wellstone:

But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
Paul Wellstone- antiwar speech in senate 2002
www.wellstoneaction.org

[Clark2008]

1. Did you see his interview with Barbara Boxer on the Clarkcast?

Good stuff!

http://securingamerica.com/

[xkenx]

25. I have to get to the T-1 line at my office to download it.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

2. I've always liked Clark & he was my first choice in 2004

The repukes went after him hard with stories about bad references from other generals about him. Try to protray him as weak. Amazing how these Chicken Hawk F*ckers get away with attacking real veterns while they never served.

[DanCa]

3. Progressive, Smart, Tough, Independent

That's Clark in a nut shell. And he never...ever...backed Dubya's war. Michael Moore endorsed him for petes sake. Trust me Clark is strong enough to take out both Rudy and Mccain.

[AtomicKitten]

4. New fragrance?

Plus he's sooooooooooooo good-looking!

Yep, I supported Wes in the 2004 primary and will proud to do so again if my boyfriend, Al Gore, declines to run, which he better not.

[xkenx]

5. Yes, it's L'Essence du Clark

So refreshing.

[Clark2008]

6. Smells like a winner!

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

7. beat me to it

why I oughta ...

[Clark2008]

15. There's my former senator (and VP and ELECTED president)

:)

I'm a blue Tennessee gal. :hi:

[Placebo]

8. The same can be said about a lot of other politicians.

"They're so great" "They're so inspiring" "Their one speech back in the day just electrified people" "blah blah blah..."

Clark is nothing special. He's a good looking former General with an extremely small but extremely loyal following. In 2008, he will get squashed by even the worst candidates in the running.

The best his supporters can hope for is maybe a VP selection, or maybe a secretary of some kind. But Wes Clark will never be President of the United States.

[AtomicKitten]

9. so sayeth the pessimist (n/t)

[xkenx]

10. No, Wes Clark IS Someone Special.

That is why he has such a dedicated following. For someone who entered the race late, as a political neophyte, he did pretty well. He was third to Kerry and Dean in N.H. (guys from the neighboring states who has worked N.H. for years), won in Oklahoma. Did better than Joementum and Edwards most places, and better than all the other dropouts. The next time, with an early start, and a lot of builtup savvy, things will be different. My point was that exposure is all Clark needs to have people recognize a leader and a person with monumental character.

[xkenx]

17. Ah, I see your website reference is hillaryclinton.com

Your agenda is clear. As much as I like HRC as a senator, as the Dem. nominee in 2008, she would be a disaster for the party. Rightly (or mostly wrongly) she is a poster child for right wing attacks, and would help get out the Rethug vote. She could get the nomination on name recognition, but her following is minimal among those who follow the process closely. Witness the polling here and on DKos. A lot of this is because of her "Blowin' in the Wind" posture recently. Just what the American people want to see--another politician with a wet finger in the air, waffling on their values and their positions. Too many people see Democrats as wimps on all matters. People will vote for someone who has clear moral values and is willing to take a principled stand on matters, even if some are different from their own. Wes Clark has the dedicated following that he has because he is more than his technical qualifications. He is "Mr. Integrity, Mr. Principle, Mr. True Leader."

[Larry in KC]

24. For a supporter of Hillary Clinton...

...to say "Clark is nothing special" is beyond the pot calling the kettle black.

It implies a fundamental misunderstanding of Wes Clark, Hillary, or more likely, both.

[Clarkie1]

28. How can you possibly compare Wes Clark to politicians? n/t

[Dinger]

55. Same Ol', Same Ol'

:boring:

It seems you haven't changed a bit, well, neither have I!

[Radical Activist]

11. Too bad he has never won an election.

Until he does that its all big talk and hot air.

[AtomicKitten]

12. wow that's a lot of hostility

expressed towards a really decent man.

Can't wait for the 2008 primaries. I'll be rooting for Al Gore if you want to start compiling insults early.

And FTR Clark won the 2004 Oklahoma primary.

[Radical Activist]

14. Its a simple statement of fact.

Winning the Oklahoma primary by less than 1% didn't get him elected to anything.
Until Clark gets elected to something all the claims about his ability to attract swing state voters and win the presidency is pure speculation.

[incapsulated]

16. Presidential politics is always speculation

What can you tell me about how a Governor from a tiny rural state in the northeast would do on the national stage?

How about a multi-term Senator from a famously liberal state?

Considering the fact that Clark had about a week to pull together a campaign and a staff made up of drafters and leftovers and run against seasoned politicians who had been campaigning for two solid years, he did phenomenally well.

[AtomicKitten]

20. well said

[AtomicKitten]

19. well, your fact wasn't a fact after all -- he DID win something

You know, if he runs and you don't like him, don't vote for him.

It's rather premature to throw cold water on the process, doncha think?

No worries. I realize some people get off on stuff like that.

[Radical Activist]

21. When you win an election, you take office.

Gore is the only exception. One primary does not make an election victory. If he had won the election he would have been the nominee.

[AtomicKitten]

22. the important thing is that a Democrat beats the Republican

I trust on that we can agree.

[Clarkie1]

29. Wow! What a brilliant statement!

"If he had won the election he would have been the nominee."

Thanks so much for pointing that out! How do you come up with these kind of insights?

Edit: Actually, it's the person who wins the most delegates that is nominated, but still, your statement shows real brilliance, "radical."

[Radical Activist]

112. Apparently its not that obvious

Considering the several people who responded to me claiming that Oklahoma is some kind of election victory. If he had ever won an election, he would be in office. The obvious had to be stated for your fellow Clark supporters due to their "brilliance."

[iconoclastNYC]

33. Wow Oklahoma!!!

Population 3,450,654

Bush got 66% of the vote in Oklahoma in 2004.

Not exactly a pivotal state to win.

And he beat out Edwards by mere 1,216 votes.

Not exactly what you'd call a blowout.

Btw.... in 2004 you needed 2,162 delegates to win. Clark got an abysmal 57. By way of comparison Al Sharpton got 27 and Kucinich got 23.

[Clarkie1]

35. Very impressive, actually.

Considering Clark had never run for public office before, and got a late start, he did remarkably well. No political newcomer has ever achieved what Clark achieved so quickly in the history of American politics.

It was an unprecedented achievement, and something to build upon.

[iconoclastNYC]

36. Winning a couple primaries is a huge achievement?

Wow...talk about lowering expectations.

I think it's pretty pathetic considering all the high profile endorsements he got.

If you ask me Clark is all hype and no substance. He's a product and I think he'd be closer to Clinton whereas I want a Kennedy or a Roosevelt.

[Clarkie1]

42. Absolutely!

Please find another example in the history of the Republic where someone who has never held public office has done so well in the nominating process for a political party the first time out.

If you don't get back to me, I'll assume you were unable to find one.

[Gloria]

45. He won the OK primary and his positions in the other races

before dropping out were quite respectable....

[Dinger]

57. Keep Saying That If It Brings You Comfort

You'll change your tune when he's nominated, but the 2006 elections are so much more important right now. Let's concentrate on 2006, shall we?

Peace,


Ding

[Radical Activist]

114. It brings me a reality check

If you want me to focus on '06 then change your sig pic.

[Dinger]

116. I Like My Sig Pic Just Fine Thank You

You should focus on 2006 because it is more important than 2008, not because of a sig pic.

[roguevalley]

102. check out Wes Clark's travel and speaking agenda the past two

years. Not hot air. The man is the one who will pull the disaffected together with the true believers. If Hillary runs or Kerry, well, I will truly despair. They are yesterday's news to me.

[JNelson6563]

108. uh oh

You threw cold water on a swoon thread....

:popcorn:

[reorg]

13. You put it well: "wolf in sheep's clothes". I would not trust him.

did he hesitate to remain NATO commander during the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/13/1437208


Friday, May 13th, 2005
War Resister Pablo Paredes Wins Surprise Victory: Military Judges Orders No Jail Time For Refusing Deployment Orders

...

AMY GOODMAN: That a soldier would have reason to believe that the wars in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq were illegal. Pablo Paredes, we are joined by Marjorie Cohn for just the last minute. She testified, as you said, during your court martial, Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego and Executive Vice President of the National Lawyers Guild. Marjorie Cohn, can you talk about the significance of what the judge said, and this is after you had testified?

MARJORIE COHN: Yes. Pablo paraphrased it very well, and what happened was that the military prosecutor was trying to undermine my testimony about the legality of the Iraq War, and he had looked at some of the articles I had written, and I had written articles about the illegality of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Yugoslavia, as well. And so he asked me questions like: Well, you would also say then that the war in Afghanistan was illegal, right? And he expected me just to have a “yes” answer, and I think he expected that that would be such a ridiculous response that it would speak for itself. But I actually explained my answer and about why it violated the U.N. Charter and then I gave a hypothetical. Do you have time for me to give this hypothetical?

AMY GOODMAN: We have thirty seconds.

MARJORIE COHN: Oh, thirty seconds? It was about if the Shah of Iran, you know, was overthrown, comes to the U.S., and then the Iranian government says, you know, give him back to us, he was a torturer and murderer, and if you don't we will invade you. And if that would be lawful the same way -- if Bush's attack on Afghanistan was also lawful. And then I said that the war in Yugoslavia was also unlawful because it violated the Security Council, violated the U.N. Charter, and that regime change is illegal, kicking out Milosevic. And so, because the prosecutor was eliciting this testimony from me, the judge then made that statement, that, in fact, the prosecution had just successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe those wars were illegal. And the gist of my testimony during the sentencing phase, where the legality of the war was put on trial, was to corroborate the reasonableness of Pablo's beliefs that the war is illegal, that U.S. troops that participate in the war are put in a position to commit war crimes, and by boarding that ship and delivering Marines to Iraq to fight in an illegal war and possibly commit war crimes, Pablo would have been complicit in those crimes and therefore the orders to board that ship were illegal, and Pablo had a duty to disobey them, both under the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

...

More from law professor Marjorie Cohn:

PACIFICATION FOR A PIPELINE: EXPLAINING THE U.S. MILTARY PRESENCE IN THE BALKANS
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew22.htm

THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION: WHAT IS IT AND WHY DOESN'T THE U.S. WANT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT TO PUNISH IT?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew18.htm

http://www.tjsl.edu/index.cfm?sID_int=43&rID_int=4&xID=11

[xkenx]

18. I Reversed the old "Wolf -in-sheep's-clothing" theme,

Read carefully. I meant that many red-staters will look at the uniform that Clark used to wear and be comfortable voting for him, stereotyping what he is about. In reality, Clark is a true progressive, and anti-war, like so many who have seen the horrors of unnecessary wars firsthand.

[FrenchieCat]

27. I'm impressed! Not.....

So I bet Ms. Cohn thinks that Bill Clinton was a war criminal for stopping genocide in Kosovo after the we all sat back and watched 200,000 Bosnians die in the Bosnian War?....and Milosovic must have been just "takin' care of Business", right? Guess he was just at the Hague for doin' what needed to be done? :sarcasm:

Yeah.....I understand that train of thought. It's called "let them die, cause it sure in the hell ain't my business!"

[Dinger]

60. He Only Had A Part In Saving The Lives Of 1.5 Million Ethnic Albanians, So

he must have problems.:sarcasm:

[reorg]

66. You mean like

in "bomb refugee columns when they are headed the wrong way"?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03142006.html

>> March 6, 1999
The Laptop Bombardiers
By Alexander Cockburn

... So the NATO bombs began to fall and, exactly as could have been predicted, the Serbian brutalities in Kosovo escalated and the tidal wave of refugees began. Everything has gone according the script. NATO bombs destroying Serbian civilian infrastructure: power plants, sewage treatment, electricity and gas and oil supplies. Everything that's hit is hastily described by NATO spokesmen as "dual purpose," (i.e., possibly also for Serb military use) unless it's obvious to all that only peasants, with no conceivable "dual purposes" have been blasted to bits. Wednesday last saw the mad NATO supreme commander, Wesley Clark, utter his most deliberate and obvious lie to date, when he said that "There was a military convoy and a refugee convoy. We struck the Serb convoy and we have very strong evidence that the Serbs then retaliated by attacking the column of refugees." By the next day it became clear that there was no "Serb convoy," no "very strong evidence" and that an Albanian column of refugees on tractors had been killed by NATO bombers. <<

[FrenchieCat]

89. The death toll in Kosovo was estimated at approx 500 Civilians....

While 200,000 died in Bosnia a couple of years prior.....and approximately 10,000 died in Kosovo prior to NATO intervention.

You are choosing to think that conflicts can be resolved without any bloodshed...I choose to think that as little bloodshed as possible is the best that we can hope for.

Barbara Boxer during the Condi Rice SOS Hearings, said....
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...

[reorg]

62. I cannot tell you

what Ms. Cohn thinks - why don't you just read what she writes?

>> ... Walter Rockler, another Nuremberg prosecutor, has said the United States initiated a war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He wrote in the Chicago Tribune: "The notion that humanitarian violations can be redressed with random destruction and killing by advanced technological means is inherently suspect . . . This is mere pretext for our arrogant assertion of dominance and power in defiance of international law." ... <<

Something that Democrats should now, finally, strongly disavow instead of putting one of the foremost perpetrators at the helm.

(There was no genocide in Kosovo. The NATO invasion, after destroying some six or seven Yugoslav tanks and a great number of innocent civilians, finally achieved that Yugoslavia agreed to terms they already had agreed to in Rambouillet ...)

[FrenchieCat]

91. There was no genocide in Kosovo....because NATO intervened!

That's what we are supposed to have done.

Should we have waited until 300,000 bodies were piled to the sky...and then gone in and see what we could do. How ludicrous!

First, I want to say that the Right Wing is happy that you have determined that no Genocide was occuring in Kosovo....cause that is what they have been saying for quite some time.

Genocide By Mass Starvation;
NATO Strategy Makes Sense On One Level. But, In Humanitarian Terms, It's A Fatal Miscalculation. Los Angeles Times
April 25, 1999, Sunday, Home Edition

http://www.refugees.org/news/op_eds/042599.htm
President Slobodan Milosevic's ability to stop and start massive refugee flows out of Kosovo is a chilling sign of his power and intent. From the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge, closed borders have been a serious sign that genocide is occurring. Genocide does not require gas chambers or even mass graves. A favored tactic is calculated mass starvation. That is what is happening in Kosovo.

Serb forces used food as a weapon during the war in Bosnia. They rarely engaged in battle, preferring to surround and besiege an area, subject it to shelling and cut it off from food.

Long before the bombing began, Milosevic began a systematic campaign to deplete Kosovo of its food resources. Beginning last summer, Serb forces:

restricted importation of basic items into Kosovo, including wheat, rice, cooking oil, sugar, salt, meat, milk, livestock, heating fuel and gasoline;

looted warehouses and burned fields, haystacks, winter food stocks and firewood.

killed livestock and often dropped their carcasses into wells to contaminate the water;

shot at ethnic Albanian farmers trying to harvest or plant;

Harassed, persecuted and sometimes killed local humanitarian aid workers;

created nearly 300,000 internally displaced people, most of whom stayed with private families, eating what private stores of food they had managed to save.

In the best of times, Kosovo is not a self-sufficient food producer. By early this year, with planting and harvesting brought to a halt and with food stocks consumed or destroyed, there were no food reserves outside Serbian government shops. Most of the population was dependent on humanitarian aid delivered through a network of U.N. agencies and local and international nongovernmental organizations. That network is gone. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Program are out of Kosovo. International nongovernmental groups have been expelled and are now working with refugees outside Kosovo. Local nongovernment groups have been decimated, their staff members lucky to become refugees themselves.

Before NATO's military objectives can be achieved, Milosevic will already have accomplished his objective: Grinding down Kosovo's 1.8 million ethnic Albanians. One rule of war is this: Men with guns do not starve; civilians do. NATO is not going to beat the Yugoslav military by starving them out, and if it did, the civilians would perish long before them.

As hunger and disease loom, various interim steps have been suggested: internal safe havens, food air drops, humanitarian corridors. Each is flawed, largely because each requires cooperation from Milosevic that in all likelihood will never come to be. Milosevic could achieve his aims simply by dragging his feet.

Everyone is concerned about the lives of NATO servicemen, but the people on the executioner's block cannot wait for a risk-free, soldier-friendly environment for their rescue. They can't wait for the amassing of 200,000 troops, if that will take months of buildup and field support. They can't wait for a "permissive environment."

Mass Graves, Mass Denial (PDF)
http://www.bard.edu/bgia/journal/vol2/63-66.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm
Did the Serbs commit genocide?
Civilian populations are increasingly being targeted during recent civil wars. However, atrocities must match certain specific criteria before they are considered genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The proscribed acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring its children to another group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part."
Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia during the mid 1990s started as mass expulsions of civilians. It escalated to include internment in concentration camps, mass executions, rapes, etc. There was a clear policy by the Serbs "to exterminate Muslim Bosnians as a group..." Their actions were generally considered to be genocide. There is a general consensus that widespread atrocities were also committed by the Muslims and the Croats (largely Roman Catholic). But the level of their war crimes did not reach genocidal proportions.

There have been allegations that the Serbs were engaged in genocide in Kosovo before and during the NATO bombing. Media correspondents and human rights investigators conducted large-scale interviews of Kosovar refugees. The data collected show that the Geneva Conventions concerning civilians had been ignored and that extremely serious war crimes were perpetrated by the Yugoslavian army, police and militias. There appeared to be a consensus of human rights investigators that the quantity and type of documented atrocities proved that genocide was committed by the Yugoslavian government against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This belief was confirmed as the NATO forces occupied Kosovo. Mass graves were located and are being systematically examined by forensic specialists. Ethnic Albainians came out of hiding with horrendous stories to tell. In excess of 11,000 murders were reported to authorities. According to a report by the U.N.'s chief prosecutor in Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, on 1999-NOV-10, 2,108 complete corpses and an unknown but large number of incompete corpses were found. By 1999-NOV, a total of 195 grave sites in Kosovo had been analyzed; another four hundred remained to be investigated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2147781.stm
Mass grave found near Srebrenica
Tuesday, 23 July, 2002, 22:35 GMT 23:35 UK
Forensic experts in Bosnia have discovered a mass grave in the north-east of the country, close to the site of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. It is thought the grave contains the bodies of Bosnian Muslims killed by Bosnian Serb forces after they captured Srebrenica.

Skeletons 'incomplete'
The grave site was discovered on Monday near the Serb-held village of Kamenica, some 70 kilometres (45 miles) north-east of Sarajevo.

The commission said it had "reliable proof" that the remains were transported to the grave from another location, in order to conceal the remains from war crime investigators.

He said some of the skeletons were incomplete, and that others were found with their hands bound by wire.

More than 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed after the fall of Srebrenica, in the worst massacre Europe has seen since World War II.

So far 6,000 bodies have been exhumed from numerous mass graves around the town, but only 300 have been identified.

Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic have been implicated in the Srebrenica massacres.

New mass grave found in Kosovo as Milosevic trial nears
Posted: 02/11/2002 11:10 amLast Updated: 2002-02-11 11:58:09-05
Kroni I Mbretit, Yugoslavia - Kosovo villagers have discovered a new mass grave, just two days before former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic goes on trial for engineering genocide in their province.

The remains were uncovered in western Kosovo on Sunday. The remains of up to 20 bodies were found in a shallow grave by children playing in the area.

Several villagers living near the grave will offer testimony in the upcoming trial of Milosevic, which starts tomorrow in the Hague, but their testimony will focus on other events, and not the grave uncovered Sunday.http://www.wndu.com/news/022002/news_12301.php

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/09/serb.grave/
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia -- Serbian forensic experts have discovered another mass grave near a lake in southwestern Serbia.
The grave is believed to contain bodies of ethnic Albanians killed during the 1999 war in Kosovo

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/11/bosnia.pit/index.html
Bosnia mass grave found
June 11, 2001 Posted: 3:58 AM EDT (0758 GMT)
MOUNT MALUSA, Bosnia -- A mass grave containing bodies of victims of the notorious Foca prison camp has been discovered in Bosnia, Reuters has reported.
Bosnian Muslim officials found the grave hidden deep in a dense forest after receiving a letter signed by "a Serb from Foca," the agency said.
The Kosovo War started in April of 1999, and it was based on an active plan of Genocide by Milosovic that was being carried via displacement, starvation, destruction, and yes, murder as well.

BEFORE READING THE FOLLOWING, UNDERSTAND THAT NATO TOOK NO ACTION UNTIL APRIL OF 1999.

http://www.refugees.org/news/crisis/kosovo_u0998.htm
September 1998
In mid September, the situation in Kosovo is getting worse and the lives of thousands of innocent people are at risk. Serb forces continue to pound villages in northern and western Kosovo, effecting over half of the province's population in the last seven months. International aid agencies estimate that between 270,000 and 350,000 people have fled the fighting, as many as 250,000 remaining "internally displaced" inside Although their plight has generated worldwide recognition, international attempts to foster a diplomatic resolution to the conflict have failed to yield tangible results.

According to the Associated press, there is talk of possible, eventual Nato-supported military action ranging from the deployment of troops along the Albania- Kosovo border, to air strikes, to the deployment of ground troops, but humanitarian organizations remain skeptical that decisive U.S., European, or Nato-supported action will come soon. In the mean time, daily reports of horrendous human rights violations, massive destruction, and increasing bloodshed document the dire prognosis for Kosavars "contained" in the crisis by recently erected border controls.

On September 16, the New York Times reported that Serbian forces were "rounding up men and boys from ethnic Albanian villages and refugee camps in Kosovo, an act that US officials fear could be the prelude to their execution, as happened during the war in Bosnia." One week earlier, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Julia Taft said at a press briefing, "Without a cease- fire, without a pull-back from this intrusive fighting, there will be 100,000 to 200,000 casualties looming in the months ahead."

Still, there are no decisive plans by the U.S., NATO, or European allies to avert the current and impending disasters with military action. The U.S. is "considering a variety of options" for getting emergency aid into Kosovo and continues to support diplomatic interventions and the preservation of Yugoslavian borders.

On September 16, Serbian and Albanian leaders reported heavy fighting in the area between the towns of Kosovska Mitrovica, Podujevo, and Vucitrn, north of the capital, Pristina. German Defense Minister, Volker Ruhe, stated that the West could resort to military action "within three to five weeks," if Milosevic fails to comply with an impending U.N. Security Council Resolution designed to put an end to the conflict. According to U.N. officials, the Resolution will not explicitly authorize military action.

On September 17, the government of Montenegro began implementing a plan to send refugees from Kosovo to Albania. Over 4,000 refugees being held in the village of Meteh, Montenegro, were transported in busses to the Albanian border point of Vermosh.

On September 18, Ethnic Albanian Leader, Ibrahim Rugova, gave his preliminary endorsement to a 3-year U.S.-backed "temporary" plan to restore local autonomy to Kosovo (stripped by Milosevic in 1989). According to the associated press, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic "supported" the plan aimed at "normalizing the difficult and risky situation and halting the attacks and the use of force."

On September 21, amidst renewed Serbian attacks in the Drenica region, Ethnic Albanian leaders released their version of the U.S. supported "interim" peace proposal. Under the arrangement, Kosovo would become an "independent entity equal" to Serbia and Montenegro, with its own courts, police, and central bank. Its status as a province in Yugoslavia would be retained temporarily and negotiated in the future. Serbian officials rejected parts of the proposal but, reportedly, agreed to release their own version in the upcoming week.

On September 22, the New York Times reported that the "worsening plight" of refugees and internally displaced people from Kosovo was "increasing the possibility of NATO intervention." Britain and France urged the U.N. Security Council to finish drafting the Resolution designed to make (Serbian) "compliance mandatory," and raise the "specter of military force." According to U.S. officials, the pending resolution reflects an emerging consensus in favor of military action, however, "NATO allies have not yet reached an agreement on the use of force."

[roguevalley]

103. my boy served in Bosnia under Clark and like the rest of the

troops there, he would walk over broken glass for him. He would work for Clark in a minute.

And if you're going to put this up, then Clinton should be in the dock for that. IF bush deserves the Hague for Iraq, then Clinton is the ultimate responsible person, not wes clark.

[Aaaargh]

23. So you guys all want to keep replaying the Vietnam War in Iraq, eh?

From 'The Next Iraq Offensive,' Wesley K. Clark, New York Times, Op-Ed, Dec. 2005

"(...) We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.

On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country's borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.

We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq's several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won't be "sealed"; they'll just be more challenging to penetrate.

We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops (...)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?ei=5090&en=54d89019ebc70bb2&ex=1291525200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[FrenchieCat]

26. Well giving a "plan" to an administration who ain't gonna get out

if it kills us all is not a bad idea.

Is it really more helpful screaming...."let's get out"...when it ain't gonna happen?
This is some serious shit we've been dragged into by this admin....and it will no childs play to get us out in a manner that doesn't only delay WWIV

"The quality of leadership in Washington is extremely bad. George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and outgoing Department of Defense officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, have turned in an astonishingly poor performance in Iraq. Their attempt to demonstrate US military might has turned into a showcase for US weakness in the face of Islamic and nationalist guerrillas, giving heart to al-Qaeda and other unconventional enemies of the United States.

If the US drew down its troop strength in Iraq too rapidly, the guerrillas would simply kill the new political class and stabilizing figures such as Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Although US forces have arguably done more harm than good in many Sunni Arab areas, they have prevented set-piece battles from being staged by ethnic militias, and they have prevented a number of attempted assassinations.

In an ideal world, the United States would relinquish Iraq to a United Nations military command, and the world would pony up the troops needed to establish order in the country in return for Iraqi good will in post-war contract bids. But that is not going to happen for many reasons. George W. Bush is a stubborn man and Iraq is his project, and he is not going to give up on it. And, by now the rest of the world knows what would await its troops in Iraq, and political leaders are not so stupid as to send their troops into a meat grinder." Juan Cole
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/sometimes-you-are-just-screwed-readers.html

Your choices of either/or shows that you don't truly comprehend the pandora's box opened by this President.

And they say Democrats have no Iraq plan short of cut and run. I say, bullshit!


From the same OP-Ed.....
"The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing.

If this critique is correct - and it is difficult to argue against it - then we must face its implications. "Staying the course" risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict. "

"through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?ei=5090&en=54d89019ebc70bb2&ex=1291525200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[iconoclastNYC]

30. Smells like Old Spice

He's a political dilettante. I want someone who's been fighting the good fight for years in public service. Not military.

All we know about Clarke is what he says. Empty campaign promises. Nothing more.

[incapsulated]

31. Maybe when you learn to spell his name right

I will give a fuck.

[iconoclastNYC]

39. Oh don't you ooze maturity.

:sarcasm:

[incapsulated]

41. I'm way too mature

To indulge your vapid comments, that's for damn sure.

[iconoclastNYC]

47. Funny definition of maturity you have

[Dinger]

63. It's a Little Gimmick "They" Use. Don't Let It Get To You

and I thought your post was rather eloquent:evilgrin:

[Clarkie1]

32. Military service is the highest form of public service. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

34. Oh really?

Interesting.

I guess teaching, feeding the poor, aiding the sick, looking after the elderly, fighting corporate power in congress and all the rest of that bleeding heart garbage is just for chumps -- give me a General!

America, F**k Yeah!

[Clarkie1]

37. I'm a public school teacher, so I resent you using such important

forms of public service as a foil to military service.

Military service is the highest form of public service, because one puts their life on the line for the defense of their country. It's the choices that we make that determine war or peace, genocide or "never again."

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences."

Wes Clark, Commencement speech at Seton Hall University, May 13, 2002

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[iconoclastNYC]

40. Tell me a moral just war that we've waged in defense in the past 60 years?

And then tell me again what the highest form of Public service is.

[Clarkie1]

43. That's irrelevant to the question at hand.

The servants do not set the policy. Elected officials set the policy and decide when and where to make war or peace.

However, since you asked, I rank stopping genocide as a very noble cause indeed.

[iconoclastNYC]

46. I think its very arrogant to call Military service

The "highest" public service.

[Clarkie1]

48. Arrogant of whom? n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

49. Anyone.

It's such an absolutist statement that ignores so many other ways that you can serve the public.

And if you ask me it has jingoistic undertones.

[Clarkie1]

51. Would you think it would be arrogant of me to say, as a teacher

that teachers are the most important leaders in America?

[iconoclastNYC]

56. Yes.

Absolutist statements are arrogant and most always WRONG. I don't care what you do for a living it doesn't make you such of an expert that you can make silly statements like..... This is the MOST valuable whatever.

Placed in context with your agenda of glorifying Clarke as the second coming, your absolutist proclamations just makes you look silly.

[Clarkie1]

58. Well, I never said that.

Clark did.

Frankly, you are the one looking very silly claiming I am "glorifying Clarke as the second coming."

Edit: Please learn how to spell.

[iconoclastNYC]

72. Please learn to spell!

Wow. Petty much?

[Dinger]

64. I Am A Public School Teacher, And A Clarkie, But I Agree With Wes . . .

We need to support and work hard for 2006, period.:patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

38. Public servants are public servants......

and there are many who never stand for election.

but Most politicians make promises they never keep.......while running.

and most politicians don't feed the poor, teach, aid the sick, look after the elderly or fight corporate power in congress. I don't know what planet you live on....but I know quite a few politicians with personal fortunes....and I don't seem the "giving anything away to anybody...if anything, they are always asking for more money"......

What's interesting is that I agree with you that Public service does not just entail military service, although there is no doubt that it is a public service, paid for by the taxpayers, just like the politician's salaries.

What I don't agree with you on is that somehow being elected makes one more deserving. There are too many who never were elected in our history but did great things to help humanity. If fact, I dare say most heroes are not elected officials.

Myopic is myopic......no matter which way you want to look at it....Bleeding hearts and all!

[iconoclastNYC]

44. This isn't myopia....this is about risk taking.

Other people who have expressed interest in 2008 have run and won public office, which means they have experience running effective campaigns. They also have a record of campaign promises and the record of actions to judge what their word is worth.

With Clark we don't have such a record to look at. We have to take him at his word.

I'd love to see him run for Congress or Senate and then move up to running for President.

I just don't think you take such a huge risk giving the highest office in the land to someone who has absolutely no record in politics.

Call me crazy.

[Clarkie1]

50. I think that your line of reasoning is crazy. Honestly, I do.

The presidency is an executive position. Serving in congress provides no real-world experience in that particular kind of leadership position. Clark, on the other hand, has had extensive experience in a leadership position as close the the presidency as I think possible without actually being president...running a school system, working directly with a multitude of foreign leaders, etc. Serving in congress does not give one that kind of experience. Being a governor does, but does not provide the international experience so beneficial to the office of the Presidency.

[iconoclastNYC]

68. LOL - I love driving you Clarke fan boys to such ridiculous extremes

Ok, ok. I think I get it know. Being a big strong masculine military General is the be all and end all of everything. I mean it just prepares you for all sorts of intricate public policy deliberations. I mean being a General isn't about running wars... it's about building SCHOOLS and balancing BUDGETS (don't tell that to the Pentagon who lost a few TRILLION).... the Military is really about running schools and hospitals.... i mean Generals are really just MINI presidents. Gosh how come I didn't know this! :sarcasm:

And of course I forgot how well the top-down command structure of the military prepares you to seek and achieve compromise with a potential hostile Congress.

Thank you for teaching me that being in Congress is basically nothing and how risking your political future to vote your conscious in Congress is basically just an empty gesture and meaningless next to being a General. Of course being a member of Congress doesn't qualify you at all for being an executive. No not at all. I guess it's a miracle that Kennedy did well for being so under qualified.

Ok enough sarcasm.

I guess eventually I'll learn to not poke my head into these little Wes Clark masturbatory ceremonies.

Your ability to bend logic to suit your ends is truly astonishing.

I think it's a mistake to hand our party and the White House to someone who has no real record in our party before 2004 and no record at all in politics.

[Clarkie1]

71. Since you are putting words in my mouth, I cannot respond to this.

It seems you enjoy playing with yourself.

[iconoclastNYC]

74. Re read your previous post.

You and your fellow Clark fan boys constantly pretend as if being a General is the BEST qualification for being President and being in the Congress and going on record to in support of progressive policies pales in comparison.

I love when you guys do this because you make my case for me better then I ever could directly.

How do we know Clark won't wind up being a four star puppet of the corporatist wing of our party? Show me where he's ever done something official.... something more then a speech to stand up for our values?

There are better people with whom to place our trust in than Wes Clark.

[Clarkie1]

80. You are putting words in my mouth again.

I never said being a general is the best qualification for being President. I was referring to Clark's life experience.

I also never said "being in the Congress and going on record to support progressive policies pales in comparison." I said it did not provide that same kinds of life experiences that Clark has had. I hold public service in the Congress in very high regard.

Good night. I have to get up early in the morning.

[iconoclastNYC]

82. Goodnite.

Nice debate.

[roguevalley]

107. make your case? Agenda, much? I don't care what you believe

or how you do this when Clark is being discussed. The electorate will take care of things and if there ever was a corporatist is dem politics, then take a look at Biden, Lieberman, Clinton, et al.

If you think there are better people, support them. Your commentary here is not going to make anyone who is interested in learning about this man change their mind. Your bias against military service is noted.
I am sure my cousins, some of whom died in service could give a rip. After all, its freedom of speech and freedom to believe what you choose.

[Dinger]

73. O.K. WHo Is Your Candidate For 2008

Do tell, please:)

[iconoclastNYC]

75. Well I don't know yet.

Because I don't know who's running.

Do you? Do tell.

[Dinger]

77. Nah, Guess Not. 2006 Is More Important

I'd tell if I knew:evilgrin:

[iconoclastNYC]

87. We agree --- 2006 is very important.

You know... i really want to get involved and help with 2006 but the DNC just leaves it up for everyone to be proactive. They have my f'in number. I know because they call me for $$$.


Why in the hell hasn't anyone from the DNC called me to ask me to come to some event? You know if I got a call like that.... i'd probably show up. I want to get involved but I'm this outsider and i have this resistance to just going to some place by myself. BUt if someone called me and i had that human connection.... i'd probably show up.

There are so many little things like this that the DNC could do to foster grass root involvement with the party.

[FrenchieCat]

98. I'm not waiting for anyone to call me to be active in the 2006 elections..

I've gone to multiple events, given money to candidates, and have written many letters to newspapers asking for endorsements.

You see....I am a public servant, but not elected. I choose to assert my wherewithall as a self starter...

Of course, Wes Clark has been a major influence for me on that front.

Maybe I'll call the DNC and tell them that you are waiting for them to tell you what to do in order to save our country.

Where would we be without you and the Great "Elected" officials? Probably where we are now...on the road to a nowhere called hell, I guess.

[iconoclastNYC]

109. Bully for you

I'm talking about growing the movement. Sometimes people need guidance to get them involved.

[FrenchieCat]

52. But you see....in my opinion, you are confusing some things.....

Dems went with an old Pol "Pro" running last time, and I wasn't as surprised with the results as many were. I've done my research, and I believe the risk are fewer than higher with Wes Clark.

Just Call me sane!

Read this account that just occurred tonight..... it will provide some insight. Took place at George Soros' home this eve.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5785

[iconoclastNYC]

78. I agree that Kerry wasn't a good pick.

Kerry won because of the flaws in the way we run our primaries. If we would have had a 50 state primary Dean would have won.

As it is now two little bullshit states get to pick the front runner and everyone falls in line after that.

The party has rigged the primaries to be undemocratic. Its high time we admit to it. And this problem could just as easily shut out Clark as it did Dean.

And we could talk about what the DLC did to stop Deans candidacy and we know who funds the DLC.

I wasn't' very happy that Kerry won. But it doesn't change my opinion on Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

83. But I know your opinion of Clark, by now.....

I'm just trying to figure out why you are littering the thread? There is a "hide" feature for those who can't take it.

I use it for the 486 Kerry threads, the 12 Edwards in Pic threads, and the Hey, Al Gore is the one threads. I'm not quite sure why you don't just use what you got to get what you want.

[iconoclastNYC]

86. DU is about debate.

I'm not litering.

I'm engaging in a debate.

Anybody who doesn't not wish to engage me in debate could let my posts go unrebutted.

And you could do the same.

[Dinger]

67. A Respectful Post, Thank You

But I disagree on some points.

1) There is a huge anti-incumbent attitude out there. That will impact the 2006 races, IMO. 2008 as well.

2) Records of "campaign promises," and "records of actions" haven't stopped us from reaching the point we are at right now in this disaster. In other words, the career politicians we have right now haven't prevented the mess we are in, though some have tried, it hasn't been quite enough.

3) It won't be much of a risk with Clark.


Peace,


Ding:)

[iconoclastNYC]

81. Where is this anti-incumbent attitude?

Do you have any articles or polls or studies that say that people are anti-incumbent? Because all I've seen is that people are more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican (for Congress) haven't seen anything that says that it's anti-incumbency. And anyway....NOBODY will be an incumbent in 2008. So... don't really get where you are coming from.

As for risk -- how do you know what Clark will do as President? He has no record. All he has is speeches. That he probably didn't even write. It is a risk! We should assume a politician is a puppet of entrenched power until they demonstrate Independence thru bravery and action. This requires a record as an elected official.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Wes Clark has led a life....

and his actions in it are not simply a speech.......just cause you would typify so.

When I look at history, what I see are Presidents that were elected Not because of what they had done in a previous office, as much as what they had to offer in personal character, style, temperament and life experience. Also, the issues they raise, the time in history, the way their campaign was ran, and the media’s own influence. Those are the major factors used to win elections.

President Kennedy didn’t get elected because he was an experienced senator, as much as because he had a compelling life story with his PT109 heroism and his personal charm and demeanor. Reagan was elected because of his affable great one liners and his rethorics (I can make us great again) and his movie star persona. He certainly did not become President because of his Governor’s record in California. President Carter won because he appeared honest, thoughtful and was literally an unknown to most. Voters, not what great things he did for Georgia.

John Kerry didn’t run in ‘04 based on the fact that he had accomplished great things in the office that he has held for over 20 years. Rather, he chose to run on his personal story of 35 years prior and the current issues. Most voters really don’t have a real clue has to what Kerry had achieved in office all of these years, because that is not what he chose to highlight.

So if I was asked why Wes Clark, it would be because of his personal life story and achievements. Maybe the fact that he has never held office is a minus, but remember that to some, it’s a plus...

And although some will use his lack of elective experience as an excuse they give for not supporting him, it doesn't make them right as to what it takes in a person to become an effective and great President.

You are right that the facts are Clark has not held any elected office, and is not per se a professional politician. However, is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.....because I believe that it is his executive experience, his character, his leadership abilities and his courage that do make Clark “elect able”, because it is what Presidents need more so than anything else; Clark has these traits, IMO, although not via an elected position.

Bush Jr. had elective office experience, and worked with legislatures....and IMO, that did nothing for how well he has performed on the job. I disagree that what this nation is in need of right now....or possibly in 2008 is another professional elected politician.

a very simple job description for POTUS from Scholastic:
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presres/prsnapsh.htm

----------
Some will stay thinking in the box that we have been put in....and when thinking "President"...will only think about what the CW will push.....celebrities politicians (Hillary, Gore and Edwards) and Senators (Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold and Boxer)and Governors (Warner, Richardson and Vilsack), and that's OK. But if you look at what this country needs right now - a leader with courage, and determination to do the right thing, those other candidates pale in comparison to Wes Clark, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1517151

Some surely say that Wes Clark has no legislative or policy accomplishments at this point, and to that I will disagree because it depends on what you would label as "policy accomplishments".

Clark, a Rhodes scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Economics, Political Science and Economics was also a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He taught economics, and social science at West Point. He has worked as an Investment Banker since his retirement in 2000. So Clark is intelligent, experienced and qualified to deal with more than just National Defense and Foreign policy.

Did his "policy accomplishments" take place in an office? The answer is No.
Clark action on Affirmative Action
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
Snip
In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Testifying against a war before both houses of congress when you don't have to, counts as an accomplishment in my book.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Is standing up to the Pentagon and trying to get done “what’s right” an accomplishment? I think so.

Clark policy action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.
Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details.
General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.
She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."
".....Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .
"...I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...
---------------
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
================

Clark's work on awakening the apathetic on the issue of Dafur, where 300,000 to 450,000 have already lost their lives is a vital public service that many of our "elected" congress people don't even raise the subject of.

Martin Luther King said, "Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetuated by the vitriolic action of those who are bad, it is also perpetuated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=53...
Interviews
Wesley Clark: Why We Should Care About Darfur
April 20,2006

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped... /
US plan for Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast | April 10, 2006

http://www.dems.us/clark_wes /
November 07, 2005
Clark Steps Up For Darfur, Sudan

http://savedarfur.org/index.php?q=news/newsarchives/200...
Deja vu in Darfur - 9/01/2005
Sudan Tribune
Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark is urging the U.N. Security Council to dispatch about 12,000 NATO troops to Darfur to protect civilians and humanitarian operations until a large contingent of African troops is deployed there next year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=48...
Commentary
Wesley Clark: NATO Forces Needed in Darfur
August 22, 2005

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07...
Posted 7/5/2004 7:54 PM
Out of time in Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast


--------------

I think that the below Awards speak volumes of Clark's policy accomplishments...although they may not have been for being the Governor of a small state, somebody out there was grateful that he was around doing something other than talking in his air conditioned halls...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm
General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.
His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.
(Central Europe Sep. 8, 2000, U.S. State Department Oct. 2, 1999, http://Individual.com)
Going back when the Medal of Freedom meant something!
Jesse Jackson, Gen. Clark Awarded Medal of Freedom With 13 Others
Washington - An emotional President Bill Clinton praised the "keen intellect and loving heart" of sometime political rival Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the leadership of the iconoclastic general who disagreed with his strategy during the Kosovo air war, as he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom .....

[iconoclastNYC]

90. Ok so you don't want a leader with a record of fighting for your interests

You want someone with a compelling life story. Maybe that's the problem with poltitics right there. Too many people vote like you do.

You want a Democratic version of Reagan, someone who can play the part of the "great leader" convincingly.

I want someone with a proven record of fighting for my values and fighting for the middle class and thumbing thier nose at entenched power.

[FrenchieCat]

95. Lives are my interest......

I don't know what your "interests" are.

But as a Black Woman, I'm glad Clark did what he could do to support affirmative action.

I'm sure that there are many gays in the military that are glad that Wes Clark backed them as opposed to the administratino in reference to the Don't ask Don't tell rule of silliness.

I'm positive that Black folks, both in Rwanda and Darfur wished more could have heard him when he attempted to get attention to their plights.

And I know for sure that many, many Albanian Muslims are overjoyed that Wes Clark became Supreme Allied Commander when he did.

OThers are tickled pink that he supported Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and Sen. Durbin when they were being ostracized by the media at a time when no one of the "elected" leaders had much to say.

And many others were just plain happy that someone spoke against the Bush administration as forcefully as he did wayyyyy before retired Generals speaking was considered Cool.

Bill Maher just liked the fact that Clark plainly acknowledged that he was a liberal...and gave a definition that related back to our constitution to millions.

Also, those in Vietnam were glad that when he was shot 4 times...he continued commanding his troops to safety.

But then, Your interest have got to be much different from mine!

[iconoclastNYC]

96. I dont want anyone to get the impression

That I think Clarke is anything less than an outstanding American because clearly there is ample evidence to support that he is in fact outstanding.

It's just that I don't think that you should run for President without any experience in elected office. I believe that there is such a think as paying your dues in politics.

He'd make an OUTSTANDING senator or an outstanding governor. But it seems as if he thinks that anything less than President is beneath him. I just dont get that. Why not run for lower office and then have an record to run on as President? That's what Hillary did. (Disclaimer -- I'd vote for Clarke over Hillary)

[Texas_Kat]

101. If for no other reason 'cos he lives in Little Rock

...where Mike Beebe is running for Governor and his congressman is already a Democrat (Vic Snyder).

You mentioned that you didn't think that Clark writes his own speeches. That's incorrect.

He traveled to Texas to campaign for a couple of Democrats this past January. He'd been working on his "Real State of the Union" address for the New America Foundation ( http://securingamerica.com/node/560 ) for a couple of days and finished it up on the plane flight from New York to Houston.

While he was in Texas, we had to help him get his 3000+ word speech out of his Blackberry and into some form of word document.

Yes, he wrote it himself.

In.His.Blackberry.

Read (or listen to) that speech. It's honest, it's real and it's his own..... no focus groups, no speechwriter, no marketing manager. Just Wes.

[Donna Zen]

119. We agree:

I want someone with a proven record of fighting for my values and fighting for the middle class and thumbing their nose at entrenched power.


Looking at America today, I conclude that we don't have leaders who fight for our values, or fight against entrenched power. We do have an elected political class that is very good at raising money, and very bad at governing. Oh, there are a few, and their names are listed among those who opposed this war before it became fashionable. (BTW, any talk of "they were lied to" is just adding insult to injury. I can read, and I do.) As for General Clark? Well, no one knows what kind of president he'd make, but then again, we also don't know what kind of president any of those being mentioned would make. The difference is we can look at leadership. Would they vote for war even after being told it would harm their country? How many of them would put their career on the line to save the lives of the poor and ignored? And without waiting for a poll, would they write a friend of court brief in support of Affirmative Action?

"Leaders stand up when no one else is standing up" ~Samantha Power. She didn't write those words about a long-term denizen of the rubber-chicken circuit, she wrote them about Wes Clark, a person a record of fighting for my values. My country, our country, is in great trouble both at home and abroad. We need a leader. We both know exactly what politicians are out there; it is up to all of us to do our homework. I make it a habit to refrain from comment about candidates unless I have something to add; therefore, I tend to read more than I write. I also know exactly why I support Wes Clark.

[abburdlen]

115. take a look

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

The number of people that approve the job the Democrats in congress may be slightly higher than for Republicans but most Americans seem to be fed up with the elected officials on both side of the isle.
It read that as a anti-incumbent attitude.

[Texas_Kat]

94. I'll take Clark's word....

over any 'stock' politician's campaign promise anyday.

What does it say about the quality of our 'experienced' office-holding politicians that you can't trust them? Is your favorite politician just the one who's disappointed you the least?

Sounds like an argument to vote for a non-politiican to me. I've had enough of them... I'd rather have a leader and a statesman like Clark.

[roguevalley]

106. this country doesn't value altruistic careers, military, police, medical,

teaching, etc. You only have to look at jerks like Kobee Bryant to see what is valued. Cutting down some kid in a uniform defending the country from whatever is a cheap shot when its clear that the worship is placed elsewhere, not on the military. We value basket-fucking-balls over the lives of our kids.

[Mz Pip]

65. So who is running

who fits that bill?

Besides, being a General and doing good works are not mutually exclusive.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[roguevalley]

105. I taught school for 27 years and I can see in Clark the kind of man

who won't get the kids I love killed because there are wars he wants to fight (not) or because his corporate bastard friends (which he doesn't have) have sucked the country dry and that's all they can do to get to college.

Bleeding heart garbage... having a career in the military is honorable. GEORGE BUSH IS THE ONE WHO HAS TARNISHED THAT CAREER. Not the generals who try and do the right thing and the generals who defend us from fuckers like Osama. Its a FAILURE OF THE CIVILIAN leadership that you're tossing out here. Blame the fucking chickenhawks, not the generals that have to deal with them.

[xkenx]

53. Clark, spelled C-L-A-R-K, was responsible

for the lives of his troops and their families in his military commands. This included housing, education, medical, social services, training, environmental care, sometimes in a dangerous setting, and with a volunteer army, where you didn't keep people if you didn't do right by them. That's fighting the good fight for people for 30-some years. Can you spell "P-U-B-L-I-C S-E-R-V-I-C-E?"

[iconoclastNYC]

61. Can you spell RECORD IN POLITICS?

What kind of President would Clarke be?

We don't know. He has no record. All we can judge him on his his talk. Talk is cheap.

With Kerry we had an idea because of his record in the Senate. Same thing goes for Hillary. Or for Bill Clinton, or for Kucinich, or for almost anyone that I know of who's ever run for President. They had a record to look at because they weren't so arrogant that they thought they could be elected to the highest office in the land without so much as being elected dog catcher.

I want to look at a candidates past and know from their record..... What did they do when the rubber met the pavement? Did they sell out their principals to "keep their powder" dry, did they go out of their way to avoiding ruffle the wrong feathers? Did they live up to their campaign promises. Did they put the needs of the middle class above the demands of the corporate class?

We don't know anything about Clarke. For all we know he could be bought and paid for by corporate America to play the part of a Democrat and sell us out as soon as he gets in the White House.

I WANT A KNOWN QUANTITY.

[xkenx]

76. Once again, Clark (spelled C-L-A-R-K)

has a track record of EXECUTIVE leadership over the years. And the fact that you insist on misspelling his name, even after being repeatedly corrected, shows a distinct lack of respect and a distinct immaturity. And we certainly don't know how elected legislative people will behave in executive positions, either. The best thing that we can say is that if someone has exhibited integrity and compassion and effectiveness in the past, they are likely to continue to do so in the future. I prefer to judge people by the body of their life's work. And as I said in the OP, Wes Clark is all about "Duty, honor, country."

[Dinger]

79. Remember, It's "Their" Little Thing

No big deal. Guess it's the best they got.:shrug:

[iconoclastNYC]

84. Oh gosh give me 15 lashes

For spelling his name wrong.

If you typed as fast as I did I bet you'd spell his name wrong once in a while. Take a look at how many posts I have in this thread and give me a f'in break for spelling his name wrong.

You people are so god damn petty. Resorting to bashing me for adding a freaking E to his name and then acting like it's some sort of intentional thing on my part as if there isn't anybody in the world who's last name is CLARKE.

CRY ME A RIVER.

[FrenchieCat]

99. "You people"?

Where have I heard that before?

Pretty demeaning....but fortunately, the bait you leave, you take.

It is clear that your job has been to attempt to antagonize those who support Wes Clark.

I suggest that instead of waiting for the DNC to call you (I know, they have your number).....you pull yourself away from your keyboard and see about making a difference in saving our country.

Wes Clark does, and he's proud of it! :patriot:

[iconoclastNYC]

85. Nice Bumper sticker - DUTY HONOR COUNTRY

Once again.... Clarke has words but very little deeds outside of running the war machine.

I'm sorry but voting against the IRW is proof of living up to those ideals.

Voting against the patriot act is proof of living up to those ideals.

Signing a law that extends domestic partner benefits to gay couples is proof that you live up to those ideals.

Calling for censure says you live up to those ideals.

I'm not saying that Clark isn't 100% of the man you claim he is. I'm just saying I'd like him to demonstrate it by running for public office at the state level or in Congress before trying to go for the #1 office in the land.

I'd like a recrod in public office to examine before i give him the keys to the white house.

[incapsulated]

93. Fine, go vote for a DC politician, then

And don't whine when they don't live up to their campaign promises and sell out, like they will always do. Personally, I would rather have a guy who has served his country all of his life and got very little in return but still believes in DUTY HONOR COUNTRY, which is an excellent bumpersticker, first thing you have said that I agree with. And..

LEARN TO FUCKING SPELL HIS NAME IF YOU WANT ANYONE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.

[iconoclastNYC]

110. Clark is the only person in the world who will live up to his promises?

Because he's not a DC politician? Interesting.

And again with the spelling complaints as if that's the most important thing in the world.

So he served his country and he got very little in return? As if generals are not highly paid. Ok.

[incapsulated]

113. Of course not

But you and others seem to be under the impression that being a politician makes a person somehow trustworthy and therefore the only people worthy of a vote, which is ironic, indeed.

No, he never made much money at all in the military, but I'm not surprised that you think otherwise, your igonroance of the subject is obvious. Now, had he been a lifer politician, then he would have never gone broke trying to run for president, as he did. He would probably still have millions sitting in the bank to use for another run right now.

[iconoclastNYC]

117. That's not at all what I'm saying

I'm saying having a record in politics helps you know what kind of decisions they'd make in the White House.

Nice attempt at twisting my words.

[incapsulated]

118. This is the post I responded to:

"Clark is the only person in the world who will live up to his promises?

Because he's not a DC politician? Interesting."

And that is what I answered, I wasn't "twisting your words".

You can make decisions outside of DC and in professions other than politics. You can be a leader in places other than DC. You can be in a position of authority as well, probably more than DC, where it is more about legislation than executive authority. A person can have a very long career doing these things and that history is their "record". And his is quite a bit longer than many who are thrown out there as potential candidates but have only served a few years in office and have little experience in either domestic or foreign policy. In fact, his experience in DC alone, throughout his military career, is more extensive than some, including a year at the Office of Management and Budget and the J5. But these points have been made in this thread a dozen times, and I'm not in the mood to argue this endlessly. You don't want Clark, you don't want anyone who isn't an elected politician, you don't want a General. We get it. What is the point of going on and on and on about this for chrissakes.

[FrenchieCat]

100. Clark has spoken and written many words....and done many deeds.

The fact is it ain't about you and what you want. It's about saving this damn country. Clark ain't running for President, far as I have heard.....instead he is out there everywhere attempting to help those Democrats running for Congress. In particular those in Red Districts...where those seats there are the ones that will make a difference in winning back congress.

you see, Wes Clark doesn't have a lot of money....a personal fortune to throw at the candidates and then say....see, I'm helping....I'm "DOING" my part. Clark is walking the walk, like he always has.

The man jumps in planes, rides coach and goes all over the United States holding fundraisers in where attendees have to write a check to the candidate, not to Wes Clark.

Just this month....the man has been everywhere! Apart from being in Iraq this month, on the TeeVee stressing our need to TALK to Iran--not bombing them, and on our Radio dial discussing Darfur, and write op-eds about the Sudan. He sure ain't been waiting by the phone waiting for the DNC to contact him! :eyes:

The man does two, three, four events per day....
and he ain't even on the Taxpayer's dole traveling or nothing. His staff isn't either. Apart from his "earned" pension after 34 years of service, he ain't making trips on taxpayer's dimes and call it "work".

Rather than being a drain, he's a valuable asset to all Democrats in doing what he can to win back congress in 2006! :patriot:

Just this week, so FAR (and today is only Thursday)!

THIS WEDNESDAY IN NEW MEXICO!
http://www.madridforcongress.com/node/651
Attorney General Patricia Madrid and General Wesley Clark stood with nearly two dozen Albuquerque veterans in Bataan Memorial Park on Wednesday to call on incumbent Representative Heather Wilson to finally start asking the tough questions to hold the Bush Administration accountable for the flawed intelligence and failed leadership that took the United States to war in Iraq.

THIS TUESDAY WITH RUSS WARNER, AND HOSTED A FUNDRAISER FOR BEEBE, RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR IN ARKANSAS.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK HOSTING SPECIAL EVENT TO SUPPORT RUSS WARNER
General Wesley Clark is hosting a special fundraising event in La Canada Flintridge April 25 to announce his support for Russ Warner, a small businessman and Rancho Cucamonga resident, who is running against David Dreier in the 26th Congressional district.
http://www.warnerforcongress.com/inthenews.php

THIS MONDAY HE WAS IN OAKLAND, STOCKTON AND TRACY
Wesley Clark stops in Stockton
Ex-presidential candidate campaigns for Steve Filson
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/NEWS01/604250319/1001
Hank Shaw
Capitol Bureau Chief
Published Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006

[Dinger]

69. Diplomacy, As In Dayton Peace Accords

Don't forget that:)

P.S. Milosevic was in the Hague long ago . . . OBL is still on vacation in Crawford.
Heck of a job georgie!

[Greyhound]

92. Perhaps that's all you know. Some of us have been paying attention. n/t

[roguevalley]

104. BWAHAHA! Political dilettante. Amazing. He has been a political

all his working life as a commander. Have you ever read what base commanders do? All we know about Clark is what he says? WTF?

Read what he says. Clark has demonstrated his stuff, unlike some of the gasbags in the congress who either believe they deserve a turn as Pres or have deluded fantasies about it. The people will sort this out. We are over the same old bastards who voted for war when they didn't vote for it, were for something before they weren't and have sold us out to corporate interests for money.

[Dinger]

54. I Hear Ya xkenx! Testify!!!

He's all patriot, and no act, that's for sure!:patriot:

[TacticalPeek]

59. Amen.

I was fortunate enough to once see him put down a Confederate flag heckler by stepping aside on stage and grabing Old Glory and saying "This is the flag I honor.".

Talk about instant marginalization of an opposition . . .

:patriot:

[Dinger]

70. Kaboom!!! Go Wes Go!

Dayum, good one!:patriot: :headbang:

[wiley]

97. Brilliant, xkenx!

All the more striking in that anything about Clark still draws the same small tired crowd of DU contrarians. Debate is one thing, rehashing lies over and over again is just really so pathetic.

[deaniac21]

111. I wish he would be Howard Dean's running mate.

They would be unstoppable!