Wes Clark in Kosovo today; getting Hero's welcome from Albanian Muslims!

[FrenchieCat]

It has been a long time since we've seen Muslims holding up American Flags in a positive way!


Wes Accepting Awards





Getting a tour



Articles not to be highlighted by the Corporate media cause it makes George Bush and Bush's war look worse than required....if that is even possible! :eyes:

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1825852.php

May 25, 2006
Clark: Begin troop withdrawals
By Garentina Kraja
Associated Press

PRISTINA, Serbia-Montenegro — Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark called Thursday for transition of authority in Iraq during the course of this year and said that the United States should soon begin the process of withdrawing the U.S. soldiers.

Clark, a four-star general who served as the supreme commander of NATO in 1997-2000 and unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said the fledging Iraqi government must take charge and be given the means to address the security in the country.

“It’s necessary ... to make this year a year of transition in Iraq,” Clark told The Associated Press in an interview during his visit to Kosovo. “The Iraqi government must take charge.”

He said that ministers of interior, defense and national security should be appointed, but also said that a lot of help is needed from the international community to strengthen the Iraqi government in meeting the needs of the people.

“And then we should begin the process of withdrawing the U.S. soldiers and other coalition soldiers from Iraq,” said Clark.

“I do think that there should be no permanent bases there. I think that the United States should soon begin its process of redeployment,” he said, adding that he believed there will be “some withdrawals very soon given where we are.”

Clark, who was the commanding general in NATO’s war in Kosovo in 1999 which halted Serb forces’ crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians, said the issues in Iraq were not military issues, but were associated with economic development and the ability to form a strong government.

Clark is on a three-day visit to Kosovo at the invitation of the province’s Prime Minister, Agim Ceku. He is considered a hero by the province’s ethnic Albanians who want the province to become independent, but reviled by many Serbs for his role during the bombing campaign.

The U.N. is currently conducting talks aimed at steering ethnic Albanians and Serbian officials toward settling the final status of the province, a home to some 2 million.

Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority wants independence, while Serbs want it to remain part of Serbia.

“I do believe that Kosovo will become an independent state,” Clark said, sitting in a the building housing the province’s government. The building has been renovated after being heavily damaged during the NATO bombing in 1999.

“I think an independent Kosovo will add to the stability of the region,” he said. “It will terminate these long-lasting questions about the status of Kosovo and it will enable people both in Serbia and in Kosovo to focus on really important issues.”

Posted 05/25/06 11:14
Kosovo To Be Independent in Months: Clark
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, PRISTINA, Serbia-Montenegro

The former U.S. general who commanded NATO’s 1999 air war against Serbia on May 25 predicted its southern province of Kosovo would become independent within months.

Wesley Clark told Kosovo Albanian leaders in Pristina he had confidence in their “strong, positive and visionary proposals” to find a solution for Kosovo, which has been run by the United Nations and NATO since 1999.

”I am confident that this issue will be solved very soon, and probably in few months, Kosovo will become independent and will respect the rights of all citizens,” said Clark.

”I believe that Kosovo will be welcomed into the family of the nations and that there will be many opportunities for the citizens of this country to prosper, raise big families and make their dreams come true.”

Clark, who is on a three-day visit to the disputed province, met Kosovo’s President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Agim Ceku, who said Clark was a great friend of Kosovo, who stood by it in its most difficult times.

”He is and will always be honored by the people of Kosovo,” he said.

Clark commanded the 1999 NATO air strikes that drove Serbian forces loyal to former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo because of their brutal crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1825891&C=europe

5/25/2006 12:00:00 PM -0400
U.S. general: Kosovo near on independence

PRISTINA, Serbia-Montenegro, May 25 (UPI) -- Former NATO commander Wesley Clark says Serbia's Kosovo province could be independent in the coming months.

After talks with President Fatmir Sejdiu, Clark, a retired U.S. Army general, said Thursday that Kosovo's status may be solved soon, the Belgrade Beta news agency reported.

"I am convinced that the question of the (Kosovo) status may be solved shortly, Kosovo may be independent in the next several months, and it will respect the rights of all its citizens," Clark said.

Serbs, who want Kosovo to remain part of Serbia, and ethnic-Albanians, who advocate independence from the Serbian government in Belgrade, have been meeting in Austria to decide who will govern the province, once U.N. and NATO personnel leave.

Kosovo's population of 1.8 million is 90 percent ethnic-Albanian.

In 1999, NATO air attacks stopped Serbian forces' reported terror against ethnic-Albanian separatists and ever since has maintained protection of ethnically motivated crimes. Clark was the NATO commander during the 3-month air raids on Serbia-Montenegro.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060525-102017-7468r

[blm]

1. I love it when Dems go overseas and are shown respect and affection.

What a contrast with the loathsome dictatortot.


And, btw, can the man take a bad picture? I have never seen one.

[FrenchieCat]

4. He's also scheduled to address the Kosovar Parliament......

I also love it when Americans go overseas and are respected!

[roguevalley]

68. Ah, I do love that man of mine!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

2. Maybe he could clean up the depleted uranium he used while he's there

just sayin'

[FrenchieCat]

5. Did you want to have that debate?

Cause you can be a big boy and start your own thread on that if you'd like. Just remember to make sure that you include scientific evidence and your reasons as to why Clark is more responsible for Depleted Uranium than those politicians who are the ones that OKed the use of it, instead of doing a Drive by (like you just did here).

Just Sayin'!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

10. i just don't trust him and am mystified why he has such pull here

he was practically giddy on TV as an analyst when the bombing started in iraq. he works at fox news. i just get bad vibes from him.

[FrenchieCat]

11. You are making pronouncements based on

nothing that I can see.

Wes Clark was not "giddy" while on TV during the bombing. You must be joking!

More significant than Mr. Clark’s views on domestic policy are his willingness and capacity to speak out credibly against the Bush administration’s security policies. During his stint as a CNN commentator on the Iraq conflict, he skillfully critiqued Pentagon strategy and White House diplomacy without getting himself singed.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=1517...

:eyes:

Straight talk or nothing for CNN's Dobbs

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was a long-time CNN military analyst but there's one cable network host he didn't impress: Lou Dobbs. Clark was a guest on Dobb's business show during the Iraq war and the host felt the former NATO boss seemed to push his own political agenda rather than provide the straight military skinny on the Pentagon plan, reports our Mark Mazzetti. The result: Dobbs, who hosts "Lou Dobbs Tonight," told a conference of reporters and military brass last week that he barred Clark from his show for the remainder of the war.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/...

:eyes:

"THE GUY MUST HAVE A BEDROOM AT CNN,” my wife would joke. It seemed true, because at every hour of the day or night during the Iraq War, retired General Wesley K. Clark could be seen on the Cable News Network as a “military expert” criticizing the Bush Administration.

A quick victory in Iraq “was not going to happen,” he told viewers on March 25, shortly before the quickest blitzkrieg victory of its size in military history occurred. But his words doubtless brought comfort to the fans of a network slanted so far to the Left that the most asked question about its name is whether the “C” in CNN stands for Clinton, Castro or Communist News Network.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID...

:eyes:

Clark maybe a CNN analyst, but not for Lou Dobbs...

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is mulling a presidential bid, gained significant attention for his analysis of the latest war in Iraq on CNN.

But now Clark will no longer be invited on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" because host Dobbs, a gave money to President Bush's campaign in 2000, said Clark recently came on his show and gave political opinions instead of analysis, reports US News and World Report today
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/briefs/2003/august/i...

and making Asswipes of Fox anchors up and down the news schedule is only a bad thing for those who don't understand that it's better to talk to them than to ignore them.

Clark knows that the Left hates Faux. He knows that this will not win him any popularity contest with those who vote in Democratic primaries. But he also knows that based on his skills, this is something that he can do to affect some change. It may not be a lot, to some....But it's really the only way that we are going to save this country....bit by bit.

Clark is not the DNC Chair. Clark is not a Senator. Clark is not a millionaire with a poverty center. Clark is a retired NATO Commander and General who has spoken, written and done commentating on the various aspects of this War, National Security and Foreign relations....and the ramifications of those issues. Clark is doing what Clark can do help and bring some sanity back to this country.

It's very sad and disheartening to see those critics that would be so petty as to only become indignant in principle but forget what our real goal ought to be. Clark is going to informed Fox viewers as to what a real Kickass Democrat looks, sounds and thinks like.

Like Howard Dean said....we have to talk to those folks in their pick up trucks. I think those folks watch Fox, don’t you?

The real issue of discussion should be how to save this country ...and not the issue of picking on the few who are doing what they can to do just that.



June 17, 2005
Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php

July 08, 2005
Hannity Tries To Spin London Attacks As Proof Of Bush's Wisdom
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/08/hannity_tries_to_spin_london_attacks_as_proof_of_bushs_wisdom.php


September 24, 2005
Wesley Clark Stands His Ground - Defends Cindy Sheehan
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/24/wesley_clark_stands_his_ground_defends_cindy_sheehan.php

September 24, 2005
Campaign to Blame Louisiana Continues as O'Reilly Plays Race Card Once Again
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/24/campaign_to_blame_louisiana_continues_as_oreilly_plays_race_card_once_again.php

October 04, 2005
Who Says the Democrats Don't Have Solutions?
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/04/who_says_the_democrats_dont_have_solutions.php

November 12, 2005
Wes Clark: Intelligence Was Hyped
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/12/wes_clark_intelligence_was_hyped.php

November 18, 2005
Sean Hannity Tries To Blame Democrats For Iraq War Problems
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/18/sean_hannity_tries_to_blame_democrats_for_iraq_war_problems.php


November 22, 2005
"Chicken Little" and Big Bad Oliver North
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/22/chicken_little_and_big_bad_oliver_north.php



Oh...and I forgot how Wes Clark has been on Faux for the last few months stating that we should "talk to Iran" not Bomb them....all the while the Fox machine was reving up the "Iran is a boogeyman and needs to go!" routine!

Maybe someone else will post Clark's pronouncements that are most recent!

I think your "vibe" metor must be broke. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

16. Oh...I found some stuff Clark's been saying on Fox in reference to

stopping the insanity about Iran before it starts.....


On FOX:

General Wesley Clark on Big Story Weekend Edition
January 1, 2006

Jamie Colby: Let me ask you, General Clark, about public sentiment. Uh, the Iraq war, the American public has at times supported it and felt that it was the right thing to do, that we needed to stay until we left democracy in place. What about gaining public support for the potential for an invasion in Iran? How difficult a challenge is that, politically, for the president?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a couple of points. First, there's going to be a lot of skepticism about the exact nature of the Iranian program because the record of our intelligence agencies on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program wasn't very good. Secondly, of course, when the president calls for strikes, he's going to strengthen his hand at home once these strikes are underway because his critics are going to be faced with the dilemma of going against a threat to the United States and our allies abroad if they challenge the president. So he's going to pick up support. At least that's the way I believe the White House will read this. So I would guess there would be a program of consultation with allies. There would probably be the appearance of some last minute diplomatic measures and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically, and then the strikes. And…<crosstalk> I think the administration would calculate that this would be the end of it.



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
January 2, 2006

You know, the United States still hasn't talked to Iran and, on the other hand, I mean, we don't like the Iranian president, but on the other hand, before we bomb him, we could at least try to have a dialogue. We've gone through the Europeans, why can't we talk to him before we bomb him?


General Wesley Clark on Fox News
January 16, 2006

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's possible to construct a military option that could be, could approach adding five to eight years to the development cycle of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In other words, you could set them back.

Brigitte Quinn. Mmm Hmm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think that you can totally eliminate the possibility, and remember after such a strike, it's very possible that A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan or some other country would come rushing to the aid of Iran."



General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
January 25, 2006

Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Depends on what you're going to do about Iran. Now, you can certainly run bombing strikes and Special Forces activities and you can go after those nuclear sites. You could-

Neil Cavuto: You have to know where those nuclear sites are.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
February 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Sunday
March 5, 2006

Page Hopkins: The IAEA meeting tomorrow morning, Iran's already being defiant saying that if it were referred to the Security Council, that's it - all bets are off we're going to resume enriching uranium on a large scale. What can be done to diffuse this?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think the first thing that needs to be done, really, is the United States needs to talk directly to the leadership in Iran. That's the essential first step. The United States leadership hasn't done this. We've got a lot of different things we can do. There's still a military option - I don't know how effective it's going to be in the long-term, but it's there. There are sanctions. There's the embarrassment of going forward. But, when we push Iran, they're going to push back on us and Iran has positioned itself to be the sort of leader of the Islamic world. It's an historic opportunity for Shia Islam to lead the whole Islamic world in standing up for their right to have nuclear energy and maybe a nuclear weapon. So this is a huge, difficult, political issue for us to face. It's a political issue first; it needs to start with dialogue.


Page Hopkins: How do you have that dialogue, though, since 1979 Iran's been responsible for more killing more Americans in terror attacks than any other country; it's a theocracy; how in the heck do we neutralize or deal with these people?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the first thing to do is you've got to find someone to talk with. There are low-level conversations going on. They're not sanctioned or they're not supported by the US Government. They could be - the United States government could deal with the low level and raise the level of discussions. It could get to the critical issues that are on the table but <crosstalk>


Page Hopkins: But sir ...


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: There are going to be disagreements between the United States and Iran. That can't be papered over <crosstalk>

Page Hopkins: But General Clark...


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: but before we use force, shouldn't we at least talk to them?


Page Hopkins: How do we talk, though, with a president who is alm…crazy? This is a guy who says 'Israel should be wiped off the planet.' How do you reason or talk to somebody like that?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe you don't have to talk to him directly, maybe you talk to other people in the government first. Maybe you build this thing up over a period of time but this has been an opportunity that we've passed by for years. We spoke strongly about the need to put the right government in place in Iran. We basically, our government, tried to interfere in their election. We probably are responsible to giving Ahmedinejad some measure of support because voters don't like it, in whatever country they are, when foreigners try to interfere in their election. We may not think they had a real election. We may not approve of their democracy but people in Iran believe that they voted for Ahmedinejad so what we have to do is we have to decide what we as Americans want to do to pursue what we believe is in our interests. If we only use the stick on Iran, then it's going to be difficult to move the issue, in a constructive way, in the near term. So we need a combination of dialogue and pressure.



Clark on Main Stream Media:

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 2006

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.
George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.


LINKS FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE INTERVIEWS ARE FOUND HERE:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term ...




From Clark's Real State Of The Union Address January 30th 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"

We should join now — right now - in opening new talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option. No one should be mistaken: there is a military option.

We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.
http://securingamerica.com/node/560




Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark

Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
February 14, 2006


QUESTIONER: Reuben Brigety from George Mason University. General, thank you for coming.

Senator McCain has said that the only thing worse than a military strike on Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran. I wonder if you agree with that statement, and if you could offer your thoughts on viable options to prevent Iran from being nuclear armed.

CLARK: Well, the official policy of the United States for a long time has been that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. And if you just connect the dots and you say, well, they have an implacable determination to get an nuclear weapon, and you say but under no circumstances can they have one, then there's only one possible outcome -- (chuckles) -- and it's a very unpleasant outcome.

I think that, first of all, we've had a lot of mistakes in dealing with Iran. What the administration's grand strategy actually resulted in was that if you believed in late 2001 that there was a significant proliferation problem -- risk -- and that your three greatest risks for proliferation were Iraq, Iran and North Korea, then the administration put all of its effort into the least significant problem, which has then caused us to defer and be distracted from necessary attention to the two greater problems of North Korea and Iran.

When I testified in front of Congress in 2002 and wrote articles -- I kept talking about Iran being a greater long-term threat because they clearly were embarked on a program then. And in 2001-2002, we were saying five to eight years for their nuclear weapons to come to -- now we -- I don't know what the intelligence says. And they're probably -- if we're honest, there's probably a lot of disputes in the intelligence community, whether it's now another five to eight years or till 2010 or maybe it's only a year. We don't know. But we've lost critical time in dealing with Iran.

I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.

We should be doing business -- we should have been a long time ago doing business with the Iranian business community. We should have worked with them. We worked with East Europe when it was under communist domination, and it was one of the key factors that helped East Europe throw off an outmoded set of ideas. We need to be working in the Middle East to help their business communities move past old ideas.

So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week.

http://securingamerica.com/node/607

[IndyOp]

18. I'd just like to second your post/reply - Clark has been a clear and

consistent voice against the * administration's actions in Iraq and Iran. And he has been on FOX News because he has the guts to go into the Lion's Den and confront the idiots - not because he is doing FOX bidding.

I am not comfortable with Clark's military background - but I have nothing but praise for the way he has spoken out against the * administration's outrageous misuse of the military.

[bobbieinok]

102. his military background

When he was in Tulsa during the primary, he said he had spent much of his life in the military where people were encouraged to be the best they could be and where all races were treated equally. He made a strong statement that he had lived, experienced, and exerted authority in an egalitarian environment, unlike W and the republicans. And he would work to see that all of US society would become more egalitarian.

He emphasized the importance of education to the military, its concern that everyone in the military have an equal chance at good, further education. He said he was appalled at the disgraceful, unequal reality that so many in the US had to live with.

(This is what I remember; he said it much more compellingly.)

[FrenchieCat]

26. Oops.....some of my links didn't work on the CNN quotes I provided....

Here they are in order as they appear in my "Get out of town, WTF? Giddy on CCN? Don't think so" post!

(I always like to provide "good" links)...just sometimes these DU links lose something in the translation if text copied from post after posting).....
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15172
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/august2003.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9522

[ShaneGR]

27. Wow, you just C & P'd that from a 2004 Dem Primary thread??

"Clark is not a millionaire with a poverty center."

Uh, what's with the John Edwards bash? So the guy made a lot of money but he can't care about poverty?

BTW, I liked John Edwards for the nomination but I'd have picked Clark if Edwards hadn't been around. I think the natural tendency of many on the left to criticize anyone in the military ridiculous.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Nope.....I was only posting facts.....which are that

Wes Clark is NOT a millionare with a Poverty Center, he is a retired General that appears on Fox (which was the criticism I was responding to).

Are there NO millionaires running Poverty Centers?

Did I mention a name in that post? Didn't think so.

But beyond that....How is a true fact a Bash?

I find it a good thing that those with money would devote their time and funds to solving Poverty issues, don't you? :shrug:

PS. I write my own shit which I archive. No Copy and paste here! :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

51. I'm afraid I have to agree with Frenchie

In response to a complaint about Clark on CNN, she wrote, "Clark is not the DNC Chair. Clark is not a Senator. Clark is not a millionaire with a poverty center."

Even if she had written "Edwards is a millionaire with a poverty center," how is that bashing him? First, it's a simple statement of fact. But more than that, there's nothing intrinsicly wrong with being a millionaire, and certainly nothing wrong with running a poverty center.

When she said, "Clark is not the DNC chair," was she bashing Dean? When she said, "Clark is not a senator," was she bashing Kerry or Feingold or Boxer?

I think you're overreacting, and assigning motives that are not contained in the text.

The truth is, Clark has to make a living, and more importantly, he has to find a vehicle to get his message out if he is to make any difference in this country. Contracting with CNN, and more recently Fox, is ONE way he does both. It's not like he can speak on the Senate floor, or travel around the country on UNC dollars, or issue a press release as DNC chair. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with any of those. Just that they don't work for him.

[Clark2008]

46. Some people don't have the mental capacity to realize

that not all soldiers are gung-ho about war. An anti-war general taxes their ability to compartmentalize the military and they cannot seem to see that there is variation from the stereotype they've created in their mind about the so-called military machismo.
It never enters their mind that there are many in the armed services who are bright, thoughtful and against most all war.

Apparently our visitor is one of these.

[pa28]

53. It sometimes has all the hallmarks of prejudice.

Blanket pronouncements about all soldiers, stereotypes and preconceived notions. Closed minds and minds made up right away. I know we can do better than that.

[Dinger]

84. Ahh Yes, That Asman Interview On 11-17-03

Nothing like before or since. LOVE the pic Frenchie! Thanks!!!:patriot:

[Texas_Kat]

12. Thankfully, most of us don't depend on ....

"vibes".

There are better ways to make decision than the way Bush does. Read, discuss and meet the person.

If he's not in your town soon trying like hell to get Dems elected in 06 (and he may be... looking at his schedule)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2639735&mesg_id=2639735

Here's a place to start, an Esquire article from early in 03. Long but detailed:

http://tinyurl.com/33lr2

Come on, the whole 'gut' thing will never be the same since Bush made it his primary decision-making method.

[radio4progressives]

37. Are you asking for scientific evidence of the use of Depleted Uranium?

Just askin'for clarity... :shrug:

[wiley]

3. He's a great man!

:kick:

[FrenchieCat]

14. and doesn't get 1/2 the credit I believe he deserves....but I guess if

he can make a difference in his own way...that's probably more rewarding to him in a long run!

[Old and In the Way]

6. No permanent bases......

guess he's not a member of the PNAC club. Way to go Wes. Your effective application in using the military to serve regional peace and not a Party's financial/political agenda makes us proud.

[judy from nj]

7. How wonderful to see him honored this way

By the way, when was the last time you saw American flags being waved when an visitor was there. Great to see.

[Renew Deal]

8. What Clark did in Kosovo saved a million people.

He is a brave, brilliant general.

[Texas_Kat]

9. Million and a half....

and every one of the Kosavars know it.

I can imagine Georgie Bush thinking... "how come no one give ME flowers?"

[Jai4WKC08]

13. Bush has his "turd blossom"

What does he need with real flowers, from people who actually admire him?

Seriously, when I read that, I had to :rofl: I'm positive Georgie has no clue why he's so unpopular. He seems to really think it's the war. I guess that's what all the yes-men he surrounds himself with tell him. What an idiot.

[Kira]

41. My friend is Serbian from Montenegro

and she says that they weren't killing the people they say they were and that Clinton was wrong. I don't know a lot about that time. It seems that she is deluding herself. Now she says that Serbia should stay united and they are just trying to hurt them. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

[FrenchieCat]

43. Did your friend talk to you about the 4 wars, or just the one?

If not, you should ask her about it.

Here's some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War

Last count is 200,000+ in the 4 wars died.......Wars initiated by the Serbs.

All other parties called them wars of agression and genocide; the Serbs called them "civil wars".

Be your own judge as to who might tell the truth and why....versus who might not, and why not.

Bosnian Serb gets 20 years for war crimes
Reuters
Friday, May 26, 2006; 9:58 AM

SARAJEVO (Reuters) - Bosnia's war crimes court on Friday sentenced Bosnian Serb former officer Dragoje Paunovic to 20 years in prison for crimes against humanity during the Balkan country's 1992-95 war.

The court said Paunovic "ordered and carried out persecution against the Muslim civilian population from the Rogatica area on political, national, ethnic, cultural and religious grounds by committing murders and other inhumane acts."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052600660.html
=============

Along with Slovenia, Croatia declared her independence from Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, which triggered the Croatian War of Independence. The Serb population living in border areas of Croatia revolted, supported by the Yugoslav army, and the ensuing months saw combat between various Croatian and Serbian armed forces. During this stage of the war, the independence of Croatia was recognized by the international community, while the Serbs proclaimed their own state, the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and by the early 1992 the troops entrenched. This stage of the war left hundreds of thousands as refugees on the Croatian side. In 1995, the Croatian Army successfully launched two major offensives to retake the rebel areas by force, leading to a mass displacement of the Serbian population from those areas. A few months later, the war ended upon the negotiation of the Dayton Agreement. A peaceful reintegration of the remaining Serbian-controlled territories was completed in 1998 under UN supervision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia
============
The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was an armed conflict which took place between March 1992 and November 1995. The war involved several ethnically defined factions within Bosnia and Herzegovina: Republika Srpska, Herzeg-Bosnia and Western Bosnia and the remnants of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina government. Each faction claimed to represent one of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian constituent peoples Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats. These factions changed their objectives and allegiances several times at various stages of the war.

Since the war in Bosnia is a consequence of events in the wider region of former Yugoslavia, and due to the undisputed involvement of neighboring countries Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro, there is an ongoing debate about whether the conflict was a civil war or an aggression. Bosniaks claim that the war was an aggression from Serbia and Montenegro, while Bosnian Serbs maintain that it was a civil war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War

[Kira]

Thanks

I wanted to read something objective on the subject. I never thought of Wikipedia.

[Kira]

49. Thanks

I wanted to read something objective on the subject. I never thought of Wikipedia.

[11cents]

15. Reminds me of when Clinton was President.

When he travelled he was always greeted with enthusiasm, respect, affection. It made me feel good as an American.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Sad....that now we have to be Canadians in order to get even

a modicum of respect most places we travel in the world! :(

[Donna Zen]

19. OMG! They really gave him flowers!

Not only that, but the people are smiling. I'm very glad to see this. Wes Clark worked so hard to make this happen for the Kosovar people; people who have no oil.

[Clark2008]

47. Quick!! Someone grab those flowers! Those were the

flowers that were supposed to be thrown at the feet of the corporations... erm... military... after BushCo. freed the Iraqis. :sarcasm:

[NCarolinawoman]

20. In broad daylight! Not in the stealth of night with a plastic turkey!

Our country, for its own survival, needs more of this! We cannot be considered a paria among mankind.

Thanks for posting these pictures!

[Auntie Bush]

21. I wonder where bowenhead is? No comment yet! Pigs are flying!

[Auntie Bush]

22. If Clark were President...I'll bet the Muslims of the world

wouldn't hate us so much and we'd have less terrorism.

[Donna Zen]

28. That is a point that many people miss:

The moderates in the Middle East remember that Wes Clark willingly put his career on the line for Muslims without oil. I don't know about terrorist, but they are a very small percentage of world's Muslim people. So yes, Clark would put the U.S. in a much better position, and he wouldn't be sending Karen Hughes anywhere. As he said, it is the deeds not the talk that will change the world's oppinion of our country. In that respect, it would damp down the terrorist aims.

Recently in NH, Wes Clark answered a question about South America with the same theme. He said that we must stop pushing countries into confrontation, that it was time we started listening to them.

And this is another point that many people miss: many politicians would never dare to make these kinds of statements for fear of being seen as weak. Clark can both say and mean them. It really is time to give peace a chance.

[yellerpup]

23. I love this guy!

I can't wait to vote for him. How wonderful it would be to have a President who can actually think on his feet, have ideas, solve problems, and talk without putting his foot in his mouth. Wesley Clark is so smart and diplomatic, we need him to rehabilitate our image in the world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. "we need him to rehabilitate our image in the world"

That part really is key about Clark. Here he is today in a Muslim nation receiving awards and thanks from a grateful public. Not many other American leaders who can pull that one off.

Outside of the United States international institutions receive a lot more respect than they do inside the United States, but things like the fact that Clark willingly submitted himself to an international court's jurisdiction, that Clark has been among the strongest critics of the Bush Administration's efforts to undermine and ignore the Geneva Conventions, the fact that Clark openly says that he believes the United States is running secret prisons around the world and that we must have something to hide if we won't let the Red Cross into them, these things don't go unnoticed OUTSIDE of the United States, where the media sometimes still covers important news. Clark can be a President who can win back respect for America around the world. The Arabs know and trust him. Europe knows and trusts him. You can't buy that kind of trust and respect, or manufacture it the way that Bush did by sending Karen Hughes globe trying to talk up America.

[yellerpup]

42. Thanks for expanding on that thought

The world is watching and Clark has world wide credibility that B** can only dream of.

[Clark2008]

75. His respect worldwide is second to none:

(International Honors - two Knighthoods, included)

ALBANIA
The Skanderbeg Medal

ARGENTINA
Order of Merit

BELGIUM
The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold

BULGARIA
Order of the Madara Horseman, First Class with Swords

CANADA
The Meritorious Service Cross

CROATIA
Grade of Prince Branimir with Ribbon and Star

CZECH REPUBLIC
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class

ENGLAND
Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire

ESTONIA
Order of the Cross of the Eagle

FRANCE
Commander of the Legion of Honor

GERMANY
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit

HUNGARY
Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic

ITALY
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit

LITHUANIA
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas

LUXEMBOURG
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy

MOROCCO
Grand Cordon of the Ouissam Alaoui

NETHERLANDS
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords

POLAND
The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit

PORTUGAL
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit

SLOVAKIA
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class

SLOVENIA
Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom

SPAIN
Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band)

VIETNAM
Republic of Vietnam Combat Medal

[DeepModem Mom]

25. Thank you!

[ArkySue]

29. He makes me proud to be an American

An odd feeling in these days and times.

[CarolNYC]

31. Aw, that is sweet and beautiful...

What wonderful pictures...They greeted him with flowers! And the smiling people, the US flags! Oh my! What a great ambassador for the US. He reminds people of the good this country can do. That is so nice. And they named a street for him...He will speak to their parliament.

I can't imagine what it must feel like to have so many people so grateful to you. I remember stories during the campaign of Albnian Americans who would have tears in their eyes when greeting the General, so grateful because they credited him with saving their mother's or their grandmother's or their brother's lives....I just can't imagine how that must feel, to be approached like that. He is a true American hero.

How lovely for both our General and the Kosovars.

Bravo, General Clark. You did good.

[dogman]

32. This is so reminiscent of the '03-'04 campaign.

Whenever he campaigned these people were there to greet him. They had so much respect and admiration for Clark because he helped save them and their families.

[seabeyond]

33. i love clark, but since listening to his son, i just dont see the guy

the same. and it pisses me off. cause i like the dude. the son really really turned me off

[Auntie Bush]

35. Why don't you email his son and discuss it with him,

(He's a member of DU) Maybe he can change your mind, I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe there is an explanation.

[FrenchieCat]

38. I like the Son and what he had to say......

However, Wes Jr. is who he is, and Wes Clark is who he is.

I respect both of them, and don't have a problem with either of their points of view.

And in reference to the usage of "that" word that Wes Jr. kept mentioning (which I guess is what turned you off), it was used because of an article that the interviewer had written titled just that.

[imlost]

34. What a great man!

I agree with him. There should be no permanent bases in Iraq. It's nice to see him get some praise.
He truly believes what he puts out there. He has a lot of integrity and compassion for humans everywhere.

[Auntie Bush]

36. I wonder what the Freepers think of him after seeing him on Faux?

Has anyone ever heard them make a comment after he's on TV?
I wonder if they ever agree with him or make snide or positive comments.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. Oh yeah, the freepers hate it

If you use google news to search for "Wesley Clark" and "Fox News," you can find dozens of right-wing articles whining about how his appearances on Fox is proof that Fox has gone liberal. :rofl:

[Clark2008]

77. It's funny how they all loved him before he declared he

was a Democrat. There were a few cases were Freeps were musing whether he could suceed Shrubbie in 2008. Now, of course, they try to find silly names for him like "Weasley" Clark and, the mis-used "Ashley Wilkes," which is rather stupid on Rush's part, because Ashley was much beloved by both Melanie and Scarlett, making him rather popular.

:eyes:

[Jai4WKC08]

118. Well, like Eisenhower before him

Clark was courted by both parties. They wanted him to challenge David Pryor in 2002, when gaining control of the Senate still looked iffy for them. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a hint of something bigger. Not the top of the ticket, to be sure -- even if Clark had hid his liberal views, his record is way too far to the left for the modern GOP to suggest the nomination. But I bet he could have had a Repub VP slot for the taking, either with Cheney stepping down for "health reasons" or held over for the Bush 08 heir apparent who's bound to emerge. Or would if Bush hadn't spent all that "political capital" he bragged about.

Not that Clark would have been a good fit in the GOP... that integrity thing, you know. Not something that gets you anywhere in right-wing power circles. But then, if he were the type of guy to be looking for the "good deal" the Repubs had to offer, I guess integrity wouldn't be a problem.

Ya know, when Ike decided to run as a Repub, no one attacked his character or military record. No one tried to say he was a "political general" altho in many ways he was -- you have to be to operated at that level, altho saying that should cast no aspersions on his tactical skills or experience. But I have a feeling that if Ike were running today, it'd probably be as a Democrat, and the GOP would be doing all those things, even given his post-war popularity. It's what politics has come to. Not to say there weren't dirty tricks in years past, but the party hacks usually had the good sense to keep it behind closed doors, and there was no need or capacity to fill 24/7 media with bullshit.

Yeah, they'd have "swiftboated" Ike: made Montgomery look like a military genius (like Jackson), Patton the bold warrior whom timid and politically correct Ike reigned in. They have run ads that showed Marshall did all the planning, and compared an aloof and cerebral Eisenhower to GI General Bradley. And what did he really accomplish in Europe anyway? The real threat was in the Pacific. Can't you hear it? :rofl:

[NCarolinawoman]

123. Nowadays maybe no one would have wanted Ike cause he had

never RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE BEFORE.

He must prove himself first as a leader, Whoops, I meant prove himself as a politician. Ike would have to show that he could do soudbites, put his finger to the wind, lie a bit, then run for public office and WIN! Then the people could trust him to be President.
:sarcasm:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[benny05]

39. It's always Nice to see our Patriots in the News!

Way to go, Wes...

[eridani]

40. Sure they'll respect the rights of all their citizens.

That's because the Serbian, Jewish and Rom minorities have been driven out by arson and murder, so there are only Albanians left.

If Kosovo deserves independence from Serbia, then the Krajina deserved independence from Croatia. They didn't get it, though. US mercernaries helped the Nazi Tudjman kill or displace all the Serbs living there, and Clark had nothing to say about this, though it was exactly similar to the Kosovo situation.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Maybe in your version of history, the Serbians are the victims.......

But you would be wrong.

That's what happens to folks who think they know what they don't.

[Texas_Kat]

48. And, in THIS universe

Milosovic is still dead

[eridani]

83. So is the Nazi Tudjman, unfortunately

Still waiting to hear why the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina was not treated the same way as that of Kosovo.

[Texas_Kat]

86. Next time you see Bill Clinton or your local congresscritter

(if they were in office at the time) I suggest you ask them.

[The Great Escape]

95. Wasn't Tudjman a Partisan General During WWII?

[The Magistrate]

98. No, Sir, He Was Not

Tito, the Yugoslav Communist leader, was the leader of the partisan faction that won in the Second World War; there were several others, and while they fought the Germans, they fought a nasty civil war among themselves as well.

[eridani]

127. General? No, but he was with the Ustashe

--whose flag he established as the official flag of independent Croatia.

[Jai4WKC08]

50. Or know the facts but...

Spin them, or make up new ones, so that their own side appears victimized.

All but the most partisan pro-Serb and/or pro-GOP hacks know damn well that the Serbs were the agressors in 1999, and that if NATO hadn't acted, there would likely be a million plus Kosovars dead, and many of the neighboring governments in collapse.

Now they're trying to make it sound like the Kosovars are al Qaeda surrogates who are terrorizing all the non-Muslims in the province. But the real truth of what's happening now is shown in a recent UN report that all incidence of ethnic crime in the first quarter of this year comprised 12 attacks on Kosovar Serbs, and 6 attacks on Kosovar Albanians. Ethnic Albanians constitute approximately 90% of the population, but the Serbs are still causing about a third of the trouble. Regardless, 19 incidents (there was one against a Croat) is hardly large-scale violence in a population of close to two million.
http://kosovareport.blogspot.com/2006/05/un-says-ethnically-motivated-crime-in.html

The following is the first few paragraphs of a great run-down on how the Serbian and right-wing media are in cahoots to smear the Kosovars. It's all about blocking their bid for independence and nothing to do with the truth on the ground.

Monday, May 22, 2006
The Serbian Lobby Attempts to Hijack U.S. Foreign Policy on Kosova
by Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi

With signals coming out of the Contact Group that the Prishtina-Belgrade negotiations will soon consider the issue of Kosova’s final status, there has been much jubilation in Albanian circles. Almost seven years since war’s end, elation about the prospect of ending Kosova’s political, social, and economic limbo as a UN protectorate is understandable. Nevertheless, it may also be premature.

As Kosova moves closer and closer to becoming an independent state, the Serbian lobby in Washington (including the Serbian Unity Congress and representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States, Belgrade, and Kosova), have intensified their efforts to derail Kosova’s independence. Knowing that the Contact Group and other international bodies are prepared to impose a solution if final status talks break down this summer (and I believe they will), the Serbian lobby is waging a war in the press in a last-ditch effort to sway official and public opinion in the United States in its favor.

Their goal is to secure the partition of Kosova—which has always been Belgrade’s endgame—by instilling fear in the United States, especially in the U.S. Congress in a post 9/11 world, that Kosova’s Albanian majority represents a Muslim, potentially terrorist, force in the heart of Europe. In reality, Kosovar Albanians, like Albanians everywhere, are largely secular Muslims, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians who have lived together in harmony for centuries. Albanians, who see themselves first as Albanians and second as people of faith, pride themselves on their religious tolerance. This has been given no better expression than in the fact that Albania (with help from ethnic Albanians in Kosova, Montenegro, and Macedonia) is the only nation that can claim that it rescued every Jew who managed to get inside its borders during the Holocaust.

Serbia’s media war is a dirty war—not only because it is spreading anti-Albanian racism and misusing religion to gain political advantage in the West—but, above all, because it is placing news reports and op-eds in major U.S. newspapers that are written purportedly by “neutral” political and religious analysts, who are actually connected to the Serbian lobby and their well-known law-lobbying firm in Washington, DC. In what follows, I will attempt to expose the leading actors in this effort (which is directed at winning over unwitting American readers) and establish their interrelationships. In my opinion, it behooves the political leaders and all the people of Kosova (the Albanian majority and the Serb, Roma, Turk, and Ashkalli minorities), the Contact Group, the United Nations, and the European Union to oppose Belgrade’s efforts to undermine the international effort to bring peace to Southeast Europe once and for all.

It continues in great detail on this propaganda campaign at http://balkanupdate.blogspot.com/2006/05/serbian-lobby-attempts-to-hijack-us.html
If you have any interest on how the right-wing media works to shape US and allied policy, please read this article.

[eridani]

82. Of course there are fewer incidents in 2006

The non-Albanian minorites have mostly fled.

Since ethnic breakup is a fact of life, it makes sense for Kosova to be independent. What I want to know is why the same logic was not applied to the Krajina, a situation exactly parallel to that of Kosova.

Muslims in ex-Yugoslavia are mainly secular, but Al-Qaeda still operates freely there--the Balkans used to be one of the prime destinations in the jihadi grand tour training schedule, which included Chechnya and Afghanistan as well. Of course now Iraq has superseded all of those as the current place to be.

[The Magistrate]

88. What Is Your Point In All This, Ma'am?

Serbia launched a war in Croatia in part to secure the Krajina districts. Though things looked to be going its way for a while, the eventual result was defeat. There are consequences to defeat: these are the leading reason nations should be damned circumspect about going to war in the first place. Similarly, Serbia commenced a campaign to drive the Albanians out of Kossovo; they were defeated in this as well, and again, there are consequences to defeat.

The presence of jihadis in the Balkans is owing solely to the inaction of Western powers during the Serbian murder campaign against Moslems in Bosnia. Naturally militant Moslems came to the aid of their co-religionists, as a half a century before leftists from around the world came to the aid of the Spanish Republic. Jihadis did not cause any of the Balkan difficulties, and did not have material impact on them. They are invoked simply as a distraction, and an attempt to piggy-back onto current events the ancient Serbian delusion they are some bulwark of the Christendom against the Moslem Scourge. Of course, persons with some knowledge of Balkan history know better: the facts are that Serbian leaders voluntarily allied with the first wave of the Ottoman, and were essential to the Ottoman victory at Nicopolis; that the Sebs only opposed the Ottomans militarily owing to a quarrel over division of spoils when their forces were assisting the Ottomans in suppressing a rebellion in their Moslem districts, and that throughout the remaining centuries of the Otoman reign, the Serbs provided reliable troops, quite apart from the conscripted jannissaries, to secure Ottoman rule in Asia Minor.

[eridani]

91. So, what was wrong with attempting to secure the predominantly Serb

districts? They were trying to prevent Kosovo-style ethnic cleansing there and failed. I'm not understanding why you are cheerleading for something that was not the slightest bit different from Kosovo. The Croatians with American mercenaries succeeded in ethnic cleansing of the Serbian majority to protect the Croatian minority there. If that's OK, what's wrong with driving out the Albanian majority to protect the Serbian minority in Kosovo? (BTW, the Serbian parliament, with 2/3 of its members opposed to Milosevic, voted to offer to make Kosovo a UN protectorate because they could see that the hardline Milosevic policies were not protecting Serbian and other minorities there. What in fucking hell was wrong with that plan?)

I'm assuming you think that the Serbs in Bosnia should have been totally unconcerned with the fact that the other 2/3 of the country elected a president that had participated in the Nazi slaughter of 500,000 Serbs in WW II. The Lisbon agreement could have forstalled conflict with its division of Bosnia into various areas of ethnic influence; it was pretty much the same as the Dayton agreements except that it was proposed BEFORE all the bloodshed.

[The Magistrate]

93. What You Are Doing, Ma'am

Is badly scrambling the sequence of events, and proclaiming things that happened afterwards caused things that came before. That will never do, and why you are doing can only be speculated on. You are also putting too much credence in charges sustained by Tito's government in its early days against irridentist figures, but that is a comparatively minor matter.

The conflict between Sebia and Croatia commenced before the events in Bosnia, though it ended roughly simultaneously with them. Persecution by Croatia of Serbian minority populations in its borders, and persecution by Serbia of Croatian minority populations within its borders, and Serbian incursions into traditionally Serbian border districts of Croatia, commenced at about the same time. In the full-bore war which followed, the Serbs enjoyed the advantage of control of the arsenals, and most units, of the Yugoslav armed forces, and could prosecute their campaigns with the full panoply of armor, artillery, and air power. This gave them a killing power their opponents could not match, and which was used ruthlessly against civilian populations. It should not be necessary to point out that this is an atrocity by any definition, and a grave crime of war. That a foe with lesser resources also behaved atrociously and criminally does not lessen this, and does not effect the balance of the criminality, which rests more heavily by far on the actions of the Serbian forces. This was going on already when the situation dissolved in the Bosnian elections that made evident the determination of most Bosnians to secure independence. All involved knew for a certainty that Serbian forces in an ensuing conflict could be expected to conduct a war of massacre, because that is precisely what they were busy at elsewhere. If Serbs in Bosnia feared massacre, the reason for any sensible fear along those lines was the conduct of Serbian forces elsewhere, and the statements of their own leadeship that they meant to expell Moslems from what they viewed as Serb soil. That expectation was spectacularly justified by events. The allegation against Izetbegovic is mere undigested propaganda; had he had any real connection with the Nazi occupation he would have been shot or tortured to death before '48, rather than sentenced to a short term of years in prison by Tito, and he would certainly not have been tolerated in his low-grade irridentist agitations throughout the Tito period, as he was. He was a mere Bosnian nationalist crank, with the mixed fortune to live to a more propitious time. Once hostilities were in full sway in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia made a sort of thieves' peace in which they agreed to table their quarrel and carve slices from Bosnia. During this, building up a Croatian military became the chosen course of the Western powers for checking Serbia, and the alliance of marauders broke down when the Croats were strong enough to strike, which they did when Bosnia was down and defeated. It was certainly a criminal act of the Croats to drive out Serbian minorities from their territory: those minorities also had been active in the war on the Sebian side, and driven out pockets of Croats and Moslems living initially among them during the course of the preceeding hostilities. Again, Ma'am, war is a serious matter, and there are consequences to defeat when one is engaged upon it, and whether these consequences can be judged criminal or not is somewhat beside the point, for they will occur. It was subsequent to this that the Serbian campaign to expell Albanian Moslems from Kossovo commenced. No onlooker had any reason to suspect such a campaign would be carried on in any other style than had the previous Sebian campaigns in Croatia and Bosnia been conducted, once it commenced in earnest. Appropriate steps were taken to prevent this, and it was prevented. It is very difficult not to judge this a good thing; there are certainly thousands of people still alive today, and hundreds of thousands still living in their homes, who otherwise would not be. A much smaller number have, unfortunately, subsequently been dispossed or even killed. But once matters have reached the pitch they did, the moral calculus becomes just that brutal an exercise in arithmetic, and those unable to face up to that will have little effect on neutral opinion.

[eridani]

109. And something like 20,000 Serbs from the Krajina were killed

and many thousands more displaced. And the whole Bosnia conflict could have been avoided had Itzbegovic signed onto the Lisbon agreement. Why should a minority tolerate direct rule by a majority that had killed 500,000 of them?

[The Magistrate]

116. Again, Ma'am, Straighten Out The Sequence

The liquidation of the Krajina took place years after the commencement of war in Bosnia. What happens on Thursday cannot be the cause of what happened on Monday.

And cease pretending, as well, that half a century had not passed after the Second World War, and that Bosnians were determined on massacre of Serbs in Bosnia. There is no evidence for that proposition whatever. The fact is that there were extensive massacres of Moslems by Serbs, both of the point-blank shoot them into a ditch style and of the bombard the city style. These were made only more excrable by the whimperings of "we're only do it in self-defense" occassionally emerging from the perpetrators and their various apologists.

[eridani]

71. The people who are telling you that Serbs are the only villains--

--are the same people who lied about Iraq and are now beating the war drums against Iran. Not company I'd be proud to hang with.

All you have done is assert that I am wrong. Care to provide a link to ethnic cleansing of the Krajina which demonstrates otherwise?

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Au contraire. You're with the GOP on this one

The Serb-American community donated more dollars per capita to Bush04 than any other ethnic group in the country. They viciously attacked John Kerry and his team, just as they attacked Clinton for going to war over Kosovar muslims, whom they would have us believe are all al Qaeda surrogates. The publisher of the Cleveland Plain Dealer who overrode his editorial board and refused to allow his paper to endorse Kerry is a Serb-American influential within Repub circles. Many of the 04 smears against Clark for conduct of the Kosovo War originated right in RNC headquarters, but were disseminated by Serb sources, and are still being spread today.

Albanian-Americans, otoh, are consistent Democratic voters.

I provided you two links, and some of the text, to refute your bogus claims. Why don't you respond to those before asking us to dig up something unrelated to the subject of the OP.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Republicans were AGAINST going into Kosovo.....Democrats

were in the majority. That's should tell you a great deal!

Republican senators voted 38-16 against NATO airstrikes in Yugoslavia
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june99/clinton_6-11b.html

Here's what Republicans said about the Kosovo intervention:

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush


Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99


"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99


Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)


"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"
Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R)


"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage


"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)


"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R )


"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will
either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media
http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/08/17/heresWhatRepublicansSaidAboutClintonAndKosovo.html

[eridani]

80. This is about right and wrong, not partisanship

It's about imperialism, which Dems have supported post WW II as much as Republicans. Neoliberal economic policies were a primary factor in exacerbating ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia. Partisanship is so fucked up these days that Repubs were actually against an imperial action just because it happened under a Democrat--big switch from the Vietnam era.

Bottom line is that either

a. ethnic cleansing in the Krajina and Kosovo are both OK or
b. ethnic cleansing in the Krajina and Kosovo are both wrong.

Which is it?

[FrenchieCat]

89. It was about right and wrong.....and the Democrats were right,

and the Republicans were wrong....as usual.

You want the Clinton Administration to have been wrong about Kosovo...but they weren't.

I understand that unless you would have seen hundreds of thousands of dead Albanian bodies in Kosovo, you will never believe that the intervention was required.....but let me tell you something; the Clinton administration PREVENTED full blown genocide and that's the way it should have been.

In addition, something should have been done in Bosnia early as well, and it wasn't; the result was 200,000 deaths.

We should have done something in Rwanda as well, and we didn't; the result was 800,000 deaths.

They finally did something in Kosovo, and they should have. It really is that simple.

[eridani]

90. Still in favor of American mercenaries helping

--to murder 20,000 Serbs in the Krajina, and driving the rest out? The only genocide attempts in Kosovo occured AFTER American bombing and in a revenge response to it.

So, answer the question. Is ethnic cleansing OK in both the Krajina and Kosovo, or wrong in both places?

You're fucking well right that something should have been done about Bosnia earlier. That something would have been for the US ambassador to insist that Itzbegovic sign the Lisbon agreement instead of urging him not to. You might be familiar with what was in that agreement because it was pretty much what was in the Dayton agreement, only it was proposed BEFORE the war.

[Jai4WKC08]

96. I don't know what you're looking for...

You say it's not about partisanship, but YOU are the one who introduced partisanship by implying that we are on the side of the Bushies ("the same people who lied about Iraq and are now beating the war drums against Iran.")

You keep asking whether ethnic cleansing was was OK in the Krajina but not in Kosovo. Frenchie says it was not. Let me add my affirmation. Murder (even if it's just one person) and genocide are never OK, and should be stopped if possible -- by an individual in the first case, and by a nation in the second. I doubt you'd find any liberal who would disagree.

But I don't understand what that has to do with this thread. Clark wasn't in anyway involved with the Balkans until he was assigned to be Holbrooke's military negotiator for the Dayton Peace accords. During the time frame you're talking about, he was only a 2-star at Ft Hood TX, with some of his subordinate commands deployed to Saudi Arabia and southern Iraq. So he had no input whatsoever in any policy decisions made about anywhere in Europe until after the fighting in Bosnia, Croatia and whatever nations or provinces it may have bled into, and played no part in any operations there. He damn sure had nothing to do with any American mercenaries, and I sort of doubt anyone in the Clinton administration did either. It's sort of the nature of mercenaries that they work outside of governmental frameworks.

But you are DEAD wrong that the atrocities against the Kosovars only started after the bombing of the Serbs by NATO under Clark's leadership.

Was some of it in retaliation for what had happened before? Probably. Just as the Serbs killed in Kosovo since the war are largely in retaliation of the atrocities. Such is the nature of ethnic violence. But Milosevic said that his Serbs would do to the Albanians what they did in 1945--kill them all. He progressively instituted many of the same practices that the Nazis used against the German Jews--closing schools, outlawing the Albanian language, kicking Albanians out of government and educational institutions, the methodical murder of the Albanian intellectual and commercial classes, and ultimately a campaign of terror to drive Albanian Kosovars from their homes and into the mountains from where they could either leave the country or die of exposure (as many of them did). It was a matter of policy, not just a few pissed off individuals seeking revenge.

[The Magistrate]

97. One Correction, Ma'am, And One Commendation, For Your Excellent Piece

The "mercenary" trainers of the Croatian army in the last stages of the Serb-Croat war were U.S. military personnel, recently retired or on reserve status, hired for the task by a private concern with close connections to the Defense Department, and acting on behalf of the U.S. government in the common "Remember, if you are caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions" style such matters are frequently undertaken in. The number of such persons was small, and they did not provide battlefield leadership, but training in weapons usage and advanced infantry tactics.

Your account of the measures Milosevic undertook in Kossovo long before the final stages of the Balkan War is quite accurate, and should not be swept under the rug of special pleadings that have been pressed here. Two things are worth pointing out in connection with your comments on the subject. First, prior to the Second World War, the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government had put in place similar measures, with the avowed aim of expelling the Albanian populace of Kossovo and converting the place to a Serbian preserve. The intent is one of long standing in Serbian intellectual and political circles, and this fact was known to every professional observer of the scene in the last decade of the last century. Second, the overwhelming response of the Albanian populace in the 1990s to these oppressive measures was one of pacific resistance, focused on the erection of a "shadow government" led by Mr. Ibrahim Rugova, a prominent intellectual, which maintained clandestinely many governmental service including schools, and even managed a voluntary collection of tax revenues. It was only a tiny fringe of violent seperatists who urged other measures, and the general perception of the Albanian population at the time was that they were simply provocatuers established by the Serbian police; they had practically no footing in the Albanian populace there until the first Serbian Interior Ministry murder squads began operating openly in the countryside. The next move in this dance is generally to proclaim these persons were an intolerable danger to Serbs and Serbia, but that claim is false, and shown to be false by the official records of the Serbian government itself at the time.

[eridani]

111. Compare what the Serbs wanted to do in Albania

--with what the Albanians actually did in WW II. Namely, enthusiastically cooperate with Hitler in the mass murder of 500,000 Serbs.

I know that Rugova and his movement don't approve of the KLA, nonetheless they are still a serious problem, as NATO pretty much lets them have free run of the place.

And I still can't figure out what any of you think was wrong with the Serbian parliament proposal to make Kosovo a UN protectorate. The 2/3 anti-Milosevic factions (unfortunately too divided among themselves to get rid of him) strongly opposed his counterproductive dealings with Kosovo.

[The Magistrate]

113. Do You Know Something, Ma'am?

What happened in WWII does not matter a tinker's damn to what happened in 1999. Why you continue to pretend it does is a mystery to me. Whether Albanians roasted Serbs over slow fires and ate them with a light Chianti in 1944, or whether they threw flowers and candy at them and offered them the defloration of their virgin maids in the same year, does not make the slightest difference to whether an act of the Serbian state in the 1990s was a grave war crime, properly prevented and properly punished by outside powers. No one, Ma'am, no one at all in the world, cares in the slightest what happened in Yugoslavia in the 1940s, and no one needs to care, and no one should care, so long as the matter is raised by nationalist revanchists and apologists for atrocity to justify more recent crimes and serve as the basis for new ones.

"A nation is a group of people united by a false view of history and hatred for their neighbors."

[Tom Rinaldo]

115. Indeed. The truest Nazi's, in Hitler's Germany, were defeated.

Now Israel has relations with the modern German State, and France is closely allied with it. A German in his or her early 40's in 1999 wasn't born until AFTER World War II. And a terrorist who today would murder innocent German villagers can not justify that crime by recalling German SS Officers murdering innocent villagers 55 years prior.

[The Magistrate]

117. Thank You, Mr. Rinaldo

It is a pleasure to see you join this conversation.

[eridani]

126. Of course it does

Would you forget losing 500,000 people? Israelis certainly don't. What do you think Never Again means?

[Jai4WKC08]

120. Thanks for the compliment and the correction

I always learn something from your posts.

Only one comment. The US military employs trainers throughout the world and always has. It's not a big secret, altho the fact of and/or fact about any particular mission might be. Usually they are active duty special forces, or reservists who are called to active duty temporarily. When special forces with the appropriate regional/language training are in short supply or busy elsewhere, or when the government wants to keep the relationship at more of an arm's distance, they will use private companies. We do it even more frequently with materiel and transportation assistance. I'm thinking the Flying Tigers in Burma, but that's just probably the best well-known. I had a captain worked for me once who had done training in a number of African countries. As I said, it was no secret.

I don't consider these people "mercenaries." I realize there can be a fine line. Since the advent of the All Volunteer Force (and really before) the US military has contracted for services and support that most other armies of the world require their uniformed personnel to provide. It's because we have more money than manpower, whereas in most armies just the opposite is true.

But before the current administration, mercenaries in the sense of true combatants have never been employed (and I mean that in a military sense) by the US government. That is why the presence of civilian "security" contractors in Iraq is so alarming. These people are not subject to military discipline, and unless they happen to be prior-service military, have little or no training in the law of land warfare. It is my fear that that's exactly why the Rumsfeld Pentagon relies upon them, and in fact foists them upon a reluctant military chain of command.

[eridani]

106. Sorry about derailing the thread

But it isn't entirely off topic to wonder whether or not Clark approves of the neoliberal economic policies that exacerbated ethnic antagonisms in Yugoslavia. I understand that he didn't set overall policy at the time, but why has he not spoken out against the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina.

And no, I am not wrong about the timing of the atrocities in Kosovo. Look it up. 95% of it was retaliation from a war that there was no way for Serbia to avoid. Clinton DEMANDED, as the only alternative to war, that Serbia accept total NATO occupation and agree to sell off all its state and/or worker owned enterprises. No leader of any state could accept that and stay in office. The hard-line policies of Milosevic were OPPOSED by 2/3 of the Serbian parliament, which offered a plan of its own to get out of the whole mess by making Kosovo a UN protectorate.

And don't pretend that the KLA was not (and is still not) a major problem. It is a drug-running Mafia linked to Al Qaeda preying on Albanians as well as ethnic minorities in Kosovo. Granted that the Rugovic non-violent autonomny movement had nothing to do with them, it wasn't reasonable to expect the Serbs to ignore them. NATO has pretty much given them free run of the place now.

[Jai4WKC08]

119. Agreed. Discussing the Kosova War is not off-topic

Dredging up historical conflicts that pre-date Clark's involvement in the region is somewhat of a bigger stretch. But I suppose it can be reasonably argued that it all ties together, so long as you don't try to blame Clark, or anyone who approves of what he accomplished there, for past unjustices.

That said, I agree with The Magistrate that no prior crime justifies a later one.

I'm not sure I accept your premise that somehow Clinton economic policy "exacerbated ethnic antagonisms in Yugoslavia," altho I know that all war usually comes back to economics and the control of resources. In ethnic violence, often the passions of the people are manipulated by people who only really care about wealth and power. But even so, economics is no excuse for atrocities. And if Clinton's policy contributed to the problem somehow, it does not automatically follow that such was his intent. Sometimes, shit happens. And sometimes, shit will happen no matter what you do or should have done. And still other times, when shit has happened, people will look backwards to find excuses and place blame where perhaps it doesn't belong.

Why has Clark not spoken out against the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina? I don't that he hasn't, depending on what you mean by speaking out. In the case of Kosovo, he was of course responsible for the region at the time when the war crimes in Kosovo were being committed. When the Tutsis were being slaughtered by the Hutus in Rwanda, Clark was the J-5 (Strategic Plans Officer) on the Joint Staff, so it was partly his responsibility as well. He prepared a plan to intervene, and much of his opinion on Kosovo was informed by his frustration at not being able to convince those with the power to implement it to do so. So he has, since his retirement from the Army, spoken out on that too. And he has spoken out about Darfur, because that is an on-going genocide, the reaction to which he hopes to influence. But there are sadly many many incidents of genocidal warfare in the world's bloody history. I do not expect that he has condemned all of them by name. That is not to say he wouldn't if asked.

As for the time-line of atrocities against the Kosovars, or the size and influence of the KLA, I don't see much point in arguing it further. I explained what was going on before the war. I don't agree that Serbia was given no choice. I obviously do not believe the KLA poses the threat that you do. I think my opinions are all pretty well substantiated by reliable sources. But you have your sources that differ. And if I think your sources are mostly Serb/GOP/Christian propaganda, you probably think mine are equally bogus. What's the point of arguing truth when we can never agree on simple facts?

[FrenchieCat]

125. Speaking of Rwanda and Wes Clark.....

Throughout the '90s, he bridled at U.S. inaction, particularly in Rwanda, where rampaging Hutu militiamen murdered 800,000 Tutsi in 100 days. The response from Washington was worse than nothing: Secretary of State Warren Christopher urged a "full, orderly withdrawal" of U.N. peacekeepers, lest the United States be called upon to relieve the rump force, a prospect the Pentagon adamantly opposed. Clark, then Shalikashvili's policy director, was ashamed. He later observed to author Samantha Power, "The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene." In Waging Modern War, Clark implies that the military dishonored itself "when we stood by as nearly a million Africans were hacked to death."
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20031006&s=ackerman100603

[eridani]

128. I could get behind using US troops there, provided that--

--they were placed under the command of someone who knew whatthehell the local scene on the ground was. That would have been the Canadian general Romeo Dallaire.

[FrenchieCat]

130. Well, I'm glad you are "behind" something that never happened .....

"I could get behind using US troops there, provided that--"

with your caveat request added as to whom should have been in charge. How timely of you! :sarcasm:

....but for your info, the 800,000 are already dead, and nobody did nothing.

[eridani]

129. So explain what a demand to have NATO troops permanently installed--

--in Serbia proper, plus a demand to sell off its state owned enterprises, had to do with ethnic cleansing.

[Totally Committed]

131. Now that this has been kicked again, I'd like to say

that I think what happened in this thread is a damned shame.

Here is a leader in the Democratic Party being honored abroad like a hero, and there just HAS to be this discussion in the middle of it. Not another thread started, but just this snitty back-and-forth that has only peripherally anything to do with this subject.

I have appreciated very much the Magistrate's posts. I've learned a lot from them. I also appreciate the valiant efforts by Jai, Frenchie, Tom and everyone else who has tried to reason this out.

I reiterate, though.... this is a goddam shame that a thread of something to be proud of is marred like this. This isn't the first time, and it will not be the last, but I'll always feel sad when it happens.

That's all.

TC

[bobbieinok]

103. my religious right colleague's take on the Kosovo matter

She moaned 'We're not even supporting Christians; we're supporting Muslims!!!!'

My reaction 'Wow! Milosovitch as the Christian leader at the end of the 20th century! Incredible!'

[The Magistrate]

76. To Put It Bluntly, Ma'am

The Serbian government, its military, and the various Serbian ethnic militias, were far and away the worst offenders in the Balkan War at the end of the last century. If others got away with some things of lesser scope, that is just life. Whatever anyone else did or did not do, the Serbian authorities had it completely in their power to press a decent policy and, if there was a need for war, to fight a clean war, that did not employ bombardment of open towns aimed at causing maximum civilain casualties, and systematic massacre of young men in areas they succeeded in occupying. They have no one to blame for the consequences of their actions but themselves, and cannot thrust anyone into the dock in their place for their own crimes. Certainly the NATO powers ought to have intervened decisively much sooner than did, but it is definitely a case of better late than never, and the party that ought to have caught to worst of it has caught the worst of it.

[eridani]

81. You are forgetting the 500,000 Serbs killed in Nazi camps

--with the enthusiastic participation of Itzbegovic of Bosnia and Tudjman of Croatia. It's true that the Serbs are a lot like Israelis in using their greater documented suffering in that war as an excuse for abominable behavior toward their neighbors in the present, but this notion that they are by far the worst offenders is a US propaganda thing. The majority of those currently still displaced by ethnic cleansing are Serbs.

[The Magistrate]

85. You Might, Ma'am, Find A Few Grandfathers About To Charge Over It

You will be unable to prove either of the two men you mentioned participated as guards in the camps. The events of the 1990s are not the events of a half-century prior, and the events of a half-century prior have no bearing on the rights and wrongs of events in the 1990s, outside the fever-dreams of various nationalist revanchist cretins. The Sebian government, with wide support among the Serbian people, made a play for regional domination, and in doing so behaved atrociously. They lost, and must pay the forfeit: that is how the world works. No one thinks they will lose when they go to war, but someone always does.

[eridani]

92. No , they just recruited for Hitler

The Serbs are no more nationalist than the Croatians, just more resistant to selling off state and/or worker owned enterprises off to foreigners.

[The Magistrate]

94. Is That To Be Taken, Ma'am

As an indication you subscribe to the idea Serbia was a bastion of true Socialism, that had to be put down as the first priority of global Capitalism, lest its successful display prove a beacon to the world? That is hardly worth engaging seriously. "State-owned" enterprises in Serbia were mere playgrounds for the looting of its oligarchs, and engines of patronage for the maintainance of their rank and file support: about the only difference between them and Chicago's Streets and Sanitation Department is that they operated different sorts of machinery. Never, Ma'am, ever, are matters even close to how nationalist romancers present them.

"The Balkans produce more history than can be locally consumed, and are forced to export the excess."

[Donna Zen]

99. A question for the Magistrate:

I understand that what was happening in Serbia during WWII was much like a local civil war. But I have a friend whose parents survived Auschwitz. She said that her parents have said that the worst guards in the camp were the Serbs. So, a faction of Serbs, must have sided with Hitler. True?

BTW, I'm a Serb-American, so believe me, my question is not meant to be provocative. Just curious.

When one's choices are Hitler or Stalin, I guess you bound to lose.

[The Magistrate]

104. As You Say, Ma'am, There Were Not Many Good Choices There In Those Days

Serbian guards at Auschwitz is a new one to me, but it is not impossible. The S.S. maintained a bewildering variety of foreign formations recruited from occupied areas and elsewhere, some quite large and many miniscule. A number of extermination camp personnel were drawn from these, and Eastern Europe was sufficiently saturated with Anti-Semitism that men who eagerly desired the work could be found.

In Yugoslavia itself, both partisans and collaborators could be found among all the ethnicities. In the period between the two world wars, the principal tension was between Croats and Serbs, with the latter prevailing. At the start of the German invasion, some Croat units of the Yugoslav army turned on Serbian units of the Yugoslav army in support of the Germans, and materially assisted the conquest. This certainly gave native Croat fascists a leg up with the Nazi occupation, which recognized them as an independent state. The two principal partisan factions that arose were a Royalist bloc and a Communist bloc, with the latter enjoying the most ethnically various support, including a number of Croats. Because it was German policy to befriend Moslems as a means of unsettling both the south of the Soviet Union and the British Empire, Bosnia was treated fairly well under occupation, and provided a number of volunteers to the German campaign against the partisans. Kossovo was treated as a part of Albania and came under Italian occupation initially, and the Italians shielded the Serbs there from the worst excesses of the period, until Italy switched sides in the war, and the area came under German control. Late in the war, Tito gained support among the Moslem population in Kossovo by offering them its independence once the Germans were expelled, a promise of course reneged on in the event. There was a collaborationist authority in Serbia, as there was to be found in just about all areas Germany conquered, and Sebian police and militia units under German command fought partisans, though not very effectively. As you can see, it is not a situation it is easy to make sweeping statements about, or make hard and fast claims concerning. It is certainly true that Serbs bore the brunt of the suffering in the period, after Jews and Gypsies. There are some exaggerrated figures in circulation, certainly, but there is no question that about a tenth of the Serbian population died during the war from all causes.

[eridani]

110. No, I'm saying that they should be entitled

--to have whatever goddam economic policies that they hapen to feel like having in the present, without the threat of being bombed and saturated with depleted uranium if they don't follow orders from global corporatists. Dealing with oligarchs is their business, not ours or anybody else's. Not everything was state-owned anyway--there were quite a few employee-owned operations.

[The Magistrate]

114. Well, Ma'am

Had they refrained from massacring their neighbors, they could have. The world would have paid no attention to the place whatever, absent that element of the situiation.

[Igel]

100. The origins of what was going on in

Kosovo in the late '90s are seldom talked about in the Western media.

They weren't talked about before the bombing campaign, either; nobody cared about police stations burned with the policemen killed, or having Serbians harrassed and driven out by Kosovar militias. Serbs ... bad guys--there are no innocent Serbs, the only good Serb was a dead Serb, and no Albanian-speaking Kosovar could be wrong. They were all victims. Such a nice black-and-white view of reality. For many, it continued in Kosovo after the Serb withdrawal, and in Macedonia, as well.

But there were innocent Serbs, and guilty Kosovar Albanians. The revision of the number of Kosovar refugees wasn't widely bandied about, either.

We was taken. The press was so anxious to jump on the next genocide that they jumped the gun a bit and reported a lot of rumors with few facts, and overlooked some facts. What was going on in Kosovo wasn't great, but was also far from one sided. And it started a couple of years before the US press caught wind of it.

I studied a bit o' Serbo-Croatian in the '90s, and caught the other side of the story.

[Sparkly]

101. A suggestion: read The Magistrate's posts

You may have studied it, but he sounds to me like he's taught it.

[Igel]

107. Perhaps he has.

I respect him greatly. But I've also disagreed with him in the past, possibly about this very point.

Nobody's saying the Serbs are good; that's nearly a valid statement, to be honest. I'm merely claiming that once a group is stereotyped, it's easy to reinforce the stereotype even if the evidence doesn't necessarily warrant it. The KLA played into this masterfully, so that we assumed the onus for their armed struggle; of course, the resulting chaos was also completely predictable.

It was, truly, a KLA victory.

[Totally Committed]

52. A fitting and wonderful honor for an amazing man.

It's nice to see Wes's dignity, integrity, courage and wisdom honored this way. If only America's own government were held in such high regard! I am never ashamed when Wes is representing us.

TC

[LynneSin]

54. So what are the chances that one day they'll do that when Bush visits Iraq

some 10 years after the war is over with

:crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

57. Don't know.......

But I know that Kosovo ended in mid '99.....after 3 months.....and the peacekeepers there since have really been a relatively small group.

I guess the real question is how long before this war is even over?

[CarolNYC]

55. link to pictures

Here's a link to the page with captioned pictures...

http://securingamerica.com/node/1019

This whole thing is so very cool....How nice to see an American leader being treated so while abroad...

[kittenpants]

56. Hey, he's being greeted with flowers & candy as a liberator...

and the people are waving American flags... just like the Iraqi's greeted us... right? Am I right people?

[FrenchieCat]

58. Iraq's flowers & candy smell an awful lot like exploding IUDs though......

and the American Flags are generally burned, not waved!

In Iraq, Liberators means Occupiers.

But once we translate the Iraqi situation to orwellian english though....yep.....were "greeted" in Iraq alright! :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Except these people DO feel liberated, and they ARE grateful

Years after the fact they still honor Clark for what he was involved in. Big difference, am I right people? The difference between boasting about doing the right thing, and actually doing it.

[kittenpants]

61. Yes, on 2nd thought, now I know why Clark was against invading Iraq

all along... bastard wanted all the flowers & candy for himself!;)

(I like Clark, btw, not joking at his expense!)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Boy.

That's a nice looking trophy.

[wiley]

74. I can't stand it!

We could have a President like that and instead we have *.

[renate]

79. wow....

That simple statement just makes me so profoundly sad.

We really could have had a President like this instead of the smirking Decider we got. How many lives would have been saved....?

[FrenchieCat]

62. Here's another photo.....

I'm posting it just cause I can! :headbang:

[Totally Committed]

63. Magnificent, and

very presidential-looking, if you ask me!

Thanks, Frenchie! :hi:

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

66. And for a little historical perspective

And to show this one is not a fluke, or orchestrated in any way, here's one from just over 6 years ago.

[Totally Committed]

69. Bless his heart.

what a great pic!

TC

[Clarkie1]

70. Great Pic Jai, and great thread Frenchie!

I love that pic!

[Texas_Kat]

78. I haven't seen this photo before

It absolutely speaks why they (and we) all loved him then and still do.

[autorank]

64. That post generates a lot of pride. This is a Hell of a leader and human

being. I know he has a role to play (president, veep, scty of defense, whatever) in the
restoration of our vitality and effectiveness.

K&R

[Gloria]

65. We should be so lucky that the Democratic party wakes up and

puts its support behind this man for President. We need an experienced grown-up in office, someone who has an understanding of the world and has a PROVEN record of negotiating and receiving flowers and candy.

No more false promises! I want a President who actually delivers the video of the flowers and candy and has people waving American flags out of respect....

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?????

[Totally Committed]

67. Whoa!

That post makes mw want to stand up and applaud! I couldn't agree more, Gloria!

Yay!

TC

[DemExpat]

87. A great man.

Thanks for posting this tribute - you can just feel the genuine warmth and respect in those photographs - something I never ever see in Bush photo ops...

:kick: :kick:

DemEx

[MoonRiver]

105. God bless General Clark.

What he did for the people of Kosovo is nothing less than heroic. I love this wonderful human being. He is a model for us all.

:loveya:

[BikeWriter]

108. Go Wes! Gen. Clark for President!

[Clark_2008]

112. Wes Clark gives me hope...

[court jester]

121. Any idea when (or if) we're leaving Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo?

It has an 8 mile perimiter, and it's own downtown. Built by...Halliburton!

If the US mission is over, why is the US still there?

Perhaps Clark has already answered, and I've missed it.

[RandomUser]

122. Are they asking us to leave?

When are we leaving Japan or Germany or the UK? Haliburton and its ilk probably do a lot of business catering to bases in England and France and elsewhere as well. Does that automatically mean we should leave them all?

I'll be the last one to defend Halliburton -- they and their corrupt ilk need to be reigned in and brought to account for the various instances of malfeasance. Yet, in reality, one must acknowledge that supply and servicings of the various bases can only be handled by a small number of these same companies, and though reform is needed, the connection to these companies to military bases is neither surprising nor necessarily cause for concern (few other can fill some of these roles involving largescale construction and logistics delivery of foodstuff and whatnot). Thus, the intimation of ill nature via guilt by association, though worthy of investigation, is incorrect as a fait accompli and shoddy logic.

Second, Clark is clearly NOT on the side of the PNAC'ers and neocons. He was one of the few to mention their plan and warn against it, when all other Democrats stood silent in the shadow of 911. What happened? They said he was "nuts" and had "wacky conspiracy theories" for even daring to mention PNAC and cast aspersions on the neocons. Alas, those naysayers are proven wrong at considerable expense of our blood and treasure.

Clark has also adamantly stated that we need to forswear all permanent bases in Iraq. Hardly the PNAC neocon position.

Now, let us address the bases in England and France and Germany and Japan. Does he, or any other politician, or even the people of those countries, demand that we leave those bases? No.

And neither, to the best of my knowledge, do the Kosovars in the case of Camp Bondsteel, though I am not as well versed there, and could well be wrong.

Thus, we approach the second flaw of logic in your intimations. Any suggestion of moral equivalence between the bases in friendly countries who want us there (and judging from the Kosovar pictures, they side with the British and Germans) and the monstrous idiocy of permanent bases and PNAC agenda in Iraq does not pass the threshold of logic.

So, in sum, the pictures of the Kosovars welcoming us (not bombing us in Iraq) shows that our presence in the Balkans (and elsewhere in Europe) is much different from the nature of our presence in Iraq. There will be friction between any military base and the civilian population surround it (even inside our own U.S.) but to make the leap of moral equivalence between these bases and the Iraqi folly is a monstrous leap of logic.

Clark's on the side of the good guys on this one. Even if he had to stand up alone and be ridiculed for attacking PNAC on national tv, while all the other Democratic candidates sat on the sidelines.

[ArkySue]

124. NATO

I believe the US troops are part of the NATO peace-keeping forces there. The approx number of US troops in Kosovo is 4000.

[CarolNYC]

132. New ClarkCast available...

Wes' reflections on his Kosovo trip.

He met a little boy who was named after him...awwww. :)

Check it out here: http://securingamerica.com/ccn

[Doctor_J]

133. the wingers blame all of *'s problems on Clinton -

how long before they start crediting Clinton/Clark's victory in Kosovo to Smirk?