The Facts and Myths about General Wesley Clark

[CoffeePlease1947]

I know Clark is NOT perfect. I also except some things about him that make him less than the most Democratic of the Democrats. But I am sick of hearing misstatements about Clark. Anyone that participates in garbage and speculation and pushing untruths and lies about ANY Democratic candidate for the sake of trying to help their candidate, and know or don't care to double check their facts, are no better than KKKarl Rove.
Here is a list of many Rove induced rumors and twists about Clark and the FACTS to set them straight.

Rumor:
Clark was a Waco and was responsible for the killing of innocent children that burned in the Branch Davidian Compound.
Myth:
Clark was not at all involved in Waco. Second, the children were not burned to death, they were stabbed and shot before the building was burnt down by the members of Davidians. Third, the fires were started from inside of the building in three different locals within a period of two minutes. The lawyers for the nine surviving Davidians were based on the idea that the laser scopes on the rifles of the ATF ignited the fire (you can believe that if you want). The Branch Davidians were caught and recorded in the planning of burning/suicide on tape.

Rumor:
Clark worked with Axiom to develop a more intrusive system for checking people out at the airport.

Myth:
He worked with Axiom to make sure they got the contract to make sure that privacy was taken into consideration when collecting information of people checking onto airplanes rather than less sophisticated methods that detain people for frivolous information such as having a similar birth date as a suspected terrorist.

Rumor:
Clark almost started WWIII

Myth:
This was opinion of one man, British Lt. General Sir Mike Jackson. He is now under investigation for the murder of over a dozen innocent Irish citizens. Clark has also been Knighted by the Queen of E.

Rumor:
Clark speaks 5 different languages
Myth:
Clark only speaks three languages: English, Spanish, and Russian.

Rumor:
Clark is the most decorated war hero since Eisenhower

Myth:
Not many are more decorated, but there are a handful that are more decorated than General Clark. Please to not discredit those soldiers that earned their medals too.

Rumor:
Clark was a Republican until he declared he was a candidate for President.
Myth:
Clark has supported many Democrats before he entered the race. He was registered as an Independent in Arkansas, like 95.7% of all Arkansans that like to be able to think for themselves, and has donated to countless other candidates including $1000 Bowles of North Carolina in 2002. He has not voted for a Republican president since 1988. That was 15 years ago.

Rumor:
Clark bombed children, nuns, and reporters in Bosnia.
Myth:

This comes from two false assumptions. 1) That if you bomb schools, churches and broadcasting stations there are innocent people in them. 2) Their churches, schools, and broadcasting stations are like radio stations, churches, and schools in the US. Truly sheltered lives these people must live.
Churches in Bosnia are old and make great bunkers for enemy soldiers. Schools also held enemy soldiers. The broadcasting is part of the state run communications systems. Taking out the communications system prevents the enemy from organizing attacks and killing Allied soldiers and more civilians.

Check these sources out for other FACTS:
http://www.clarkmyths.com
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/waco121.htm#Anchor-23522

Now say what you want about Clark, just make sure it is fact, not Repuke rumors and twisted tails. If you are unsure, ask! Don't attack with garbage and expect us spend time correcting everything. It is easy to make a false accusation. Any moron can do it. You impress nobody and prevent us from talking about the issues.

I think you are a freeper using Repuke tactics if you engage in this behavior. If you cannot find FACTS to take down Clark, than maybe you should rethink what you are doing and who you are supporting.


Mike

[Padraig18]

1. I agree with you

As I said when Clark entered the race, he sucked up a LOT of the remaining available oxygen in the room, and now represents the single greatest threat to the remaining 9 candidates' chances to obtain the nomination. The attacks I see come from two broad categories of people: the folks who believe that anyone associated with the military is 'evil', and the supporters who have become so personally invested in Candidate X that objective reality and critical analysis of the facts mean little. There is a 3rd group of attackers: the 'tinfoil hat brigade' who believe that Clark is a PNAC plant/Repuke mole, etc. . :eyes:

[CoffeePlease1947]

3. I agree

Group 1) Some ultra-liberals think all military is evil.

Group 2) I can understand. I would feel very upset if my candidate was losing. I think we all have to realize only one candidate will win. I just hope it is based on the facts and we get the best one.

Group 3) I think help Clark. People can see through that kind of thinking.

Mike

[RandomUser]

56. Good assessment

I think that analysis of where the small vocal anti-clark group stems from is insightful and correct.

[SWPAdem]

76. Always the voice of reason

Thank you, my friend. :yourock:

[La_Serpiente]

2. As a Dean supporter, I believe you

Everything that all his opponents say is simply hogwash.

When more of his record comes out, I hope more people will actually be looking at his record instead of just shoving all this propaganda to the forefront.

And if Clark becomes the nominee, he'll get Dean's support. I'm confident on that.

[bowens43]

6. You think our candidates have no negatives?

That's silly. All the candidates have negatives and I for one, want to know about them BEFORE the primaries so that I can make an informed decision. Not everything said about Clark is hogwash. He DID support republicans recently. He did vote for Reagan. He did flip flop on what is possibly the single most important issue facing us today. He does lack experience. These things ARE part of what little record he has. That's the major problem, he has almost no record. All we have is his word and for me, that's not nearly enough. If he gets the nomination I'll vote for him but I hope that he doesn't get it.

[JackRiddler]

4. Five Strawmen and Two Apologies for Murder

Five of your points are strawmen. No problems there, knock'em down as you like.

No one should blame Clark for Waco - he merely signed over equipment to the besieging authorities (FBI, ATF). As for what happened then, well let's leave it out here. (If you only want to defend Clark, you have no need to defend what the FBI and ATF then did to the Branch Davidians.)

However, I certainly hope you don't expect to get away with this:

Churches in Bosnia are old and make great bunkers for enemy soldiers. Schools also held enemy soldiers. The broadcasting is part of the state run communications systems. Taking out the communications system prevents the enemy from organizing attacks and killing Allied soldiers and more civilians.

Uh huh. Those evil, evil enemies! When someone starts bombing them, they go and HIDE - in schools and churches, no less! No one in Wyoming would ever do that, if the Serbian air force were to start bombing there.

So by the same logic, would you agree the Nazis had a right to bomb Russian churches and round up villages where partisans hid out?

Even more insidious is that these Serbian churches were OLD churches, famous for their ability to resist our peacemaking missiles.

And those TV station employees! Showing up to work every day to broadcast propaganda. So unlike CNN! And this propaganda enables "the enemy" (who never attacked us, but who was chosen by us as a target) to launch attacks on Allied soldiers (of whom, officially, zero died), and "more civilians."

Gotcha. Thanks.

Hmm, why does the following "rumor" seem more plausible to me?

Unlike CNN, the Belgrade TV was showing pictures of the civilian casualties caused by NATO bombing. This was making NATO look bad, and this is why NATO warned them that they would be hit. And then NATO hit them, killing 10 station employees. After this, the Western media had a monopoly on how the war was spun, at least on TV.

Soon after, the Chinese criticized the U.S.-led attack on Yugoslavia and presented a peace plan to the UN. Within 48 hours, their embassy was bombed. The presented excuse is patently ridiculous, or else indicative of how "well targeted" and humane the whole campaign was ("Old maps." But that's okay, those churches where the enemy is holed up are old, too.)

The message of the embassy bombing was clear: Do not screw with us. We will bomb you, and we can even play the injured party after that as we beat our chests in a mea culpa. And there's nothing you can do about it: Fuck you.

Everyone in the world can read that message, except those who are blinded by their own national apologia. (Don't worry, it's not an exclusively American disease. Most people are very perceptive about the crimes of others, and have a blind spot for their own country's crimes.) The Kosovo war was logically followed by a renewed arms race among all potential targets: Pakistan, Iran, China, India...

But let's not blame any of this on Clark. He was just following orders, right? As other Clark supporters love to point out, if he had been given a free hand, he would have liberated the Albanians by sending in a few thousand American troops, which would have obviously minimized the casualties. As we see in Iraq every day.

[0rganism]

5. "he merely signed over equipment"?

According to the clarkmyths site, Clark was stationed at Ft. Hood as commander of the First Cav. None of the ammo or tear gas or vehicles was from First Cav. Nor did he issue the equipment, there were other officers at Ft. Hood who did. Nor were any members of First Cav at the Branch Davidian crackdown, although there were Delta Force there as observers.

So, who told you Gen. Clark issued the equipment?

[JackRiddler]

9. Strawman

In the context of this thread, it's irrelevant: What's the difference? He may have been blamed in the buck-passing among authorities at Ft. Hood. Whether he was the one who signed over equipment or not, and whether the FBI/ATF killed the Branch Davidians or not: it's nothing you can blame him for, and I don't.

Even the following attack piece says "Though Clark... was not directly involved in the onslaught on the Branch Davidians..."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09182003.html

But Yugoslavia is another matter: he was the military commander of that operation.

[CoffeePlease1947]

11. You need to do some more reading (other than that of KKKarl Rove)

Time to pick apart you Repuke information sources.

"Unlike CNN, the Belgrade TV was showing pictures of the civilian casualties caused by NATO bombing."

Do you know for fact that they were US casualities and not the that of Molosvices henchmen? No, you don't. Does showing pictures of a baby screaming worthy to allow them to continue communicating information on flights of Allied aircraft? I don't think so.CNN did show use the huge mass graves of Ethnic Albanians graves that were slaughtered by the enemy.

"Soon after, the Chinese criticized the U.S.-led attack on Yugoslavia and presented a peace plan to the UN. Within 48 hours, their embassy was bombed. The presented excuse is patently ridiculous, or else indicative of how "well targeted" and humane the whole campaign was (old maps!)."

You clearly don't realize that it takes 3-6 months to program a Tomahawk cruise missle. Amazing that 48 hours later they were able to program a missle that takes usually 6 months. The reason that we are able to go to war instantly with any nation is because we set up programs prior. The Chinese embassay use to be a storage building for weapons. WIth thousands of programs don't you think it is at all possible that one building was overlooked? Or like you believe the Tomahawk simply dials up www.mapquest.com and get directions to it's destination in route? I don't think so, these missles are programmed months, even years before because it takes a great deal of programming to get it within ten feet of the target. Our enemies know this and that is why they change buildings so frequently, it is the only real defense they have. You have no knoweledge of military operations do you. Do you even know how many targets a Tomahawk can hit? Who programs them? Or where they are designed? I doubt it.


"Even more insidious is that these Serbian churches were OLD churches, famous for their ability to resist our peacemaking missiles."

Let us see here. If you are living in an old shack and bombs are coming down on your head, you would stay there rather than run to a 2 million ton stone building with an underground bunker?

Your explaination is the Clark purposely targeted innocent people because he wanted to and had some extra bombs to use and ran out of targets. All the while getting 19 UN nations and thousands of others to go along.

Man, all I can say is I know which of the three groups you fall into:

:tinfoilhat:

Mike

[JackRiddler]

18. Sigh...

Your explaination is the Clark purposely targeted innocent people because he wanted to and had some extra bombs to use and ran out of targets. All the while getting 19 UN nations and thousands of others to go along.

No. Why do I bother, when you can just project whatever you like?

My explanation is:

1) that when you drop thousands of bombs on any country, you will kill civilians. This is a statistically certain outcome. You can weasel all you like, but on European TV we saw plenty of dead babies killed by NATO bombs.*

2) Beyond this, many civilian targets are hit anyway, either with the dual-use excuse (those heavy-walled churches make great bunkers!!) or as part of the war strategy. NATO intentionally hit plants to shut down the civilian grid, and Shea bragged about it. ("Mr. Milosevic should know that we can switch off the lights whenever we like...")

* NOTE I exaggerate when I say bombing the station in Belgrade created a Western monopoly, or by inadvertantly implying that all Western stations then showed things the way the U.S. govt wanted it. Actually, plenty of other European media was present in Yugoslavia and getting the real story out. Not to mention courageous real reporters from the U.S. like Paul Watson of the LA Times, who exposed loads of NATO misinformation about the attack on Yugoslavia.

Now reread your own lovely rant:

You clearly don't realize that it takes 3-6 months to program a Tomahawk cruise missle. Amazing that 48 hours later they were able to program a missle that takes usually 6 months. The reason that we are able to go to war instantly with any nation is because we set up programs prior. The Chinese embassay use to be a storage building for weapons. WIth thousands of programs don't you think it is at all possible that one building was overlooked? Or like you believe the Tomahawk simply dials up www.mapquest.com and get directions to it's destination in route? I don't think so, these missles are programmed months, even years before because it takes a great deal of programming to get it within ten feet of the target. Our enemies know this and that is why they change buildings so frequently, it is the only real defense they have. You have no knoweledge of military operations do you. Do you even know how many targets a Tomahawk can hit? Who programs them? Or where they are designed? I doubt it.

What I do know now is that you are awfully proud of how our government has used trillions of dollars in taxpayer money to target EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE YEARS IN ADVANCE.

Obviously necessary for the defense of the Homeland.

[CoffeePlease1947]

22. "No. Why do I bother, when you can just project whatever you like?"

That is exactly what you are doing my friend. All of your information is speculation.

In terms of "that when you drop thousands of bombs on any country, you will kill civilians. This is a statistically certain outcome. You can weasel all you like, but on European TV we saw plenty of dead babies killed by NATO bombs.*"

Duh! That is my point! But you state that it is intentional. If we did not drop those bombs more than 1.5 million people would be dead.

You know if we didn't fight in WWII and just gave into Nazi domination more people would have lived, and no children would have been killed?

Your speculation and entire premise comes tumbling down when you look at the fact that we ended the reign of brutal dictator praciticing ethnic genocide on millions of people.

"What I do know now is that you are awfully proud of how our government has used trillions of dollars in taxpayer money to target EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE YEARS IN ADVANCE."

Again, you make lots of speculation about people without knowing anything about the facts.

I think it is wiser to be as acurate as possible when hitting a target. I also find it just fine that we spend extra money protecting this country and making sure we keep civilian casualities as light as possible. Perhaps you think we should not be prepared for a quick and deadly strike against the enemy rather than taking our time to win a long drawn out battle talling up the death toll on the enemy.

You base everything on the notion that all war is evil and all military men and women that prepare for war.

I don't oppose preparing for war to protect the nation. I oppose the causing of war like Bush does for the sake of just war. Just because someone buys health insurance doesn't mean they want to get sick.

Mike

[JasonBerry]

20. CoffeePlease - Your Post RIDDLED With Errors

Your posting is full of errors and outright falsehoods. For one, you might get the geography right. Clark did no bombing in Bosnia - he bombed Serb people in the Kosovo province and bombed the HELL out of people in Serbia.....INNOCENT PEOPLE. Do you call blowing the hell out of a civilian passenger train (twice!) a MILITARY target? You obviously DO NOT realize that bombing broadcast facilities has ALWAYS been against the "rules of war," (until Belgrade - thank you MR. Clark). The genocide of "hundreds of thousands?" PLEASE. In fact, if you read the most mainline of press in Europe/Canada you'll read the TRUTH about all of that. The fact is, in retrospect, MUCH of the reasoning for that WAR was total BS. Genocide - how RIDICULOUS. The trial in the Hague has been an embarrassment for the prosecution! http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras8.html Killing Serbs was perfectly fine with so many of you. But kill Iraqi's for the crimes of Hussein? NO WAY. I am at least consistent (as is Dennis Kucinich who opposed the Yugoslav war) http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm
By the way, to refresh the memory - here's a short film that shows what happened to Serbia in 1999:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/yugoslavia/milosevic/slideshows/dejavu/eng/dejavu_eng.ram
Yes, the source is PRO-Serb......but the pictures tell the story.

I am so angry right now....this is NOT the way to start the week. SO MANY people still believe the myths they were fed by the US media about that dastardly war against the people of Serbia. I don't have time now to continue and it's probably best. I will be flamed to high heaven for DARING to go against the grain on the Yugoslav SLAUGHTER. To quickly close...were there crimes against Muslims/ethnic Albanians? Absolutely. Are there even MORE CRIMES today being carried out against Serbs? NO QUESTION.

Again, it would take a good part of the morning to correct all of your errors. Not just about the war, but about Clark, about Waco...such an irony in a post that was supposed to be a Fact/Fiction kind of piece.....there were very few facts and a lot of fiction.

Don't be Clark....even CLINTON lemmings....that war was based on LIES for the benefit of promoting the general welfare of western capital. Flame away. Some of us know there are TWO SIDES to this miserable story and a sorry chapter in our history. Yeah, that Clark is quite a guy.

EDIT TO FIX HTML ERROR

[TLM]

61. Even the UN pointed out that Clark's bombing of civilians was unacceptable

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html


A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. it takes 3-6 months to program a Tomahawk ??

this seems unbelievable. is there a link or some explaination as to why it would take so long to change co-ordinants?

[JasonBerry]

26. Of course not - MORE misinformation

I don't know where that came from. It was a ridiculous comment from someone who acts like they know what they're talking about and doesn't even know the BASICS.

And - the whole cruise missile thing doesn't matter. The bombings in question were ALL DONE by U.S. stealth bombers.

The Chinese Embassy:
"On 7 May 1999, in the midst of the US/NATO bombing of Belgrade, a B-2 stealth bomber from Missouri's Whiteman Air Force Base idropped five 2,000-lb (900-kg) satellite-guided JDAM bombs on the Chinese Embassy, killing three journalists and injuring twenty others. The US response: Oops!"
http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id170/pg1/

And if you doubted that wasn't done on purpose:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,203214,00.html

The bombings of the hospitals, the RTS headquarters (broadcast center) and the bombing of civilian buses and passenger trains were ALL done by jet fighters and/or stealth bombers.

I cannot believe so much misinformation on the Yugoslav war in one post. A post about the importance of --- FACTS! Pretty funny.

By the way, the war on the people of Serbia has become popularly known as the "Kosovo War" or the "War in Kosovo" - make no mistake, the VAST majority of bombs fell in Belgrade and other populated cities in SERBIA. It was the war ON Serbia and the FRY.

[zeemike]

43. It was just a bullshit phrase

As any one that understands military technology knows

[Devils Advocate NZ]

27. You have no idea what you're talking about!

You clearly don't realize that it takes 3-6 months to program a Tomahawk cruise missle.

This is so blatantly wrong, that I can only assume that you are intentionally lying!

If it took three to six months to program a Tomahawk missile with target coordinates, the Tomahawk would be a waste of money and totally useless in war! It doesn't even take that long to BUILD a Tomahawk missile!

This is so stupid a claim, it calls into question EVERYTHING else you say, because, as I said, unless you are terminally stupid, which I doubt, you must be lying to cover up Clark's war crimes.

Nobody makes a mistake this bad, not even Bush. A more realistic time frame would be three to six minutes, or even three to six hours, but three to six MONTHS! Don't make me laugh!

[charlie]

58. As far as I know

Gulf War I vintage Tomahawks took a day or two to reprogram.

Newer Tomahawks that debuted in 1998 added realtime GPS guidance to augment the digital terrain info loaded within the missile.

The next generation Tomahawks, to be deployed next year, will allow reprogramming on the fly.

So, I guess the actual time to rejigger a Kosovo-era missile lies somewhere between a couple of days and a few hours.

[dsc]

98. I find that awfully difficult to believe

do have some citation for it taking that long to program a tomahawk missile?

[Julien Sorel]

12. Since you seem to be a logic fan,

Uh huh. Those evil, evil enemies! When someone starts bombing them, they go and HIDE - in schools and churches, no less! No one in Wyoming would ever do that, if the Serbian air force were to start bombing there.

So by the same logic, would you agree the Nazis had a right to bomb Russian churches and round up villages where partisans hid out?

And when soldiers are holed up in churches, what do you suggest be done to get them out? Pray?

The comparison here, by the way, between NATO and Nazi Germany told me all I needed to know, both about your political orientation, and your logical reasoning abilities. If you think NATO in Kosovo and the Nazis in Russia had identical aims, that's your right -- but I have my own views on the matter, as do many other people. But making the comparison destroys your argument, because it underscores what a rickety foundation it is built on: essentially, your argument rests on the idea that the entire Kosovo campaign was immoral from start to finish (thus, the Nazi comparison), which is, at best, a debateable assumption. Most people don't subscribe to your views, and when you draw analogies based on your own narrow assumptions, they tend to fall apart, as this one does. From the standpoint of warfare, what the German soldiers did was perfectly normal and acceptable; doing it in the service of Nazism, however, was not. Again, if you want to equate NATO with Nazi Germany, be my guest -- just don't expect a whole lot of people to go along for the ride.

The message of the embassy bombing was clear: Do not screw with us. We will bomb you, and we can even play the injured party after that as we beat our chests in a mea culpa. And there's nothing you can do about it: Fuck you.


It may have been clear -- to you. It wasn't clear to me then, and it isn't clear to me now. There is no evidence to support the notion that the bombing was intentional -- I just have to take your word for it. Not good enough. This is just your opinion, which you are trotting out as if it were fact.

[KG]

13. clarkies still trying to justify attacks on civilian targets...

how nice.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

55. Clinton ordered attacks on civilian targets

What a crook! Clinton belongs in prison, along with all of the Democrats in Congress who supported the war.

[maha]

60. And they whine because they think Clark isn't a Democrat .... n/t

[SWPAdem]

79. Now that the "Third Group" tag team has showed up

can we assume that group therapy is done for the day?

[TLM]

63. Clinton was not the one designating targets....

And I don't recall Clinton trying to justify murdering journalists.


Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Clark's logic is exactly the same as that of the death squad commander who orders the assassination of a journalist or a publisher whose opposition newspaper supports the goals of a guerrilla movement. The targeting of the studio was a war crime, perhaps the most indisputable of several war crimes committed by NATO in its war against Yugoslavia.

[zeemike]

42. Great post Jack

But I am sure you know that it just the tip of the iceberg as far as what the Repugs can use against him in the election should he be the nominee. They can make a case for him being responsible for Waco and I have seen the evidence by searching on the web from credible sources. And if a computer idiot can find it everyone should be able.
But my point is that the major media will not be covering this until after the election to decide the democratic nominee. Sure we talk it up here but have you seen any of this in the media that the majority of voters are watching? But I guarantee you will should Clark get the nod.
I see a plan that may bee working. Through in a spoiler, and use the power of the media to make him an instant star. Pump up the positives and make him seem like the only hope in the world of ditching the dangerous bush. Because if he is on the ticket you have already developed the spin to destroy him in the fall.
To the fundamentalist religious Clark can be painted as the anti Christ. (The facts that there are ten candidates believe it or not is a smoking gun to them)
And to the rest of the voters they will hear the revelations and just say; “what the hell is going on?”

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. Yes, Clark was following orders from Clinton - try Clinton for war crimes!

Why is Clinton not in prison for war crimes? Also the leaders of NATO, and the UN, who supported the Serbian war. Also, all of the Democratic senators and representatives who supported the war.

If it's true that Serbia was a criminal war, let's get the people that started it - starting with the Commander-in-Chief at the time, Bill Clinton.

Should we on DemocraticUnderground start proceedings against Bill Clinton? If you're serious, let's do it.

Otherwise, stop smearing Clark for doing his job. If you are going to smear Clark on one thread and praise Clinton on another, that makes you a hypocrite doesn't it? If you are going to smear Clark on one thread, and then praise Kennedy who supported the Serbian war, you're a hypocrite aren't you?

[zeemike]

47. Straw man 2?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. no, if Clark is guilty, Clinton and most of the Democratic party leaders

are guilty.

Serbia is being used to attack Clark in the primary. If anyone actually cared, they would be going after the top ranking officials behind the Serbian war - that would be Number One - Bill Clinton, the heads of NATO, the heads to the European government, and most Democratic Congressional representatives and Senators.

Of course, no one really gives a damn about the Serbian War, it's just a convient excuse to attack Clark during the primary.

If Clinton was running for re-election, few if any on DU would attack him for the Serbian war. The ONLY reason Clark is being attacked is because he was military that actually did the killing, while the civilian leaders give orders from behind a desk.

Giving the order to kill is A-Okay for DUers, but actually following the orders and doing the killing is bad. This attitude is mostly because hardly anyone on DU has ever been in the military, and a general ignorance of the world and military conflict in it.

Perhaps there is also some half-assed "pacifist" ideology around here on DU, almost certainly the kind of pacifism that comes from living safe and sound compared to most places in the world.

[Code_Name_D]

48. Oh goody, Clarkies are going to start blaming Clintion now.

BWahahahahahahahahahahaha

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. Clinton gave the order - who would you blame?

Are you saying Clark should have committed insubordination and not followed orders from the commander-in-chief, probably landing in prison or worse?

Sounds to me like Democrats would prefer to BLAME SOMEONE ELSE for the WAR THEY STARTED.

[TLM]

66. Did Clinton give an order to Bomb civilian targets?

If he gave such an order, he should be tried for war crimes.

However, as far as I know the CIC doesn't designate specific targets, that is left up to the field commander(s). The CIC simply sets the over all objective.

Care to cite the order Clinton gave for Clark to bomb the TV station, hospital, schools, water treatment plants etc?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

78. Clinton bombed civilian targets in Iraq

As reprehensible as bombing civilian targets may be, it's standard operating procedure in American wars, as long as they are "dual use" or have some sort of pretext.

Has Dean said he won't bomb civilian targets in a war? Would anyone believe him if he did?

[SWPAdem]

80. And Clark didn't choose the targets either

The Air commander does that, nor did Clark fly the planes, release the bombs, or program the missiles...besides, there has to be actual proof that civilians were targeted ON PURPOSE for civilian casualties to be labeled as war crimes. This argument is the same as the religious reich labeling all Dems as baby killers because they favor reproductive freedom.

[Code_Name_D]

72. Clark wasn't following orders at all.

Clark contacted Jackson's superior, and he agreed with Jackson, and in turn contacted his counterpart in the US who also agreed and told Clark to back down. - Devis Advocate else where in this thread.

Well now. If that was true that Clark WASN'T following Clintion's orders, was he.

But even if Clintion did give these orders, it is a military commanders responcability to NOT following illigel orders, such as bombing civilan targets. "I was just following orders" is not a defences against war crimes.

I just find it so halaruse that you are so swift to defend Clark, than you have no problem sending Clintion up the river.

So, who you gona blaim now?

[TLM]

65. The UN human rights commissioner called Clark on this...

Stop trying to change the subejct to Clinton, because Clinton was not designating targets, Clark was.

And as I recall, Clark got the boot...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html


A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Y et once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

81. Did Clark bomb against the wishes of Clinton?

The Dean campaign is attacking Clark over his conduct in Kosovo, but of course Dean has no foreign policy or military experience to compare it too - Dean's got clean hands all right, never served in the military.

Dean's campaign is too cowardly to attack Clinton over Kosovo though - they are just anti-war enough to win, but not actually principled enough to make an honest anti-war stance against other Democrats. They don't want to attack a popular Democratic president for his conduct during the war, so instead they will attack the people who did Clinton's work.

If Clark had accepted Dean's VP spot instead of running, does anyone think the Dean people would be complaining about Clark's conduct during Kosovo? OF COURSE NOT. That's called hypocrisy, and notice that it's directed against officers in the US military, no less.

This is typical of a political campaign, and typical of a politician like Dean.

[TLM]

96. More lies and spining BS... Dean has never said he is anti-war.

"The Dean campaign is attacking Clark over his conduct in Kosovo, but of course Dean has no foreign policy or military experience to compare it too - Dean's got clean hands all right, never served in the military."

Nope, he's never bombed civilians, journalists or schools... Dean worked saving lives, not taking them. That sir is a reason Dean is a better man than Clark can ever hope to be. Dean saved the life of a 9 year old boy brought into his ER with a gunshot wound... Clark put gunshot wounds into 9 year old boys.

Why is it that Clark supporters are trying to hard to present NOT killing civilians as a bad thing? Probably the same reason they are trying to act like bombing a foreign country is "foreign policy" experience. Dean has loads of foreign policy experience, having dealt with numerous other nation’s leaders in trade and economic conferences. Dean has been to over 50 countries, probably more than Clark.

I want a candidate who's experience with other nations isn't made up primarily of blowing up their civilians, or training their mercenaries at the school of the Americas.



"Dean's campaign is too cowardly to attack Clinton over Kosovo though -"

Has the Dean campaign attacked Clark over Kosovo? So far I have seen some Dean supporters bring up these issues on DU. We know how the Clark Corps like to lie to attack Dean and those who would question Clark.

And once again, do you claim that Clinton ORDERED Clark to bomb journalists? Do you deny Clark bombed journalists?


"they are just anti-war enough to win,"

Why must you continue to lie about this? Dean has never said he was anti-war and I know of no Dean supporter who has given Dean his support because they thought Dean was anti-war.

Dean said he supported intervention in Kosovo... however as I continue to point out regarding this stupid meme trying to slime Dean with Clark's war crimes... saying that because Dean supported intervention, he is Ok with what Clark did, is like saying if you are OK with spanking a child, you support infanticide.


"but not actually principled enough to make an honest anti-war stance against other Democrats."

Because Dean is not anti-war as you Clark Corps continue to lie about, he's anti-war for no good reason... and anti-war crimes, unlike CLark who openly says he has no problem killing journalist in violation of the GC.


"They don't want to attack a popular Democratic president for his conduct during the war, so instead they will attack the people who did Clinton's work."

Did Clinton designate targets or order the bombing of civilians? All your bullshit means nothing until you can answer this simple question.


"If Clark had accepted Dean's VP spot instead of running, does anyone think the Dean people would be complaining about Clark's conduct during Kosovo? OF COURSE NOT. That's called hypocrisy, and notice that it's directed against officers in the US military, no less."

Hey two memes in one... criticizing Clark is hypocritical and anti-military.

If Clark took an offer from Dean for VP, his actions in Kosovo would still be an issue... however less of an issue since he wouldn't be CIC. But at this point I doubt Dean will pick Clark for VP. I talked to some folks in LA on the 30th who said that Dean was very hesitant to consider Clark.


"This is typical of a political campaign, and typical of a politician like Dean."

Typical of a Clark supporter who can not defend the fact his candidate openly admits to murdering civilians, to try to attack Dean for not attacking Clinton over the civilians Clark killed.


Talk about trying to pass the buck. Isn’t Clark proud of the civilians he killed? It was so right and just, why try to shift blame to Clinton... shouldn’t Clark be strong and brave enough to stand up and face the music, take the responsibility, and not be a gutless fucking coward about his murder of journalists and civilians?

[SWPAdem]

77. Ah, the "third group" is heard from

n/t

[bluestateguy]

7. I think I know why

There are a FEW, only a few, but a very vocal few on the Left who simply hate the military and think anybody who wears the uniform must therefore be a war criminal.

Again, I said only a few. I will not tolerate being flamed for saying this.

[TLM]

67. This is about the 10th person so far I have seem puking up this meme...

in the last two days. There is no way this is a coincidence... the same talking points are being discriminated almost instantly on message boards and blogs.

Attacking Clark means you hate the military, is the latest attempt to stifle questions and criticism of Clark's military record of bombing civilians and journalists.

[SWPAdem]

82. Yesterday

There was a post, just one of many, that started off with "I don't want a general with a christmas tree full of decorations for a president." I would give the names of the most egregious offenders if it were not for DU rules...but, they know who they are anyway.

On edit: Here is a direct quote from another thread in GD:
"In the civilian world, I do despise the military mentality because it is a male supremacist, dominator philosophy."

[TLM]

97. Not wanting a military man to hold the civilian office of CIC

is not anti-military.


Stop trying to act as if those who are against war crimes, authoritarianism, conquest, and the MIC are against the military in general.

That is unless your position is that there is nothing more to the military than these specific thing that some people despise.

[JasonBerry]

87. The Clark Boiler-Room Operation

"This is about the 10th person so far I have seem puking up this meme in the last two days. There is no way this is a coincidence... the same talking points are being discriminated almost instantly on message boards and blogs."

You noticed that? Actually, look through the Clark threads and you'll see when the boiler-room kicks into full-gear. There are some Clark defenders here who are genuine DUers (meaning they have been a part of the community, as opposed to come here as a job) who like Wesley Clark. They are influenced as well by the boiler-roomers. They pick up on their talking-points and regurgitate the same denials. It's nothing more than the old "phone bank" operation modified for the web. Some of these people, fearful of being "outed" and having it on record as denying it, will not even give a simple yes/no as to whether they are actually "at work" while posting here at DU and other boards of grassroots discussion. The aim of the operation is to distribute propaganda throughout boards of influence in the Democratic primaries. As one poster adeptly said, their MO is simple: Deny and Attack. I'll take it a step further....it really goes more like attack, attack, attack, attack, deny, deny, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack. And the attacks? They're all the same: "Karl Rove thanks you"..."Far left wing crazies who hate the military"..."That never happened - that's a lie." This whole Clark campaign - from the "draft" movement to the ardent defenders using the same language (and writing style!) - is not what it appears to be.

[JNelson6563]

8. All that aside

It is hard to give your arguments a lot of weight when you label your "factual refutation" as myth. A myth is an untrue tale, FYI.

That said, I am neutral on Clark and would vote for him if he won the nom. I hope he doesn't base his campaign on myths. ;-) (That's a joke to any over-sensitive souls out there)

Julie--who is going to work very hard to get our nominee into the WH

[JackRiddler]

10. Hey, thanks, I missed that!

You're right, he obviously meant to write "Fact" but instead titled each of his refutations as "Myth."

Well, it's funny but let's drop it.

More to the point: There is no democratic nominee as yet, there are contenders. It's entirely legitimate for Democrats (and anti-Bush people in general) to debate who's best for the job and yeah, to criticize, even to attack contenders they don't like. Long as it attempts to be factual and reasonable.

I find that most of the Clark defenders present simplistic dismissals and innuendos in place of argument ("this is extreme left sophistry," "you hate the military," etc.)

[Padraig18]

17. Ummm

The same observation about Clark attackers holds true, by and large.

[TLM]

69. Really... I have seen Clark questioners and detractors...

providing sources, citations, quotes, and links.


I see the Clark Corps making personal attacks, trying to change the subject to Dean or Clinton, and spewing the same meme over and over that questioning Clark means you hate the military.

So far not one single person has been able to come up with a justfication or explination for why Clark was working as a f-ing lobbyist for kissigner.

[stickdog]

14. Now for Myth vs. Fact

Myth: He worked with Axiom to make sure they got the contract to make sure that privacy was taken into consideration when collecting information of people checking onto airplanes rather than less sophisticated methods that detain people for frivolous information such as having a similar birth date as a suspected terrorist.


Yep. That's a myth if I ever heard one.

Fact: CAPPS II is a indefensible piece of Big Brother shit that robs us of our privacy by addressing a threat that doesn't exist while HELPING terrorists get away with hijackings. And any Rhodes Scholar should have figured that out in about 2 seconds.

[Julien Sorel]

15. Opinion vs Fact.

I thought we had this discussion a few days ago? Yet you still haven't learned the difference between what is your, or someone else's, opinion, and fact.

Just because someone says something you want to hear doesn't make it a fact. Just because you say something doesn't make it a fact.

[CoffeePlease1947]

16. It is OK if it makes them feel better.

If someone says a Democratic candidate is a rapist, murderer, childkiller, it doesn't matter if it is true or not. A low-life freeper would spread it anyway. Smear is the name of the game to them.

Mike

[JackRiddler]

19. Them?

That's right, there's a Freep-Symp Conspiracy to Get Clark on DU.

Just reread my posts: I say he boils children, etc.

Instructive.

[Bertrand]

30. Them as in

the select few here who disavow any concept of rational conversation by tearing down other peoples character in the hope that it promotes their favourite as an alternative.

[JasonBerry]

34. Removed By Poster

I have removed this as I completely misread Bertrand's post and it didn't make sense as posted. Sorry.

[stickdog]

59. I'm issuing a challenge here and now. Defend CAPPS II or fuck off.

Your arguing tactics are bankrupt.

[JasonBerry]

21. You guys are something else....

Clark's boiler-room web operation has proved ONE thing to a lot of DUers: If the candidate is anything like many of his supporters - and workers! - than honor and integrity is obviously NOT the name of the game. The Clark spin blog has so many of you thinking up is down, left is right, truth is fiction, on and on.....in short: welcome to Wesley Clark's Orwellian world. I have had it with the personal attacks from the Clark people - sick of it! Anytime ANYBODY posts anything negative about Clark, we are LAMBASTED as being pawns of Karl Rove and in the words of one of your supporters, "morally unprincipled." The immorality is in a boiler-room web operation that spreads campaign propaganda as truth when it is a LIE - and to call anyone who dares question the good general a FREEPER.

[JackRiddler]

23. Funny enough, the only thing that bothers me...

There's no doubt a number of boilerroomers are exposing themselves regularly. (Let's not underestimate the proportion of innocent Clark supporters, by the way, as opposed to the boiler-room people.) But there is a faction who are perpetually lathered up, calling names, constantly implying they're the Real Majority at DU (as though this would automatically substantiate their opinions), and all who oppose Clark are named as Freep, tinfoil, Rove, RNC, military haters, extreme left, whatever. (Long as we don't have to deal with the facts.)

Actually as you point out it's useful and instructive to see this action - much worse would be if they learned any subtlety! But there seems to be precious little danger of that. They are a slogan-making crew, in the true tradition of Rove et al. (Note I said in the tradition, not "hired by.") They figure that repetition makes fact and wins elections, and maybe they'll be proven right in 2004. For the umpteenth time.

The only thing that bothers me is the aggressive way many of them stick his face in large format on every post they make. That is really getting on my nerves. Go into any thread on Clark, you have to see 16, 17 instances of his mug. I don't like this with Dean or anyone else, but with the Clarkies it's extreme.

[Padraig18]

31. Interesting

I frankly find all of the large pics annoying, too. Some of us are on dialup, and waiting for the 'privilege' of seeing candidate X's mugshot for the umpteenth time is getting on my VERY last nerve!

How about we CHILL on the huge-ass pics of your various favorite candidates, huh? :P

[WoodrowFan]

37. hear hear!

I KNOW what they all look like, I don't need to see their faces again. It won't make me vote for them that they're good looking

[SWPAdem]

83. Boo fucking whoooooooooooo

:nopity:

[TLM]

71. ANd you notice the one thing the Clark Corps never do...

is actualy point out what specificaly is flase or provide any substantive refutation.

Someone says Clark worked on developing CAPPS II and the Coprs so up to attacks them and claim that's just an opinion.

So Clark did not work to get Acxiom the contract for CAPPS II ?

Oh oops, yeah he did...


Clark worked for personal data firm
Acxiom role part of airline passenger privacy debate
By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
THE WASHINGTON POST

Sept. 27 — Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

STARTING just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom’s board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.



This is just another fucking conservative war profiteer, with ties to the same people pulling W's strings. This guy was a lobbyist for Kissinger, and just like Haliburton and Cheney or Carlyle and Bush, he is using his position to push policy and help his corporatist pals get fat government contracts.

And the Clark corps response, deny and attack.

[Code_Name_D]

73. Actualy, they did refute that.

The blaimed it on Clark's evil twin. Their was a thread that tried to argue that Mr. Wesley Clark and Gen. Wesley Clark are not the same person. Nope, I am not making that up.

[kiahzero]

101. Actually, no

That was a different thread, trying to tie Clark to Dyncorp. Nice try with the smear tactics, though.

[stickdog]

57. Typical. You have no argument. so you pretend you had one a few days ago.

Pitiful, but 100% typical.

How can you folks look in the mirror?

[TLM]

70. OMFG talk about a double standard.....

"Just because you say something doesn't make it a fact."

You mean like Clark saying he's a democrat?

[stickdog]

74. The thread in which Clark supporters were afraid to defend CAPPS II:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=454445#455946

[Devils Advocate NZ]

25. It is interesting that you labelled your answers "Myth:" because...

in a couple of cases that is exactly what they are: Pro-Clark myths that deny reality in order to defend the indefensible.

Let's take a look at a couple of these "Myths"

He worked with Axiom to make sure they got the contract to make sure that privacy was taken into consideration when collecting information of people checking onto airplanes rather than less sophisticated methods that detain people for frivolous information such as having a similar birth date as a suspected terrorist.

He worked to make a bad system slightly less bad, but the fact is that the original system of random checks was never intended to be permanent, it was merely a stop-gap until the much more intrusive data collection system could be developed. Why do I say much more intrusive? Simple: under the current system people are randomly checked, under the new system EVERY PERSON who wants to fly on a commercial airliner gets checked behind the scenes and without being aware of the decisions being made or being able to appeal them.

Some Clark defenders say that this system does not breach privacy because it deals with data that the Government already has. This is totally untrue. The fact that the data is already being collected by government agencies in no way diminishes the fact that this program breaches privacy. For a start, the information that is currently collected is distributed throughout many different agencies and is not collected into a "big picture". In fact some of it can not be used for any other purpose without a warrant specifically detailing probable cause to believe that this information may lead to the detection of a crime.

For example police can't just go an look at IRS records, they need a warrant based on probable cause. Well, they did until the Patriot Act and this program came about.

Now all this disparate information is brought together in one place for every person that wants to fly. In other words, probable cause has been tossed out the window and EVERYONE is now a criminal suspect merely for getting on a commercial airliner.

Even when used properly this new "super" database is a breach of constitutional rights, but it is the improper use that it can be put to that is the real problem. No-Fly lists have already been misused against prominent anti-war protestors. What about those people who haven't previously come to the attention of the authorities? Now they can find out if you donate to DU for example in order to decide whether they are going to let you fly. Hell, they may even decide to arrest you and make sure you are not plotting to expose Black Box Voting...

Remember, lots of data is one thing. But it is only by being cross referenced against other data that it becomes meaningful. If this wasn't the case, there would be no need for this program would there?

Rumor:
Clark almost started WWIII

Myth:
This was opinion of one man, British Lt. General Sir Mike Jackson. He is now under investigation for the murder of over a dozen innocent Irish citizens. Clark has also been Knighted by the Queen of E.

Well, not quite. It was the words of one man in response to an order to assault an airport occupied by Russian troops. Jackson refused the order becuase it would have almost gauranteed open combat between Russian and NATO troops. As part of his refusal he said "I am not going to start WWIII for you."

Also, this was NOT the opinion of one man. Clark contacted Jackson's superior, and he agreed with Jackson, and in turn contacted his counterpart in the US who also agreed and told Clark to back down. In fact Clark felt he was being stabbed in the back when his superior did not back him up.

Clark has supported many Democrats before he entered the race. He was registered as an Independent in Arkansas, like 95.7% of all Arkansans that like to be able to think for themselves, and has donated to countless other candidates including $1000 Bowles of North Carolina in 2002. He has not voted for a Republican president since 1988. That was 15 years ago.

I'll let Clark's own words speak for him here:

But when I left the Army, I looked at both parties and the differences couldn't have been more clear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=470739#475904

Clark left the Army in May 2000. So Clark has only been a Democrat as long as Bush has been in power. If Gore had won, when Clark left and loooked at both parties, would he have decided to become a Republican? It seems to me that Clark is only using the Democratic party as a springboard into the Presidency, and if Gore had been the President he would have ran as a Republican.

It seems clear that Clark has wanted to become President since he left the Army. In fact he had turned down all offers to run for any lower office, but was suddenly "recruited" by the "Draft Clark" movement! I don't think so! This has been his plan all along, and the party was irrelevant - even he admits to being non-partisan and having voted for Clinton and Gore because of who they were rather than what party they represented. He also admits to having voted for Reagan and Bush Snr. And he praised Bush Jnr AFTER he supposedly voted for Gore.

The best that can be said for Clark is he is a centrist independant using the Dem party as a springboard. I personally believe he is actually a right winger using the Dem party as a springboard and with the added benefit of pulling the Dems even further to the right.

Rumor:
Clark bombed children, nuns, and reporters in Bosnia.
Myth:

This comes from two false assumptions. 1) That if you bomb schools, churches and broadcasting stations there are innocent people in them. 2) Their churches, schools, and broadcasting stations are like radio stations, churches, and schools in the US. Truly sheltered lives these people must live.
Churches in Bosnia are old and make great bunkers for enemy soldiers. Schools also held enemy soldiers. The broadcasting is part of the state run communications systems. Taking out the communications system prevents the enemy from organizing attacks and killing Allied soldiers and more civilians.

I totally agree! Clark NEVER bombed children, nuns or reporters in Bosnia! Of course he DID bomb children, nuns and reporters in SERBIA!

I suppose it is too much to expect you to get the country right?

Clark is an unindicted war criminal because of his actions in Serbia, and he should stand trial for those actions. Too bad that the court with jurisidiction over war crimes in Kosovo refuses to even investigate these allegations, huh? Of course the fact that that court is funded and controlled by NATO may have something to do with it...

[Spentastic]

36. Well said

I'm particularly dubious about this bit:

"This was opinion of one man, British Lt. General Sir Mike Jackson. He is now under investigation for the murder of over a dozen innocent Irish citizens. Clark has also been Knighted by the Queen of E."

As you have eloquently pointed out, this was General Jackson's interpretation of what would happen Should Clark's orders be followed. The chain of command agreed with Jackson and Clark was told to back off.

"He is now under investigation for the murder of over a dozen innocent Irish citizens. "

Hmm, and this is relevant how? "Under investigation" is not "guilty" and it's unlikley that Mike Jackson will personally be blamed for the events of Bloody Sunday. It's also undoubtedly not the case that Jackson murdered 13 people. The initial poster appears to be involved in some smearing of their own.

as for this

"Clark has also been Knighted by the Queen of E."

Non sequiteur anyone? Lots of people are Knighted by the Queen, some less savoury than others. It is arguable if Wesley would have been quite so popular if his orders had been followed.

[HFishbine]

28. Get Real

"Myth:
He worked with Axiom to make sure they got the contract to make sure that privacy was taken into consideration when collecting information of people checking onto airplanes rather than less sophisticated methods that detain people for frivolous information such as having a similar birth date as a suspected terrorist.

I thought you were repudiating speculation...

[maha]

29. Thank you for this. n/t

[Devils Advocate NZ]

32. Any bets on how long it will be before this thread gets locked?

I mean it's not like the original post doesn't breach the new rules against inflammatory posts. For example:

If you are unsure, ask! Don't attack with garbage and expect us spend time correcting everything. It is easy to make a false accusation. Any moron can do it. You impress nobody and prevent us from talking about the issues.

I think you are a freeper using Repuke tactics if you engage in this behavior. If you cannot find FACTS to take down Clark, than maybe you should rethink what you are doing and who you are supporting.

Yep, if you don't agree with him you are a moron or freeper...

[Bread and Circus]

33. MIke, great job...

I am sorry you had to open yourself again
to "the tin foil brigade".

I have a key question, of the 9 other dem
candidates, who was against the Kosovo conflict?
Seriously, has any of them come out and said
Clark did a poor job in terms of effect and scope?

This is an election we are trying to win here, not
the Nobel Peace prize. I am not being an apologist,
I am being realist. Surpisingly, Americans want a
realistic President.

This is not a race between Ghandi, Jesus, MLK, and Clark.

This is a race between 10 Democrats and it will be
a race between a Democrat and a Republican in a
time of quasi-War. We need someone who is both full
of compassion and empathy as well as someone who can
be Commander in Chief.

Yes, the Pres is the CIC. And that means being able to make
tough decisions knowing some people will die. I think
the record is clear that Clark puts a premium on life
and his judgements in Kosovo were sound. Albright, Clinton,
McCaffrey and many others attest to that. The only ones
who don't have been political foes, both when he was in the
military and now.

As for me, I like to think for myself and I believe Clark,
on balance, did the right thing in Kosovo, whether or
not civilians died and whether or not Churches were destroyed.
You have to take the sum of all decisions and the sum of
all outcomes in order to see things correctly. I am sure
Clark made mistakes and things could've been done better. However,
I think Kosovo is a good example of how Clark is clearly
qualified to be CIC. I also think Clark wanting and prodding
to intervene in Rwanda is a clear example of his humanitarian
nature and wanting to help the weak. He expressed his views
to the dismay of those who controlled the situation. He demonstrated
he is an independent thinker, who likes to go out of the lines
and think outside the box.

I am tired of the crap some here keep recycling, as if repeating
it will wear us down and we will submit.

[JasonBerry]

35. So......

You think starting a thread with a post that attacks those who dare to question Wesley Clark and is full of errors is to be commended? We're not talking differences of opinion here - I mean FACTUAL errors all through the post! But, you say, "I am sorry you had to open yourself again to "the tin foil brigade." You further go on to prove EXACTLY what many of us are bewildered by - "I am tired of the crap some here keep recycling, as if repeating it will wear us down and we will submit. As if you don't regurgitate the same old tired one-liners over and over and over again? The one most insidious is the one that attempts to say that those of us who question Clark - on the issues should shut up and go away! When an original post like this is posted that is full of outright falsehoods - are we supposed to not refute it? Clark asked for a dialogue - he's got it!

[OBrien]

38. thank you for that

n/t

[Rowdyboy]

39. Good thread, Coffee...

Ignore the flamers. What General Clark did in Kosovo was necessary and thank God he had the guts to push Clinton into stopping the evil "ethnic cleansing" that occurred daily. Hearing people attack Clark because he stopped the slaughter of innocent civilians make me want to puke. How dare he protect innocent men, women and children! The nerve of that American saving Muslim lives!

[JasonBerry]

40. Yup

Ignore the flamers.

Wouldn't want any inconvenient facts to interrupt a jingoistic kill the Serbs thread. Thank you for putting "ethnic cleansing" in quotes - at least you got that right.

[ozone_man]

41. I don't see anything here about his operations for NED, etc.

Also, what do you have to back up the statements that he consulted for Acxiom only in regards to passenger privacy issues. I see that Jet Blue was recently caught snooping on passengers. I don't like this Homeland Security stuff, just another way to invade peoples's privacy.

He seems to have been on the boards as a director or consultant with unknown functions and involvements. When will we see a detail description of this, so we can know who we are really dealing with.

I really didn't understand what Henry Kissinger was like, until maybe a decade ago. But, as I understand it, Clark consulted with HK and sat on boards with him and other Carlisle group people. So, before I could ever vote for the guy, I would have to understand what all these connections where about. But without this information, I have to assume the worst. I don't trust his involvement in these organizations for the same reason that I watch who my kids make friends with. He appears to have made friends with a pretty bad crowd.

[KittyWampus]

45. For A Fair & Balanced Discussion Of The NED

Please feel free to particpate in the following thread. It doesn't contain much hysteria, but it does discuss the National Endowment For Democracy, what it's mission is, the Pro's AND the Con's.

That a DU'er would just automatically put "NED" in a post and imagine that it somehow denigrates someone who has particpated in it shows a lack of information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=474693

[Eloriel]

51. Yeah, there are so MANY pro's to overthrowing other govts

under cover of an organization with a fine, upstanding, American-as-apple-pie name. You bet.

Oh, after first glance at the other thread: the fact that NED has Democrats (hawks and DLCers) only means that we've either got Dems we need to cull or they've attracted Dems as additional cover, or both.

Edited to add: So call me a purist. Any organization that has EVER participated in attempts to overthrow another government is not one I want a Democratic (or so-called) Presidential nominee associated with.

Eloriel

[KittyWampus]

52. Obviously You Only Took A GLANCE

Why would anyone with an agenda and lots of preconcieved notions want to take the time to read information and actually LEARN anything?

[RandomUser]

62. A purist who hates Graham, Wellstone, Soros and others?

Wasn't there a Wellstone bill dealing with NED? (edit: correction, Wellstone also held a seat on NED). And weren't Graham, Soros, and other progressives also on the NED board? And since you said anyone who had anything to do with NED should be culled...

[ozone_man]

53. I thought "rumors and myths" might be a suitable place.

Besides, you haven't answered my question, which really is, "what was Clark's role exactly in the NED?". I think he will need to come up with a position paper to explain all this stuff as well as invlolvement in other clandestine organizations.

I did look through your thread and see reference to the small business part of NED, but you did not post a link to this information. Somehow, I suspect that info. about NED will be slim pickings because of the nature of it's operations and constituency of it's board, etc..

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Freepers would be speechless

If you could present these facts to them in a debate...

[Tammuz]

54. CNN was controlled during the war

why did army psyops take over CNN for the duration of the war?

http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-psyops.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17437

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/cnn-a18.shtml

left and right wing sources there

[Selwynn]

64. Doubtful -

There isn't even "speechlessness" amoung our friends here, let along our enemies. :)

[Character Assassin]

68. You really ought to know what you're talking about before speaking

Second, the children were not burned to death, they were stabbed and shot before the building was burnt down by the members of Davidians.

Wrong. WARNING: graphic photos...http://www.dabney.com/wacomuseum/death/death.html

Third, the fires were started from inside of the building in three different locals within a period of two minutes.

Inconclusive evidence to warrant that assumption.

The lawyers for the nine surviving Davidians were based on the idea that the laser scopes on the rifles of the ATF ignited the fire (you can believe that if you want).

Where on earth did you find that bullcrap? They based that part of the defense on the ATF's use of pyrotechnic devices and flammable gasses.

The Branch Davidians were caught and recorded in the planning of burning/suicide on tape.

Wrong again.

[deaniebopper]

75. Clark is a war criminal

just like Bush.

[Padraig18]

84. Another 'hit and run' flame bait?

You seem to be good at that. :eyes:

[RandomUser]

86. Indeed

It's a lot more interesting when they stay and actually talk :)

[SWPAdem]

85. There you are again!

Stay and answer your replies, why don't you?

[CoffeePlease1947]

89. Dean did nothing wrong to deserve your support

I am not for Dean, but if I were him I would ask you to leave my campaign.

Dean supported the Bosnia war. So you obviously don't really support Dean either.

Mike

[Tinoire]

88. If a nuclear escalation isn't "almost starting" WW 3, what is?

If that's not almost starting World War III, I don't know what would have qualified.

"I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war.'' Russian President Boris Yeltsin, April 6, 1999

"In the event that NATO and America start a ground operation in Yugoslavia, they will face a second Vietnam, I do not want to forecast what is going to start then. I cannot rule out a third world war.'' Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, April 17, 1999

"If NATO goes from air force to ground force it will be a world catastrophe. (Russia) has never felt such anti-Western, anti-European feelings." First Deputy Russian Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, April 25, 1999.

"You have to understand that if we want to cause you a problem over this, we could. Someone, we don't know who, could send up a missile from a ship or a submarine and detonate a nuclear weapon high over the United States. The EMP (electromagenetic pulse that destroys electronic and computer equipment) would take away all your capability." Vladimir Lukin, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Policy Committee, late April, 1999

"Just let Clinton, a little bit, accidentally, send a missile. We will answer immediately. Such impudence! To unleash a war on a sovereign state. Without Security Council. Without United Nations. It could only be possible in a time of barbarism." Boris Yeltsin, May 7, 1999

http://www.co-intelligence.org/y2k_nuke_balkanwar.html

---
Kucinich- House of Representatives - May 04, 1999

Have we come a long way from those days? Yes. We worked throughout the seventies to build down nuclear arms, we worked throughout the eighties to reestablish a relationship with Russia, and in the nineties we have in the United States been responsible for helping Russia rebuild itself economically, and assisted in so many ways as partners in peace.

But yet, Mr. Speaker, that very peace and that partnership has been threatened by the Balkan conflict, because Russia has seen this conflict in other terms, and only a week ago the leader of the Yablako faction in Russia, Vladimir Luhkin, was quoted in worldwide news reports as saying a blockade of the port in Montenegro would be a direct path to nuclear escalation, setting aside years and years of progress that we made and launching us right back into the Cold War
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/h990504-kosovo09.htm

[CoffeePlease1947]

90. Do you think about how your arguments before hitting send?

Think about this, this is your argument:

Russia almost launched Nuclear weapons against 19 NATO Nations because they attempted to cut off some Russian troops from taking over an airport and landing ground troops against the orders of Boris Yeltsen, their Commander and Chief.

How silly is that. Really?

Funny how Russia after that pinned a medal on his chest for his actions.


Your utter hatred and ignorance of Clark and of the military shines as bright as the four stars and all the medals that Clark has earned.

Clark gave more than 40 years of his life to this country in and out of the military and deserves a little more respect than you give him of faceless, baseless and factless accusations.

Mike

[Scoopie]

91. And does all this really matter?

Because Dean isn't going to win in the South and the mid-West and it will be be four more years of the Bushies!
Thanks, Mike, for the thread.
I have no problem with Dean supporters other than they don't seem to realize that NO ONE IN THE SOUTH KNOWS WHO HE IS, and, the two or three who do wouldn't vote for him if you paid them (oh, wait... that's a Republian thing... sorry).
I'm a moderate, but around here, you'd think I was to the left of Marx, and, at our Truman Day Dinner, I saw four Dean buttons, a few Kerry buttons and tons of Clarkies.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if we want to oust Bush, we've got to go more centrist.
Look, I appreciate people wanting to vote their convictions, but do we do that to the detriment of the country? And four more years of Bush?
It's clear Bush WANTS to run against Dean. Why? Because to many Southerners who are too busy hitting the unemployment line to read the news, Dean can easily be made to look like a wild Northern liberal, a la Rove.
Dean can have his chance to continue the good work of the Democrats in 2012 (Hillary won't run, then, either).

[JackRiddler]

92. Holding us hostage to your view of the South

Dear Scoopie,

sorry, this is a bunch of cliches about the South, even if you do live there and I don't. Florida went to Gore, remember? Why should the rest of the country be held forever hostage to this image of a conservative, hyper-Christian South? There are swing states elsewhere, and every single one of them counts as much as its electoral votes do.

I say the winner is the one who knocks Bush flat out in the campaign. Do you really know beforehand that Clark will do that better than Dean?

[Scoopie]

99. No 'frothy-mouthed' Southerners

sorry, this is a bunch of cliches about the South, even if you do live there and I don't. Florida went to Gore, remember? Why should the rest of the country be held forever hostage to this image of a conservative, hyper-Christian South? There are swing states elsewhere, and every single one of them counts as much as its electoral votes do.
I say the winner is the one who knocks Bush flat out in the campaign. Do you really know beforehand that Clark will do that better than Dean?

Firstly, the South is not hyper-Christian - which only proves you don't know much about the South - we have large pockets of Muslims in North Carolina and Tennessee and a high percentage of Jewish voters in Florida.
You know all those news reports you put down when they misrepresent your candidate? Well, this is the same news that "sells" the South as being so blinded by religion or conservatism that we don't think. Not true.
Tennessee, where I live, went Clinton twice. It was Gore's to lose and he lost it because he took it for granted.
Secondly, yes, I do know Clark will do better in the South than Dean because I LIVE here and can see it with my own EYES. Few people are talking about Dean - he's already being painted as something much worse than a liberal and that's a Vermonter who has no idea what it's like to be Southern (see your own predjudice and bias above).
I live in the second-most Republican voting district in the country (I keep saying that because there's a point to it) and I see Clark stuff. I hear people talking about Clark. No one says a word about Dean.
Face it, the South is more about the military than "hyper-Christian," "racist," or "conservative," attitudes. As more people visit our area, more move in and we're becoming so much more than all those labels that are placed on us.
Yes, we're not nearly as liberal as other parts of the country and yes, we're more apt to attend church, but we're not frothy-mouthed.
Case in point: Tennessee is called the Volunteer State because we regularly have more citizens register, voluntarily (during draft situations) to join the armed forces than many, if any, other state in the union. Clark is "military people" and he's Southern. People here "get him," from his fighting days to his intellectual visions.
We're not stupid (and we do wear shoes and have indoor plumbing).

[JackRiddler]

103. Ahem, please read what I wrote...

Basically, I'm sick of hearing this cater-to-the-South-therefore be conservative idea. Please read what I wrote and you will see I'm not saying the South is very conservative, but that your argument is based in the idea that it is and that the rest of the country must cater to that, if we are to have a Democratic president.

Actually, I write, "this IMAGE of a conservative, hyper-Christian South," meaning I don't believe it myself! In effect, I am saying YOU are implying this image (whether intentionally or not).

IN your correction, you tell me the South ain't conservative or Christian or such, but very military oriented. Okay, so be it. I don't like that (the military orientation, not the South per se). Nor do I buy that this is and will forever be the South. The South is also Atlanta...

Anyway, why doesn't Gore count as "South"? He lost all of it, but he won the most important state in the South: FLORIDA, which was then stolen from him.

My real point is: let's forget this regional stuff. Our society is made up of strata or groups more than of regions. Different regions have different mixes of groups, but I want a candidate who deals with the groups themselves (the real politics to me) and not the often superficial differences between regions.

Otherwise, yeah, it galls me and I don't mind saying it. Northeast/Midwest (still many more electoral votes than South) gets dismissed as irrelevant since those suckers will mostly go Democrat anyway, it's "South" (or the conservative image thereof) that we must cater to.

Sorry, I'm running on...

[Scoopie]

106. It's not just the South

Well, you also completely missed my point.
Yes... we are one great big country and I'm not asking you or anyone else to "cater" to the South - I'm just pointing out the simple fact that WE want representation, too. And that means outside the beltway and certainly not someone who probably will misinterpret us with the "image" you pointed out. And we vote and we probably won't go en mass for Dean - but we would for Clark.
Has it every occurred to you that it's not really so much a liberal vs conservative issue? Or even a South vs. North or East vs. West issue so much as the fact that most people EVERYWHERE are neither? Most people are moderate, centrist, or whatever you want to call it. Most people just want common sense and not a party line. But, since the Democrats allege they have the biggest tent and love for voters "to come home" to the party, why shouldn't Clark be allowed? Why are so many Dean fans questioning his sencerity? Can I not be a middle leaning left Democrat? I don't have to claim a party allegance to vote in my primaries - many Southern states don't - so we DO think of ourselves more independently.
Why not vote for the centrist Democrat to get the nomination so he'll whack out Bush's lights? Isn't the middle the majority and isn't that better than the neo-cons we have in control now?
To you, we Southerners may seem conservative, but to a neo-con, I'd be to the left of Marx. It's perception. Always has been, always will be.
We middle-of-the-roaders (me being a leaning left one) get, what I call, "lousy" choices in the presidential races on BOTH sides because they're determined by the most left and the most right.
It's time for us "middles" to get our president. We've been waiting for him or her for a long, long time.

[Tinoire]

93. Do you think at all?

It is a good thing we had political & military leaders world-wide who realized your man was unstable because God knows what madness he would have unleashed.

Please explain the this 20 year Military Vet who served with real Democratic officers, and several years at the Pentagon, why Wesley Clark was brought back 3 months early in silent disgrace and met by an empty room of Senators and Representatives when he went to give his final briefing and spin the story well because it's going to be hell for Clark supporters when the facts start getting leaked and you will cry persecution and hate as opposed to trying to be a wee bit objective about your candidate.

Your tired tactic of ascribing opposition to Clark as hatred of all things military is rather silly and expecting people to get all orgasmic about those pretty medals and ribbons is really laughable to the many old-time DUers among us who have intimate knowledge of the military, Wesley Clark and the politics of medals and decorations.

If you like medals that much, me and the other vets here will get together and send box-fulls- just keep that garbage out of politics!
-------------------------------------------------------------

The first time President Chirac of France realized how fast and far the air campaign had moved from its original, modest size was when he watched the Yugoslav Interior Ministry erupt into a fireball on April 3, day 11 of the war.

"Paris was pretty shocked," a French diplomat recalled. Chirac requested an urgent telephone call with Clinton to discuss the strategy being pursued by Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the supreme allied commander in Europe.

<snip>

Chirac asked to review any targets in Montenegro, a small republic of Yugoslavia that had remained democratic and was trying to stay out of the war. Blair wanted a veto over all targets to be struck by B-52 bombers taking off from British soil. And all three leaders wanted to review targets that might cause high casualties or affect a large number of civilians, such as the electrical grid, telephone system and buildings in downtown Belgrade.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/sept99/airwar20.htm

[JackRiddler]

104. Can you lay off the rhetoric and psychology?

Fine, I disagree with you, but what annoys is that in your responses you usually include some line about "hatred" of Clark and/or the military. How the hell do you know people's motivations? Maybe they really believe what they write. And isn't this going to encourage the sort of "divisiveness" you say you want to avoid? After all, if your guy (God Forbid) gets the nomination, you're going to want alot of these "Clark-haters" to vote for him, believe me they're still likelier to accept him than that other demographic you seem to think your man is so appealing to (a.k.a. Bush voters).

Please don't impute irrational emotions or neuroses every time you disagree with someone on Clark... you will be much less annoying...

[kiahzero]

102. Um

If we're talking about Pristina, then Clark's plan and the subordinate who believed he was touching off WWIII only varied on which stretch of road they wanted to occupy.

Perhaps you are referring to something different?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

94. coffeeplease you're wrong on this point......

>Rumor:
Clark was a Republican until he declared he was a candidate for President.
Myth:
Clark has supported many Democrats before he entered the race. He was registered as an Independent in Arkansas, like 95.7% of all Arkansans that like to be able to think for themselves, and has donated to countless other candidates including $1000 Bowles of North Carolina in 2002. He has not voted for a Republican president since 1988. That was 15 years ago.<

Clark even said he voted for Nixon, Reagan (both times) and Bush 40 twice.....hell not only voted for them but work IN all 3 of their WH's

i would like to know who he voted for in 94?...all i've heard him declare is that he voted for Gore....and i would like to see proof of that vote...call me a cynic

[ElsewheresDaughter]

95. coffeeplease you're wrong on this point......

>Rumor:
Clark was a Republican until he declared he was a candidate for President.
Myth:
Clark has supported many Democrats before he entered the race. He was registered as an Independent in Arkansas, like 95.7% of all Arkansans that like to be able to think for themselves, and has donated to countless other candidates including $1000 Bowles of North Carolina in 2002. He has not voted for a Republican president since 1988. That was 15 years ago.<

Clark even said he voted for Nixon, Reagan (both times) and Bush 40 twice.....hell not only voted for them but work IN all 3 of their WH's

i would like to know who he voted for in 94?...all i've heard him declare is that he voted for Gore....and i would like to see proof of that vote...call me a cynic

[Scoopie]

100. Clark's voting records

Clark even said he voted for Nixon, Reagan (both times) and Bush 40 twice.....hell not only voted for them but work IN all 3 of their WH's
i would like to know who he voted for in 94?...all i've heard him declare is that he voted for Gore....and i would like to see proof of that vote...call me a cynic
First, he didn't vote for Bush the second time - he voted for Clinton both times and he voted for Gore.
And, without knowing what kind of voting machines they have in Arkansas, a state that doesn't make you declare a party, I can't tell you if there is even a way to find proof of that.
But, look at it this way, he admitted to us all that he voted for Nixon, Reagan and the first Bush, once. Why would he lie after that?
You either have to believe the whole statement: that he voted for all of whom he said he did, Republicans and Democrats, included, or you can't believe any of it, which means you can't argue that he voted for Republicans.

[mojowork_n]

105. This is a steaming pile of organic waste

Point One:

"Clark wasn't at Waco..." My ass.

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

Last Point:

Clark wasn't responsible for the deaths of civilians "children, nuns, and reporters" in 'Bosnia'... This is so totally WRONG as to be inexcusable.

And it's obviously something penned by a complete and utter moron, who couldn't even identify Cark's responsibility for targeting sites during the bombing of KOSOVO? (Not 'Bosnia'!) Who could possibly think that 'schools and churches over there aren't like schools and churches over here'??? What's even worse is that after bombing civilians, NATO planes came back 20 minutes later to pick off civilian rescue workers, paramedics and family and friends.

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

This is too full of errors, distortions and plain old deception to even comment on...

I have to admit it, I am one of the ANYBODY BUT BUSH crowd. I'd even hold my nose and mark a ballot for Clark, at arm's length, if it meant Bush going down in defeat.

But I'm less likely to do so when I see duplicitous, deceiving dunces posting crap like this.

Shame on you.