Confrontation over Pristina airport (Problem for Clark?)

[Dagaz]

I found this on a google search trying to verify the story. Has anyone else heard this? Has it been debunked? Is it true?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the Secretary General and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.


General Jackson: Backed by UK Government
''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

[lindashaw]

1. A lot has been said about this...in one article, he had the administration

on the phone telling him what to do as this man was saying this. I don't think this was some crazed confrontation, just eye-catching because of the World War III words. Blasters like it, gets attention.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The incident is true, and the BBC did a documentary about it

The incident reveals a lot about Clark's temperament as military commander. Clark was quite willing to risk a shooting war with Russia had General Jackson followed Clark's orders to block the runways at the Pristina airport.

Clark's cowboy mentality, as well as his lies to Congress regarding civilian casualties caused by NATO bombings, shows that Clark has a lot of questions to answer before he is considered the knight in shining armor his supporters seem to think he is.

From Human Rights Watch:

One disturbing aspect of the matter of civilian deaths is how starkly the number of incidents and deaths contrasts with official U.S. and Yugoslav statements. U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, and Gen. Wesley Clark, have testified before Congress and stated publicly that there were only twenty to thirty incidents of "collateral damage" in the entire war. The number of incidents Human Rights Watch has been able to authenticate is three to four times this number. The seemingly cavalier U.S. statements regarding the civilian toll suggest a resistance to acknowledging the actual civilian effects and an indifference to evaluating their causes.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P37_987

Related post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=366065#366125

[retyred]

8. Clark's cowboy mentality?

According to a BBC profile of the General, at the conclusion of his command in Kosovo, which followed the end of the military campaign, there was an incident involving Russia's use of an airfield in Kosovo. After a token Russian force took control of the Slatina airfield, near Priština, on June 10, 1998, there is said to have been a "battle of wills" between Clark and and the British NATO commander, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson. Clark ordered British forces to resist Russian troops that occupied the airfield. Jackson did not comply, reportedly later saying: "I'm not going to start the third World War for you."

Clark, in an NPR interview, said that the incident was a surprising moment for him. Clark indicated that his order to block the runways was refused by an emotional Jackson and that he took the matter up the British chain of command. Despite Clark's claims, Jackson could not have obeyed the order without reference to the British Government. Its result would have been to commit British troops to action against a non-belligerent power without the consent of the British Government. That would have been firmly against the British Constitution, and would have resulted in the dismissal of Jackson for gross insubordination. The situation would have analagous to the behaviour of US General of the Army Douglas MacArthur with respect to China, during the Korean War.

Clark stated that General Sir Charles Guthrie, British Chief of the Defence Staff, said that he agreed with Jackson. Guthrie also, according to Clark, told him that Hugh Shelton the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also agreed with him. Clark remarked that this was very surprising to him since the original suggestion to block the Russians came from Washington. Clark called the Pentagon, looking for support, and was told by Shelton: "We don't want a confrontation, but I do support you". Clark said that he told Shelton: "Then you've got a policy problem". Clark maintained in the NPR interview that the matter was a difference in the perception of the policy between the US administration and the British government. Clark's position is that he was carrying out the suggestions of the administration in Washington.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Other_honors

*******************

Sounds to me as though he was following orders and as usual the Pentagon hung it's military leaders out to dry. And "NO" I do not see this as a problem for Clark, just those that feel the need to try and paint a "Cowboy" picture out of a General following orders.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[Pastiche423]

11. No one needs to paint

a cowboy picture of clark. He's done that all by his lonesome. It amuses me that he won't come clean about why he was ordered to step down two months early.

He has publicly stated that he does not know why he was asked to step down and that he has never asked.

Transparency?

Uh huh. :eyes:

[Donna Zen]

22. He won't come clean!?!

Pastiche_Perhaps you or someone else has asked this question or made the same statement before, but somehow missed the answer.

Please think back to those last two years before the end of Clinton's term, and how the rightwing tried to screw everything he did. That is the atmosphere in which this took place...with a republican, Bill Cohen in the Pentagon.

Clark's command could have been extended, and he had every expectation that it would be. He was at a dinner in his honor when he was called to the phone and told that he would be leaving in the June. Click! No explaination...nada. And to this day NO ONE has ever given him an explaination. Also, Cohen made sure the press release was on the way to the Washington Post before Clinton found out. Blumenthal describes Clinton as angry and Blumenthal is well respected as a journalist.

Cohen put one of his rethug buddies in the Clark's position.

Now why is it that we all know and admit what a dirty time that was in Washington, filled with republican bile; but somehow many here who post this same false Limpblob spin refuse to give one inch to Clark, Clinton's General, a man who took a thug hatchet in the back? In fact, when the truth is posted, and you know this is the truth, they won't even read it, thus making way for an opportunity to ask the same question again.

What the repub motto: tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

[ShaneGR]

3. What was the end result???

Russians left, no shots fired. No casualties.


That's the BIG ammunition against Clark?

[Pepperbelly]

4. World War III was the result and you are ...

just part of my fantasy-hallucination that I am creating rather than face the fact of the apocolypse.

:evilgrin:

[conservdem]

6. If I write, "thanks for the laugh," am I part of your hallucination too.

[Kahuna]

5. He was knighted by Queen Eliz. so I don't know why a..

hysterial comment by Jackson should be a big deal.

[Pepperbelly]

7. these people will flail this from now on because ...

even as errant as it is, it is all they have. So they are trying to make lemonade out of the lemons.

[QC]

9. And the great irony of it

is that they use the word of an actual, bona fide war criminal, Gen. Jackson of Bloody Sunday Massacre fame, to make their case that Clark is a war criminal.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Many of you have convinced yourselves that Clark is a Messiah

Many of you have convinced yourselves that Clark is a Messiah, a knight in shining armor, the saviour of the Democratic Party. Clark is not any of those things. He is just another politician, just as flawed as all others, and just as prone to spinning his resume to put him in the best light possible.

Clark has to answer for lying to Congress on the extent of civilian casualties in Kosovo. This is no GOP propaganda! This comes from Human Rights Watch:

One disturbing aspect of the matter of civilian deaths is how starkly the number of incidents and deaths contrasts with official U.S. and Yugoslav statements. U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, and Gen. Wesley Clark, have testified before Congress and stated publicly that there were only twenty to thirty incidents of "collateral damage" in the entire war. The number of incidents Human Rights Watch has been able to authenticate is three to four times this number. The seemingly cavalier U.S. statements regarding the civilian toll suggest a resistance to acknowledging the actual civilian effects and an indifference to evaluating their causes.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P56_5483

Does this mean that Clark is kaput as far as being a candidate? No, absolutely not, but it does mean that he must stand to the same close scrunity as all the other candidates.

Clark does have one disadvantage! Unlike the other candidates, Clark has to answer for his conduct, and the conduct of troops under his command, during his military service. Bob Kerrey had to answer for his war record, and had to confront some ugly truths about himself, and Clark must do the same. I will point out that another war hero, John Kerry, has a clean slate regarding his military record and the conduct of men under his command. We can expect no less from Clark.

Clark has to answer questions about his temperament that are raised by his conduct during the Pristina airport incident. Clark also must answer questions regarding his decision to use cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, as well as the targeting of civilian targets during the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia.

It would be unfair to attack Clark for the policy that led NATO to bomb the former Yugoslavia, that's an issue that involves the policy makers of the Clinton Administration, not the military commander.

For sake of fairness, we must also recognize that the NATO intrusion into an internal conflict in the former Yugoslavia had at least a semblance of legality, unlike the invasion of Iraq. We must also stipulate that unlike General Tommy Franks, Wesley Clark did not commit crimes of genocide or crimes against peace.

I think that by the time all the questions are answered, and all the issues are aired, that Wesley Clark will be a candidate that most of us can support were he to win the Democratic nomination. But he would not be the white knight in shining armor that his supporters are trying to pass him off as!

From Human Rights Watch:

NATO Gen. Wesley Clark stated after the war that NATO often observed military vehicles moving on roads in Kosovo "intermixed with civilian convoys," particularly during bad weather. This does not exempt NATO from the obligation to take fundamental precautions to focus their effort on military objectives. In fact, after the first two incidents, on April 12 and 14, the civilian deaths led to changes in rules of engagement. While pilots had previously been required to visually identify the military nature of traffic before attacking, after the initial incidents new guidance directed that if military vehicles were intermingled with civilian vehicles, they were not to be attacked.

<snip>

Another issue of intense public interest in the war is NATO's use of cluster bombs. There are seven confirmed and five likely incidents involving civilian deaths from cluster bomb use by the United States and Britain. Altogether, someninety to 150 civilians died from cluster bomb use. The first confirmed incident was on April 10 (incident no. 14) and the last was on May 13 (incident no. 57). After the technical malfunction of a cluster bomb used in an attack on the urban Nis airfield on May 7 (incident no. 48), the White House quietly issued a directive to restrict cluster bomb use (at least by U.S. forces). Cluster bombs should not have been used in attacks in populated areas, let alone urban targets, given the risks. The use prohibition clearly had an impact on the subsequent civilian effects of the war, particularly as bombing with unguided weapons (which would otherwise include cluster bombs) significantly intensified after this period. Nevertheless, the British air force continued to drop cluster bombs (official chronologies show use at least on May 17, May 31, June 3, and June 4), indicating the need for universal, not national, norms regarding cluster bomb use.

What is striking about the Yugoslav conflict, given the level of intense media coverage and public interest it has received in the United States and abroad, is that there is almost a complete lack of any public accountability by any of the national NATO members for missions undertaken in the NATO alliance's name. Little information has been released on nations or aircraft involved in bombing missions, on specific targets, and there is sparse information on weapons used in individual circumstances.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P56_5483

[bluestateguy]

10. Oooooh!! I'm shaking!!!

Calrk bashers will have to do better than that. Indeed, this Administration has come closer far more times to starting a worldwide conflagration than Clark ever did.

[billbuckhead]

12. Really don't see how this hurts Clark. Can't say he's a pink tutu Dem

But ww3 didn't start when NATO drew the line with Putin's boys on the ground.
But this wasting called Iraqnam has started. Maybe we need someone like Clark as Dem leader. America in need has looked to West Point in the past for solutions. Maybe democracy can win a war among the humans in the miltary that it can't win in the capitalist marketplace.

[mddemo]

13. pristina

As a squad leader at the time positioned about 300 meters from the Russian positions i can only say im glad that Sir Jackson countermanded the order, we all knew what it meant, the Russians knew what it meant, and neither side wanted it. No matter if the order came from Washington it was his responsibility as Nato commander to ascertain the facts and base his decision apon them. He went off half cocked and almost caused WW3. I for one will never vote for him, as even a lowly infantryman like myself knew the consequences of his orders. Even if you dislike Sir Jackson you have to realise that without his stand, this thing would of escalated beyond belief, though i probuably woulndt be here as my section was tasked with assaulting the main gate. Those HMG's can sure make your day go bad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Was Michael Jackson The Guy Who Had All That Plastic Surgery?

NT

[mddemo]

15. lol

funny mate, though i wouldnt say it his face, hes the one person who needs it, his face is well lived in.

[carpetbagger]

16. Assaulting the main gate?

Your recollections are getting a bit divergent from multiple sources who at the time reported that the proposed move was designed to take up positions on the periphery of a large airport that 200 Russians had no chance of securing in its entirity. I agree that this was certainly frightening, but so was the spectre of large numbers of Russian troops reinforcing the position, in violation of SFOR agreements and the personal agreement of the Russian civilian leadership, who were not clearly in charge at the time.

I've not heard one word to the effect that we would have fired the first shot.

[Pastiche423]

17. You were there?

I'll take someone's word that was there over the clarkites that try to excuse anything negative about Wesley "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Clark.

Even the thought of a skirmish (light word, I know) w/the Russians, scares the daylights out of me.

[Zero Division]

18. Another Point of View Disputing the "Clark almost started WWIII" Claim

This was posted in DU before by someone else, but since not everybody sees every post I'll post the link again:

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html

Make sure to read the comments, too, since one of the commenters adds some other important details to the story about the disagreement among Russian government officials.

This site also carries a great debunking of the "Clark is responsible for the Waco disaster" claim:

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000281.html

[Pastiche423]

19. That is a clark supporter site

[Zero Division]

21. I'm just presenting another point of view....

Do you have anything to counter what's presented on that site, other than doubting it simply because it's on a Clark supporter's site?

:shrug:

In other words, since the links I posted are rebuttals to claims, do you have any counter-rebuttals?

[Donna Zen]

23. Research

It is not who did it; it is the quality of the research. Do you challenge the research based on faulty sources (there are multiple.) Your assertion that the "who" did the research is intellectually dishonest.

[Donna Zen]

24. Salon site

And yes, she maybe a Clark supporter too, especially if she has done the research and knows Pristina is BS:

July 1, 1999, Senator Olympia Snowe (R) from Maine asked General Clark why the NATO forces had been caught off guard by the Russians at Pristina, to which Clark replied ``We weren't caught off guard,'' Clark said. NATO had a plan to get to the airport first, he disclosed. ``We were prepared to respond, but decisions were made at levels above mine not to.''

When Clark learned that the Russians were en route to the Pristina airport, he claims to have phoned NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, who told him he must beat the Russians to the airport. The Pristina Airport was to be a strategic location for NATO operations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm). When Clark gave the command to British Lt. General Sir Michael Jackson to send in a contingent of paratroopers and occupy the airport, Jackson responded "I'm not going to start World War III for you." The plan was dropped and the Russians grabbed the Pristina airport unopposed. The Washington Post reported on June 25, 1999, that the British even provided the 200 Russian troops with food because they did not fear such a small force and couldn't understand Clark's concern.

According to the BBC report, produced after the incident, a senior Russian officer detailed how Russia had planned to send in thousands of troops to carve out its own sector of Kosovo independent of NATO control. Clearly that could have been a disaster and justifies Clark's rationale.


http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/19.html

[newyawker99]

34. Hi darkblue!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. THREE REBUTTALS

Stirling Newberry's double-barreled response:

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html#000347

Here is Eric Tam's moderate response:

http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#106364517252030920

My own take:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=335225

DTH

[IndianaGreen]

26. So the answer is to attack Jackson's role in Northern Ireland?

Jackson is not running for US President, but Clark is, and there is no glossing over his role in Pristina.

A few facts:

1. NATO is a puppet organization of American imperialism.

2. Russians intervened in Kosovo to protect the Serbians from terrorism from the KLA and genocide, feeling quite rightly that NATO had little interest in protecting the Serbian population of Kosovo.

3. The Clinton Administration relied on Al-Qaeda to recruit volunteers for the terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), many of those volunteers came from Chechnya and Afghanistan.

4. American media made the Serbians to be the bad guys, totally ignoring the ethnic cleansing carried out against the Serbians by Croats and Muslims. There were no good guys!

When one takes into consideration the entire political situation in the Balkans, and the increasing irritation of Russian at America's bullying, one must question whether Wesley Clark was a prudent commander or another of those "shoot from the hip" generals we seem to have an ample supply of. In other words, was Kosovo worth going to war against Russia? My answer is NO!

Here is a BBC audio report from that event. You do trust the BBC, don't you?:

The BBC Richard Lister on US embarrassment and irritation at developments

And a video of Russian troops entering Kosovo to protect the Serbian population:

James Robbins reports: "Nato thought the Russians would stop at the border

Saturday, June 12, 1999 Published at 14:35 GMT 15:35 UK

World: Europe

Russian troops camp in Pristina


Russian arrival in Pristina took Nato completely by surprise

Russian troops who entered Kosovo ahead of Nato peacekeepers on Saturday are camped near Pristina airport.

The Russians - around 200 troops in armoured personnel carriers and trucks - remain in the province despite an assurance by the Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, that they had been ordered to leave the provincial capital.

The troops crossed the Yugoslav border on Friday from Bosnia, where they had been part of the S-For peacekeeping force.

The BBC Corresondent in Pristina, Michael Williams, said the Russians were greeted like a liberating army by thousands of cheering Serb residents of the Kosovo capital when they arrived in the early hours of Saturday morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/367490.stm

Thursday, 9 March, 2000, 14:14 GMT
Confrontation over Pristina airport

The Russian advance party took the airport unopposed. The world watched nervously.

A senior Russian officer, General Leonid Ivashev, tells the BBC how the Russians had plans to fly in thousands of troops.

''Let's just say that we had several airbases ready. We had battalions of paratroopers ready to leave within two hours,'' he said.

Amid fears that Russian aircraft were heading for Pristina, General Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any transport planes from landing.

General Clark said he believed it was ''an appropriate course of action''. But the plan was again vetoed by Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

[VolcanoJen]

27. *yawn* Pristina, again?

Pristina, Pristina, Pristina, Pristina, Pristina...

}(

The thing that bugs me the most about the Pristina threads is that not a single poster who seems to flock to such topics has changed their minds about what happened.

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the incident, but honestly, I'd really like to see us move on, or, at the least, appoint one of us to start a "Daily Pristina Thread" for the sake of continuity...

[IndianaGreen]

28. Many of us had issues with Bill Clinton and his foreign policy

of which the war in the former Yugoslavia was one of them.

Don't get me started with Plan Colombia (thankfully Clark was not involved in that one!).

[VolcanoJen]

29. I know, Indiana, and again, I don't mean to diminish this...

... certainly not to a neighborly Hoosier! :-)

My contention is that I've read Jackson's version of events, and I've read Clark's explanation in response (the PBS interview is a thorough one), and I really don't know what else I can do with this issue, personally...

[Pastiche423]

30. Is anyone asking you

to do anything w/the issue?

I was speaking w/an acquaintance who was manning the Democratic booth at a local street fair today. He said he favored Dean, but was looking at Clark. I asked him how he felt about the Pristina Airport incident.

He had no clue what I was talking about, so I suggested he do his own research. I think it is safe to assume that not many people do. IMHO, voters should be informed as much as possible about the candidates. They can read the myriad articles about the incident and come to their own conclusions.

Not all DUers come to the board at the same time, so they miss some discussions. The same goes for the unknown numbers of lurkers.

If you are weary of the issue, simply pass up the threads that are discussing it.

[VolcanoJen]

31. Every time someone posts this issue, they are asking me...

... to do something with the issue. Namely, to agree with their view, whatever it may be.

I agree that interested parties should peruse the myriad of articles written on this subject, but I am disappointed that whenever a poster points to Clark's version of events (the PBS interview, from the horse's mouth, transcribed on the ClarkSphere site, for example), such posts are summarily dismissed as coming from a "pro-Clark" site. I have yet to read a Pristina-proponent's thoughtful response to Clark's actual comments on the issue; they are instead "summarily dismissed."

I click on most of the candidate-related GD threads because I'm honestly interested in all of the Dem frontrunners at this time. When it comes to the Pristina issue, I'm always looking for new information, but I fail to find it. That's what I'm weary of. But I'll keep clicking, and looking, and learning, and, at times, yawning and venting.

[Pastiche423]

32. O-kay

[Pepperbelly]

35. JenJen ...

Have you read this?

http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#1063645172520309%5C

[VolcanoJen]

38. Wha.....?

And Pepperbelly, I love that you're one of the few DUers who calls me by my "real-world" nickname of "JenJen." :-) It endears you to me even more!

Wow... here's the most mindblowing part of that piece, and thanks for that as I hadn't read it yet:

Who was ultimately correct here? You might argue that Jackson was correct because they ended up resolving the situation diplomatically without needing the particular operation Clark had ordered. But we have empirical evidence that nothing close to a serious confrontation would have occurred had Clark's orders gone through: several days later, with the situation at Pristina still pretty much the same, both Clark and Jackson authorized French and British units to take positions at the airport. The troops got there. The Russians denied them access. Everyone stood around and radioed back to their commanders for further instruction. Then the NATO units left. Lo and behold, no one got shot. No massive diplomatic crisis. No World Wars began.

[Zero Division]

33. I agree that the questioning of Jackson's role in N. Ireland is...

not a very intellectually honest rebuttal of the Pristina incident, but that's really just an add-on to the main defense against the claim that Clark almost helped to start a war with the Russians.

I'm glad that DoveTurnedHawk included Eric Tam's response, because it really explains the main defense against this claim in an easy-to-understand manner, minus the less germane controversy over Jackson.

I also sympathize with VolcanoJen's sentiments about "Pristina, Pristina, Pristina,...." :D Unfortunately, so long as people who've never heard a defense against this claim keep posting about it, it's only right that people should share the other perspectives regarding this claim.

P.S. I agree with you about Plan Colombia. A woman that I know, whose opinions I trust very much, who grew up in Colombia, and has been an activist on issues relating to Colombia and human rights was very opposed to Plan Colombia, and I recall signing petitions against it.

I wish these arguments about Clark's past and his positions didn't have to become embroiled in some internecine fight between people who perceive themselves as or are perceived as "farther left" and their counterparts toward the "center".

[IndianaGreen]

36. The Pristina incident is part of the larger issue of Clark's NATO command

Focusing on the Pristina incident is missing the forest for the trees. I think that the Human Rights Watch report on the war in Kosovo, the role of NATO, and General Clark's "cavalier" attitude regarding civilian casualties and civilian targets, is far more damning than Clark's reckless actions at Pristina airport. (Post #26)

[VolcanoJen]

39. My Pristina, Pristina, Pristina thang...

... was intended to be a play on John Kerry overheard muttering "Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean" as he walked away from reporters a few weeks ago. Clark supporters are certainly sympathetic with Senator Kerry and what he's gone through these days.

:-)

[Pepperbelly]

40. Good because I was trying to sing it to the tune of ...

My Sharonna.

I thought I'd lost my ear for a moment.

[Pastiche423]

42. "JenJen"

You can dance and sing around the issue all the day long and in to the night, but when the next day breaks, clark still will be held accountable for his actions and words.


No, no world war was begun, but it was not for the lack of clark not trying. Furthermore, the inconsistency of citizen causalties will have to be addressed.

It makes me ill hearing some people blithefuly try to sweep the deaths of so many innocents under the rug to promote their Perfumed Prince.

Hey, the innocent dead were not USians, so :wtf:, right?

[Pepperbelly]

43. Did you even read the link I posted?

Facts are funny things and no matter how many times you reapeat this cannard, it gains no more credence than it did on the other times. How could you guys be so intellectually bankrupt as to pretend that a hyperbolic, pugnacious remark in the middle of a heated argument amounts to a reasoned, evaluated accounting of fact?

[QC]

41. My point in bringing up Jackson's shameful past

was not that it necessarily discredits his statements on Pristina. It doesn't. Even awful people tell the truth sometimes, and the fact that Jackson took part in the murder of 14 unarmed demonstrators and spent the next three decades lying about it doesn't mean that he's wrong about what happened at Pristina.

My point was the irony in how many people here will indiscriminately grab the most unsavory sources if that's what it takes to trash a candidate they do not like. These past few days we have seen DUers eagerly regurgitating "information" from such sources as The Weekly Standard and, God help us, Front Page Magazine.

[Donna Zen]

37. How does one who cannot read post?

Thank you for the Eric Tam Pristina, it fits the FACTS rather than bow to ideological hype exactly. So why is it that having read the Tam piece, I then have to scroll down through posts written by DUers who can handle the language well enough to type, but fail to indicate their ability to both read and reason? Is it because their own comfort zone can only cozy up to Ideological hype

Oh...my favorite frame to the Pristina story is "I'm only mentioning this because he'll have to face these kind of questions on the campaign trail." Bullshit, if you believe yourself on that account then you live in a world of self-delusion. Clark clearly knows that he will met this boogie and his hat would not be in the big ring if he didn't absolutely, positively, believe the facts were on his side. So get real: you bring it up because it's juicey and with the story's intrinsic difficulty to be sound-bited pro Clark, and that same intrinsic negative sound bite bent, it is used to damage a candidate who is not your pick. Period. Clarity is not the objective; the issue is a constant on these boards and has been very well explained. As the frustration level of the Clark supporters rise, the glee underlying the questioner's motives become increasingly more transparent. If you honestly still don't understand Pristina, I would suggest taking some time out from posting and actually read the answer to the last time the question was asked.