portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

economic justice | government | imperialism & war

Michael Moore to Wesley Clark: Run! (for Pres.)

This next week General Wesley Clark is expected to join the race for the Democratic nomination. Moore, who supported Nader last time, writes: "Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words..."

Read about the General who many feel will likely be the next President of the United States, if there is a next President of the United States.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Michael Moore to Wesley Clark: Run!

A Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at Home)

September 12, 2003

Dear General Wesley Clark,

I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television.

And that person was you.

Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being "the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended the interview and then turned to you, as you were sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And, although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent was necessary and welcome, and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect, for all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence.

Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out. And what I've learned about you corresponds to my experience with you back in March. You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your position on gun control: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them."

In addition to being first in your class at West Point, a four star general from Arkansas, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that should give pause to any peace-loving person -- I have discovered that...

1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.

2. You are firmly pro-choice.

3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case.

4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.

5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community.

6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country.

General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in person. I would like to share with others what I said to you privately: You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election.

This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into having a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot.

But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone who is going to get The Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is:

Bush Must Go.

This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who have abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.

The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate, and I know who the winner is going to be.

The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that America was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with applause.

That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there are things you and I don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for.

Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But desperate times call for desperate measures. I want to know more about you. I want your voice heard. I would like to see you in these debates. Then let the chips fall where they may -- and we'll all have a better idea of what to do. If you sit it out, then I think we all know what we are left with.

I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now to encourage you to run, even if they aren't sure they would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address is:  info@leadershipforamerica.org). None of us truly know how we will vote five months from now or a year from now. But we do know that this race needs a jolt -- and Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be able to Dukakisize.

Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the nation needs to hear what you know about what was really behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas of how we can live in a more peaceful world. Yes, your country needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from within, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people."


Michael Moore

Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972

Conscientious Objector applicant



From Waco To Belgrade: Wesley K. Clark and America's "Army of the Future" 14.Sep.2003 15:04


According to an must-read report by Ken McCarthy at Brasscheck, the military was far more deeply involved in the Waco massacre than is generally realized. Behind the military's part in the operation was now NATO commander General Wesley Clark. Among the points McCarthy makes are these:

- The military's involvement in a domestic law enforcement matter was illegal.

- Used in the Waco massacre operation were 13 track vehicles, 9 combat engineer vehicles, 5 tank retrieval vehicles, and a tank.

- The military equipment and personnel came from the US Army base at Ft. Hood, Texas, headquarters of III Corps. According to an account from attorney David T. Hardy, who filed a freedom of information action in the incident, "The operation required mustering approximately a hundred agents (flown in from sites around the country), and who received military training at Ft. Hood. They traveled in a convoy of sixty vehicles and were supported by three National Guard helicopters and one fixed-wing aircraft, with armored vehicles in reserve."

- Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. The arson-murders occurred April 19. Clark had been Commander of the National Training Center and Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC, where Clark was Deputy Chief right before becoming an armor commander at Ft Hood, has as its primary mission to "prepare soldiers for war and design the army of the future." Item number one from the TRADOC vision statement: "...enable America's Army to operate with joint, multinational and interagency partners across the full range of operations."

- President Clinton said, "The first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military be consulted because of the quasi-military nature of the conflict."

- Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to explain away the FBI use of US Army tanks as being equivalent to an innocuous "rent a car" arrangement.

- From early in the siege, "Operation Trojan Horse" became a popular destination for special forces officers both from around the United States and from its closest ally, the UK. They came to observe the effectiveness of various high tech devices and tactics that were being tested against the Branch Davidians. -- Two unnamed high ranking Army officers personally presented Attorney General Janet Reno with the final assault tactics for her, as chief law enforcement officer of the US, to sign off on.

- General Clark's last assignment before taking over NATO was as Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was "responsible for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests in Latin America and the Caribbean." i.e. the support of repressive Latin American military and police operations and a phony war against drugs.

Meanwhile, Dan Gifford, producer of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" writes that "Secret anti-terrorist U.S. Army Delta Force and British SAS soldiers were present at FBI invitation as 'observers.' But reports of those troops illegally killing Americans on American soil persist from sources that have provided accurate information in the past. So do reports of classified weapons testing on the Davidians that was being micro managed, along with everything else, from Washington.

The perfumed prince and other political tales 14.Sep.2003 15:05

John Chuckman

By John Chuckman

(YellowTimes.org) - The Perfumed Prince declared himself a Democrat. Many Americans may not recognize the nickname bestowed upon Wesley Clarke by British colleagues as he strutted around Serbia with his set of platinum-plated general's stars carefully repositioned each day to a freshly-starched and ironed camouflage cap, wafting a thick vapor trail of cologne. His lack of judgment demonstrated in Serbia -- including an order to clear out Russian forces that British general Sir Michael Jackson had to ignore for fear of starting World War III -- should be enough to utterly disqualify him as a candidate for President. But this is America, land of opportunity.

The former general scents, through the mists of his musky cologne, an opportunity for service. Hell, we're at war, and any real general is better than a former male cheerleader from Andover who cross-dresses as a combat pilot. Dreams of being the hero on a white horse beckon. A fatal attraction in the American people to used-up generals is how the country managed to elect some of its worst presidents -- Grant, Jackson, and Garfield, for example.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts announced that he wants the Democratic presidential nomination. He chose to ask for it from the deck of an aircraft carrier. I have no idea why he would repeat any part of Bush's pathetic stunt, but to my mind it is an immediate strike against his competence. Perhaps he hoped for a promotional deal on a doll in combat gear to memorialize the occasion? That is, after all, a good deal of the country's idea of war, limited-edition collector dolls with lots of cute little zippers, flaps, and pockets (all handsomely made in China or Indonesia). Never mind real war where pilots drop cluster bombs and napalm on tiny desperate figures far below, and the occupying troops slosh through the resulting human gore, a good deal of it belonging to children in Iraq.

Well, Kerry was awarded some medals during Vietnam, so that does set him apart from Bush. Kerry's doll could feature cute little medals to set it apart, but then he threw the originals into a trash bin at a veterans' demonstration in front of the Capitol in 1971. That's not the kind of association that excites collectors of expensive kitsch in America's better class of trailer parks.

By the way, does anyone know whether the Bush Elite Aviator doll wets? Perhaps you can change its undies as girls did with Betsy Wetsy decades ago? This would offer opportunities for different editions. Bush Original could chug little water-filled six-packs while Bush Holier-Than-Thou used a miniature pitcher of iced tea.

Senator Kerry's involvement with Vietnam certainly reflected the war's extremes. He earned his medals in questionable actions including the shooting of a man who was running away and the killing of a child by a member of his crew. Remember another Kerry, a former Senator, the boyish one from Nebraska who spells his name "Kerrey," a Medal of Honor winner in Vietnam, much admired until it was learned that his grisly work there had been as a member of one of the night-crawling murder squads? If only Americans could once see what utterly filthy stuff war really is, the world might be spared a lot of needless horrors.

John Kerry, having become an opponent of the war in which he served, made a speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, describing some of what he had witnessed in Vietnam. Americans had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." I can only admire such truthfulness, but Kerry's first instinct, years before, had been to contribute to the mayhem. Only when it was politically opportune did he oppose it. I get the same morally confused signals today with a speech delivered from an aircraft carrier while Iraqis suffer miserably from what such killing machines already have inflicted.

The Democrats held their first debate, hoping desperately to find an attractive candidate. Senator Joe Lieberman was there, but you have to wonder why anyone would vote to replace Bush with Lieberman. The pair remind me of one of those 1950's cheap horror films about a monster with two heads lurching over the countryside.

Lieberman's many pious-fraud battles over personal expression suggest that the Two Heads may actually have shared a single brain at birth. Just like his Twin Head, Lieberman avoided military service out of personal interests without hint of conscience or principle, and, just like his Twin Head, Lieberman always stands ready to see people blown up in foreign lands, just so it's "our boyz" doing the blowing up. Capital punishment warms his heart, too, and he has organizational connections with Dick Cheney's wife, America's intellectual gorgon.

Even the Rev. Al Sharpton, also a candidate, doesn't bring quite the same rank smell to the nostrils.

Former general Powell, who once could have been President and have had his own fancy soldier doll, instead ends his career as a tiresome door-to-door salesman in shiny-bottomed pin-striped pants, pitching plans nobody wants to the United Nations. That "irrelevant" institution, as it was hotly described by Powell's sales manager only a short while ago, now is being offered something called "a role" in Iraq. A role, in the weird idiom of Bush's Washington, consists of sending vast quantities of money and troops to a reeling, miserable country Americans are already sick of hearing about without having anything to say about their use or the country's fate. Say-so would stay in the Oval Office, the source of the vicious tantrums that created all the destruction. As of this writing, stubborn blockheads in Germany and France had rejected the attractive limited-time offer.

[John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company. He has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what has been called America's "culture of complaint" with its habit of reducing every important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically defined groups. John left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the government embarked on the murder of millions of Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."]

Progressive Review On Wesley Clark 14.Sep.2003 15:07


PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, JULY 1999 - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton writes, "The Branch Davidian siege was clearly on Foster's mind. He was 'drafting a letter involving Waco' on the day of this death, surely a point of some significance. He kept a Waco file in the locked cabinet that was off limits to everybody, including his secretary. His widow mentions Waco twice in her statement to the FBI: 'Toward the end of his life, Foster had no sense of joy or elation at work. The Branch Davidian incident near Waco, Texas, was also causing him a great deal of stress. Lisa Foster believes that he was horrified when the Branch Davidian complex burned. Foster believed that everything was his fault.'"

Evans-Pritchard makes no claim that Waco was a cause of Foster's death. After discussing other anomalies, such as his ties to the National Security Agency, the investigative reporter notes, "The point is that Foster was involved in activities that belie the carefully drawn portrait of a bemused country lawyer, and that have clearly been obscured on purpose."

These comments are worth reviving because of Counterpunch's revelation that two key Army officers were involved in the Justice Department planning for Waco and that Clinton had abrogated an longtime American principle of not using the military in domestic law enforcement.

We now also know that NATO chief Wesley Clark, then Texas-based, at the very least approved the seconding of logistical support from his command. We know that important records in Foster's possession were removed. And we know that a military intelligence group moved in on the White House following his death for unknown purposes.

This all, however, merely adds to the mystery of Foster. What remains true is that the existing facts argue strongly against Foster having died in a park of his own hand. Put directly, if he did kill himself, someone moved him afterwards, or else he was murdered. Under what circumstances and for what reasons, we still don't know.

A Vain, Pompous, Brown-noser: Meet the Real General Clark 14.Sep.2003 15:09


Anyone seeking to understand the bloody fiasco of the Serbian war need hardly look further than the person of the beribboned Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley K. Clark. Politicians and journalists are generally according him a respectful hearing as he discourses on the "schedule" for the destruction of Serbia, tellingly embracing phrases favored by military bureaucrats such as "systematic" and "methodical".

The reaction from former army subordinates is very different.
"The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.

While Clark's official Pentagon biography proclaims his triumph in "transitioning the Division into a rapidly deployable force" this officer describes the "1st Horse Division" as "easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff."

Such strong reactions are common. A major in the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado when Clark was in command there in the early 1980s described him as a man who "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career".

While he regards his junior officers with watchful suspicion, he customarily accords the lower ranks little more than arrogant contempt. A veteran of Clark's tenure at Fort Hood recalls the general's "massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded (canteen) checkout lines didn't jump out of the way fast enough to let him through".

Clark's demeanor to those above is, of course, very different, a mode of behavior that has earned him rich dividends over the years. Thus, early in 1994, he was a candidate for promotion from two to three star general. Only one hurdle remained - a war game exercise known as the Battle Command Training Program in which Clark would have to maneuver his division against an opposing force. The commander of the opposing force, or "OPFOR" was known for the military skill with which he routinely demolished opponents.

But Clark's patrons on high were determined that no such humiliation should be visited on their favorite. Prior to the exercise therefore, strict orders came down that the battle should go Clark's way. Accordingly, the OPFOR was reduced in strength by half, thus enabling Clark, despite deploying tactics of signal ineptitude, to triumph. His third star came down a few weeks later.

Battle exercises and war games are of course meant to test the fighting skills of commanders and troops. The army's most important venue for such training is the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, where Clark commanded from October 1989 to October 1991 and where his men derisively nicknamed him "Section Leader Six" for his obsessive micro-management.

At the NTC, army units face a resident OPFOR that has, through constant battle practice coupled with innovative tactics and close knowledge of the terrain, become adept at routing the visiting "Blue Force" opponents. For Clark, this naturally posed a problem. Not only were his men using unconventional tactics, they were also humiliating Blue Force generals who might nurture resentment against the NTC commander and thus discommode his career at some future date. To the disgust of the junior OPFOR officers Clark therefore frequently fought to lose, sending his men on suicidal attacks in order that the Blue Forces should go home happy and owing debts of gratitude to their obliging foe.

All observers agree that Clark has always displayed an obsessive concern with the perquisites and appurtenances of rank. Ever since he acceded to the Nato command post, the entourage with which he travels has accordingly grown to gargantuan proportions to the point where even civilians are beginning to comment. A Senate aide recalls his appearances to testify, prior to which aides scurry about the room adjusting lights, polishing his chair, testing the microphone etc prior to the precisely timed and choreographed moment when the Supreme Allied Commander Europe makes his entrance.

"We are state of the art pomposity and arrogance up here," remarks the aide. "So when a witness displays those traits so egregiously that even the senators notice, you know we're in trouble." His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, "the Supreme Being".

"Clark is smart," concludes one who has monitored his career. "But his whole life has been spent manipulating appearances (e.g. the doctored OPFOR exercise) in the interests of his career. Now he is faced with a reality he can't control." This observer concludes that, confronted with the wily Slobodan and other unavoidable variables of war, Clark will soon come unglued. "Watch the carpets at NATO HQ for teeth marks."

More On General Clark 14.Sep.2003 15:10


Members of Congress who, during their spring recess, met in Brussels with Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander, were startled by his bellicosity. According to the lawmakers, Clark suggested the best way to handle Russia's supply of oil to Yugoslavia would be aerial bombardment of the pipeline that runs through Hungary. He also proposed bombing Russian warships that enter the battle zone. The American general was described by the members of the congressional delegation as waging a personal vendetta against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. "I think the general might need a little sleep," commented one House member.

Clark, Others Sued for War Crimes In Yugoslavia 14.Sep.2003 15:16

William Blum, Rogue State

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Some things you should know about it

Beginning about two weeks after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began in March, 1999, international-law professionals from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, and the American Association of Jurists began to file complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and officials of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had issued indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges filed were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including "wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences."

The Canadian suit names 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark, and Jamie Shea. The complaint also alleges "open violation" of the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions, and the Principles of International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The complaint was submitted along with a considerable amount of evidence to support the charges. The evidence makes the key point that it was NATO's bombing campaign which had given rise to the bulk of the deaths in Yugoslavia, provoked most of the Serbian atrocities, created an environmental disaster, and left a dangerous legacy of unexploded depleted uranium and cluster bombs.

In June, some of the complainants met in The Hague with the court's chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour of Canada. Although she cordially received their brief in person, along with three thick volumes of evidence documenting the alleged war crimes, nothing of substance came of the meeting, despite repeated follow-up submissions and letters by the plaintiffs. In November, her successor, Carla Del Ponte of Switzerland, also met with some of the complainants and received extensive evidence. The complainants' brief in November pointed out that the prosecution of those named by them was "not only a requirement of law, it is a requirement of justice to the victims and of deterrence to powerful countries such as those in NATO who, in their military might and in their control over the media, are lacking in any other natural restraint such as might deter less powerful countries." Charging the war's victors, not only its losers, it was argued, would be a watershed in international criminal law. In one of the letters to Arbour, Michael Mandel, a professor of law in Toronto and the initiator of the Canadian suit, added:

俗nfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised about the impartiality of your Tribunal. In the early days of the conflict, after a formal and, in our view, justified complaint against NATO leaders had been laid before it by members of the Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you appeared at a press conference with one of the accused, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of Serbian war crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press conference with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the subject of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of civilians in Yugoslavia. Albright publicly announced at that time that the US was the major provider of funds for the Tribunal and that it had pledged even more money to it.認1}

Arbour herself made little attempt to hide the pro-NATO bias she wore beneath her robe. She trusted NATO to be its own police, judge, jury, and prison guard. In a year in which the arrest of General Pinochet was giving an inspiring lift to the cause of international law and international justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, under Arbour's leadership, ruled that for the Great Powers it would be business as usual, particularly the Great Power that was most vulnerable to prosecution, and which, coincidentally, paid most of her salary. Here are her own words:

侵 am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of international humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of NATO countries. I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct their operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in full compliance with international humanitarian law. I have reminded many of them, when the occasion presented itself, of their obligation to conduct fair and open-minded investigations of any possible deviance from that policy, and of the obligation of commanders to prevent and punish, if required.認2}

NATO Press Briefing, May 16, 1999: Question: Does NATO recognize Judge Arbour's jurisdiction over their activities? Jamie Shea: I think we have to distinguish between the theoretical and the practical. I believe that when Justice Arbour starts her investigation [of the Serbs], she will because we will allow her to. ... NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to set up the Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers.

The Tribunal -- created in 1993, with the US as the father, the Security Council as the mother, and Madeleine Albright as the midwife -- also relies on the military assets of the NATO powers to track down and arrest the suspects it tries for war crimes. There appeared to be no more happening with the complaint under Del Ponte than under Arbour, but in late December, in an interview with The Observer of London, Del Ponte was asked if she was prepared to press charges against NATO personnel. She replied: "If I am not willing to do that, I am not in the right place. I must give up my mission." The Tribunal then announced that it had completed a study of possible NATO crimes, which Del Ponte was examining, and that the study was an appropriate response to public concerns about NATO's tactics. "It is very important for this tribunal to assert its authority over any and all authorities to the armed conflict within the former Yugoslavia."

Was this a sign from heaven that the new millennium was going to be one of more equal justice? Could this really be? No, it couldn't. From official quarters, military and civilian, of the United States and Canada, came disbelief, shock, anger, denials ... "appalling" ... "unjustified". Del Ponte got the message. Four days after The Observer interview appeared, her office issued a statement: "NATO is not under investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is no formal inquiry into the actions of NATO during the conflict in Kosovo."{3} And there wouldn't be, it was unnecessary to add. But the claim against NATO -- heretofore largely ignored by the American media -- was now out in the open. It was suddenly receiving a fair amount of publicity, and supporters of the bombing were put on the defensive. The most common argument made in NATO's defense, and against war-crime charges, has been that the death and devastation inflicted upon the civilian sector was "accidental". This claim, however, must be questioned in light of certain reports. For example, the commander of NATO's air war, Lt. Gen. Michael Short, declared at one point:

侵f you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, "Hey, Slobo, what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?"認4}

General Short, said the New York Times, "hopes that the distress of the Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in Belgrade."{5} At one point, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea added: "If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign."{6} After the April NATO bombing of a Belgrade office building -- which housed political parties, TV and radio stations, 100 private companies, and more -- the Washington Post reported:

保ver the past few days, U.S. officials have been quoted as expressing the hope that members of Serbia's economic elite will begin to turn against Milosevic once they understand how much they are likely to lose by continuing to resist NATO demands.認7}

Before missiles were fired into this building, NATO planners spelled out the risks: "Casualty Estimate 50-100 Government/Party employees. Unintended Civ Casualty Est: 250 -- Apts in expected blast radius."{8} The planners were saying that about 250 civilians living in nearby apartment buildings might be killed in the bombing. What do we have here? We have grown men telling each other: We'll do A, and we think that B may well be the result. But even if B does in fact result, we're saying beforehand -- as we'll insist afterward -- that it was unintended.

Following World War II there was an urgent need for a permanent international criminal court to prosecute those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, but the Cold War intervened. Finally, in 1998 in Rome, the nations of the world drafted the charter of The International Criminal Court. American negotiators, however, insisted on provisions in the charter that would, in essence, give the United States veto power over any prosecution through its seat on the Security Council. The American request was rejected, and primarily for this reason the US refused to join 120 other nations who supported the charter. The ICC is an instrument Washington can't control sufficiently to keep it from prosecuting American military and government officials. Senior US officials have explicitly admitted that this danger is the reason for their aversion to the proposed new court.{9} But this is clearly not the case with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It's Washington's kind of international court, a court for the New World Order.


1. This and most of the other material concerning the complaint to the Tribunal mentioned here were transmitted to the author by Mandel and other complainants.
2. Press Release from Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour, The Hague, May 13, 1999.
3. The Observer (London), December 26, 1999; Washington Times, December 30 and 31, 1999; New York Times, December 30, 1999
4. Washington Post, May 24, 1999, p.1
5. New York Times, May 13, 1999, p.1
6. NATO press conference, Brussels, May 25, 1999
7. Washington Post, April 22, 1999, p.18
8. Ibid., September 20, 1999, p.1
9. New York Times, December 2, 1998, p.1; January 3, 2000

The above is excerpted from "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum

Waco Update: The Delta Force Was There 14.Sep.2003 15:20


Amid Nato military supremo Wesley Clark's onslaught on the civilians of Serbia the question arose: did Clark hone his civilian-killing skills at Waco, where the FBI oversaw the largest single spasm of slaughter of civilians by law enforcement in US history, when nearly a hundred Branch Davidians died amid an assault by tanks, flame-throwers and snipers.

The tanks were from Fort Hood, where Wesley Clark was, in early 1993, commander of the Cavalry Division of the US Army's III Corps. In our last issue we cited a congressional report commissioned in the aftermath of Waco which described how Texas governor Anne Richards had consulted with Clark's number two at Fort Hood. Then, on April 14, there was a summit at the Justice Department in Washington, where Attorney General Janet Reno, top Justice Department and FBI officials and two unnamed senior Army officers reviewed the final assault plan scheduled for April 19.

The two Army officers at the Justice Department that day were Colonel Gerald Boykin, and his superior, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the head of Special Forces at Fort Bragg. Though Clark (who had served with Schoomaker) was not directly involved in the onslaught on the Branch Davidians, the role of the US Army in that affair throws into harsh relief the way prohibitions against the use of the US military for civilian law enforcement can be swiftly by-passed.

Boykin and Schoomacher were present because the Army's Fort Bragg-based Combat Applications Group-popularly known as the Delta Force-had been enlisted as part of the assault team on the Branch Davidian Compound. It appears that President Clinton had signed a waiver of the Posse Comitatus Act, with the precedent being Ronald Reagan's revocation of the Act in 1987, allowing the Delta Force to be involved in suppressing the Atlanta prison riot.

The role of the Delta Force, the identity of the two Army officers, the revocation of Posse Comitatus all form part of the disclosures of a forthcoming documentary film, Waco: A New Revelation, put together by part of the team that produced an earlier, excellent film, Waco: Rules of Engagement. Following our questions about Wesley Clark's possible involvement at Waco, producer/researcher Mike McNulty called us with some details of his new documentary-directed by Jason van Fleet and due to be released in July.

After energetic use of Freedom of Information Act enquiries, plus research in three repositories in Texas holding evidence from the Waco inferno, plus other extensive investigations, McNulty and his team have put together an explosive file:

28 video tapes from the repositories show that in the final onslaught on the Waco compound were members of the US military in special assault gear and with name tags obscured. As noted above, Clinton's revocation of the Posse Comitatus Act made this presence legal. McNulty isolates Vince Foster as the White House point man for the Waco operation.

McNulty cites Foster's widow as saying that the depression that prompted the White House lawyer's death was fueled by horror at the carnage at Waco for which the White House had given the ultimate green light. Foster was writing a Waco report when he died. McNulty says that some documents about Foster and Waco were among those removed from his office after his death, later to surface in a White house store room sheltering archives of the First Lady.

The film, McNulty says, discloses how the federal assault team placed explosives on top of a compound bunker whither the feds believed the Branch Davidian leaders might flee. Material evidence collected by McNulty shows that the FBI/Delta assault force bombarded the compound with pyrophoric - i.e. fire-causing - projectiles.

Erosion of Posse Comitatus Act prohibitions on the involvement of the US military in law enforcement here is particularly sinister. The congressional report on Waco showed that some Army officers were extremely disturbed at requests for military assistance by the FBI, and there were some acrimonious exchanges at the time. The drug war, needless to say, has been a prime solvent in this process of erosion. One factor is the malign cross-fertilization occurring when these so-called "elite units" - the Army's Combat Application Group, the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, the Navy's SEALs - all train together, along with SWAT teams from police forces across the country. Thousands of law enforcement officers have now cut their teeth on the homicidal commando techniques most flagrantly displayed by the killers assembled in the British SAS, members of which were also present at the Waco siege. The Rambo mindset now saturates law enforcement, and even the rangers in Fish and Game Departments now pack heat. Both CounterPunch editors have had the experience of being asked to down their fly rods and produce ID, by young Fish and Game rangers with semi-automatics on their hips.

AWOL from Albania?

Chris Sorochin, a CounterPuncher in Brooklyn, tells us of the momentous climax to a visit he recently paid to Hitler's mountain retreat, Berchtesgaden. As Chris and his companions stood surveying the vertiginous spectacle so savored by the Fuehrer, their attention was seized by a helicopter which rose to eye level, as the pilot surveyed them. Knowledgeable chopper buffs in Chris's party identified the helicopter as an Apache.

Recycle, Then Kill

As Nato airstrikes flattened oil refineries and showered depleted uranium across Yugoslavia, the US Army mounted a gung-ho pr campaign touting its new sensitivity to the environment. The Army's green credo, "Sustaining the Land We Defend", is displayed in a glossy ad in Soldier magazine depicting an M-16 toting soldier, equipped with night-vision goggles, striding across the earth. The text of the ad proclaims: "The Army's ability to train effectively and meet the highest standards in service to America depends on your actions as soldiers today. By considering the environment in everything you do, you help sustain the Army's training lands, protect the nation's natural resources, and ensure a safe and healthy environment for fellow soldiers, their families and our civilian communities". The ad urges soldiers "to follow environmental guidelines" during drills because "readiness depends on healthy landscapes and training ranges".

In an era when many enlisted men are on food stamps, the Army tells soldiers to recycle at every opportunity, noting that it "lightens the load on America's landfills, decreases the Army's disposal costs and helps installations pay for quality of life programs". The Army, ever vigilant when it comes to fighting wasteful spending, notes that "preventing pollution reduces waste and save millions of dollars for readiness". Alas, the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory cites the Pentagon as being one of the top ten polluters in the nation. This is probably an gross understatement, since the Army is exempt from many reporting requirements and there is little legal recourse to compel the military to clean up its mess. When it comes to dump sites, no company comes close. A report by the Military Toxics Projects shows that there are more than 11,000 hazardous waste dumps at the Pentagon's 900-plus sites in the United States. Cleanup has taken place at less than 400 of the dumps. Somehow we don't think this is what Ed Abbey had in mind when he called for a new generation of eco-warriors.

Wesley Clark Almost Triggers World War 3 14.Sep.2003 15:31

The Guardian

Robertson's plum job in a warring Nato

As Blair's man is installed, Richard Norton-Taylor details the way the alliance generals have been fighting

Tuesday August 3, 1999

No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war.

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.

Hyperbole, perhaps. But, by all accounts, Jackson was deadly serious. Clark, as he himself observed, was frustrated after fighting a war with his hands tied behind his back, and was apparently willing to risk everything for the sake of amour-propre .

Nato's increasingly embarrassing, not to say ineffective, air assault on Yugoslavia, had ended. It was over, not least as General Sir Charles Guthrie, chief of the defence staff, acknowledged in an interview with the Guardian, thanks to the intervention of Moscow - its refusal to come to the aid of Belgrade. The point was emphatically underlined by Jackson in a further interview over the weekend with the Sunday Telegraph.

"The event of June 3 [when Moscow urged Milosevic to surrender] was the single event that appeared to me to have the greatest significance in ending the war," said Jackson. Asked about the bombing campaign, he added pointedly: "I wasn't responsible for the air campaign, you're talking to the wrong person."

Having helped Nato out of its predicament, Moscow was embroiled in arguments with Washington about the status of Russian troops in the K-For operation. For reasons to do with efficiency as much as power politics, the west insisted the Russian contingent must be "Nato-led". With or without Yeltsin's say-so, on June 12 a group of some 200 Russian troops drove out of Bosnia - where they were serving with the Nato-led S-For stabilisation force - and in full view of the world's television cameras made for Pristina airport where Jackson had planned to set up his K-For headquarters guarded by British paratroopers.

The Russians had made a political point, not a military one. It was apparently too much for Clark. According to the US magazine, Newsweek, General Clark ordered an airborne assault on the airfield by British and French paratroopers. General Jackson refused. Clark then asked Admiral James Ellis, the American commander of Nato's southern command, to order helicopters to occupy the airport to prevent Russian Ilyushin troop carriers from sending in reinforcements. Ellis replied that the British General Jackson would oppose such a move. In the end the Ilyushins were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new Nato member, to refuse to allow the Russian aircraft to fly over its territory.

Jackson got full support from the British government for his refusal to carry out the American general's orders. When Clark appealed to Washington, he was allegedly given the brush-off. The American is said to have complained to Jackson about the British general's refusal to accept the order to take over Pristina airfield, and Jackson's subsequent appeal to his political masters when Clark visited Kosovo on June 24.

The unsuccessful issuing of Clark's order has left a bitter taste, especially given the delay in US marines joining the K-For operation - a delay which Jackson had been prepared to indulge even though it held up the entry into Kosovo. Had the British general carried out Clark's instruction, all hope for a compromise with the Russians would have been shattered. In the end, Nato and Moscow reached a compromise and General Jackson willingly provided water and other supplies to stranded Russian paratroopers holed up at the airfield. He swallowed any hurt pride he might have had by insisting, not entirely convincingly, that control of the airfield was not important.

The episode triggers reminiscences of the Korean war. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman. So concerned was Clement Attlee that he urgently flew to Washington to put an end to such madness. MacArthur was relieved of his command.

The comparison, of course, is not exact, but worth recording nonetheless. Last week, Clark was told in a telephone conversation from General Henry Shelton, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, that he must leave his post early and make way for an older man, General Joseph Ralston, a favourite of the American defence secretary, William Cohen. Clark fell victim, not only to the Pristina airfield row, but to his tense relationship with Washington throughout the war - his repeated requests for more aircraft, including Apache helicopters (never used in conflict because of the risk to pilots), the need for a ground force contingency plan and an altogether more effective strategy against Milosevic, a man he got to know well during the 1995 Dayton peace negotiations on Bosnia. Asked to comment on Clark's forced retirement, Jackson replied: "He is my superior officer and that's it."

So Nato will have a new supreme military commander close to Cohen and a new secretary-general - George Robertson - equally close to the US defence secretary as documents released under the US freedom of information act and reported today elsewhere in this newspaper testify. Though Nato was looking for a German - the defence minister, Rudolf Scharping declined - Robertson is said to have the enthusiastic support of the French and German governments to succeed the Spaniard, Javier Solana, who will take up a new post responsible for developing the EU's incipient common foreign and security policy.

What does Robertson's appointment - expected to be formally approved tomorrow - signify ? He is regarded as having a "safe" pair of hands. He is unlikely to take risks. His main task will be to straddle the Atlantic, to help patch fissures in the alliance which almost cracked during the Kosovo war, and to persuade the Europeans to cooperate more effectively in the defence and security field.

Robertson has talked much of "defence diplomacy". He will need to put this into practice, no more so than in Nato's relations with Russia, as the transatlantic alliance looks towards the east. The superficial rhetoric, Anglo-American arrogance, and the dangerously presumptuous approach towards Moscow, must be laid to rest.

Clark Lines Pockets On CNN Payroll 14.Sep.2003 15:39

David Barsamian*

Even Liberal Journalists Fawn Over Generals

Daily Camera (Boulder)
January 26, 2003

*David Barsamian is director of Alternative Radio, the Boulder-based
award-winning weekly series. He is the author of "The Decline & Fall of
Public Broadcasting."

When the United States marches to war, the media march with it. And within
the media, the generals generally are heavily armed with microphones.

The din of collateral language is rising to cacophonous levels. The
mobilization and ubiquity of present and past brass on the airwaves is an
essential component of manufacturing consent for war. Perhaps we need
no-air zones for them. That's unlikely to happen when ABC/TV and NPR's
Cokie Roberts gushes, "I am, I will just confess to you, a total sucker
for the guys who stand up with all the ribbons on and stuff and they say
it's true and I'm ready to believe it."

Just look at one three-day period in early January. On PBS' "The NewsHour"
on Jan. 2 with Ray Suarez as host, the lead story was Iraq. The guests
were Patrick Lang, U.S. Army, and John Warden, U.S. Air Force.

They were joined by Geoffrey Kemp, a war hawk and ex-Reagan NSC staffer.
The discussion totally focused on strategies and tactics. How many troops
would be needed to "do the job?" What would the bombing campaign look
like? And the inevitable, When will the war begin? It's kind of like
placing bets on a bowl game.

Suarez, formally of NPR's "Talk of the Nation" played the classic role of
the unctuous and compliant questioner. There were no uncomfortable
inquiries about the U.N. weapons-inspection process, casualty figures,
international law, the U.N. Charter or the notorious U.S. practice of
double standards on Security Council resolutions.

Instead, the pundits pontificated on troop deployments, carrier battle
groups and heavy infantry forces such as the 3rd Mechanized Division.
Warden wondered aloud if "we need those ground forces in place before we
initiate hostilities?" Then he interestingly added that there is "no Iraqi
offensive capability outside their borders." This went right by Suarez,
always the smiling and polite host.

The next day, CNN scored a general trifecta. Aaron Brown, anchor of "News
Night," had on Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and now on the CNN
payroll, Army Brig. Gen. David Grange and Air Force Maj. Gen. G. Don
Shepperd. With the banner of "Showdown Iraq" on the screen, Clark said,
"The U.S. is going to do it," meaning attack Iraq. Then Brown, ever
sedate, opined "It's going to happen mid-February-ish."

On Jan. 4, Scott Simon, host of NPR's "Weekend Edition," had retired
Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor on. Trainor is now senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations.

Displaying his vast linguistic skills, and indeed mimicking network
anchors, Trainor twice referred to "Sodom Hussein." Simon then mentioned
the enforcement of no-fly zones without saying they are unilaterally
imposed by the United States and have no standing in international law.

Then without any sense of irony or history, the two did a back and forth
on the possibility of the Iraqi military being charged with war crimes.
Trainor said that the Iraqis "all know about the Nuremberg trials." Again,
this demonstrates the amnesiac quality of the media. A central part of the
indictment against the Nazis, and for which they were hanged, was the
"planning and waging of aggressive war."

In 1991, the United States deliberately targeted water-purification
plants, sewage-treatment facilities and power plants, knowing that it
would produce widespread disease and death. That cannot be a topic for
polite discussion. And it isn't. War crimes are "their" crimes, not ours.

Trainor closed by saying that the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf is "so
important" because "all of this is to convince the enemy they'd better
think twice about trying to defend a bankrupt regime." There you've got it
from liberal NPR. If Iraqis try to defend themselves against attack, they
face war crime tribunals. Simon: "General, thank you very much." Trainor:
"All right, Scott. It's been a pleasure."

Short of having U.N. inspectors coming in to the United States and
monitoring the airwaves and destroying all weapons of mass distraction,
what is to be done? That is the crucial question. While applying pressure--
can anyone say boycott?--on the corporate media and their advertisers,
progressives need to vigorously support existing independent media and go
about creating and funding new media. Media projects must be at the center
of any progressive movement's agenda. I am happy to report that as I
travel around the country as part of my USA (United States of Amnesia)
tour, I see signs everywhere of young people in particular producing

[Note: Original article has been nuked from the Daily Camera op-ed section. Archive taken from

Wesley Clark As Death Squad Commander 14.Sep.2003 15:52

Jim Naureckas (FAIR)

July/August 1999

Legitimate Targets?

How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia

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.

But let's accept for the sake of argument that it is legitimate to target and kill journalists who are furthering the war aims of your military enemy. Wouldn't the vast majority of U.S. journalists covering the war in Yugoslavia have been, in that case, legitimate targets?

Actually, it could be argued that Yugoslavian state TV was doing less to support its government's war than the bulk of media outlets in the U.S. For the most part, the Serbian media were ignoring the war crimes committed by their own government--the massacres and brutal expulsion of ethnic Albanians from their homes in Kosovo--pretending instead that the massive flow of refugees from Kosovo was solely the result of NATO bombing.

The U.S. media, on the other hand, attempted to justify the war crimes committed by their nation's government, and sometimes even complained that criminal attacks were not being carried out. In their zeal to present the war against Yugoslavia as a moral crusade, members of the media sometimes slipped into the mentality that the attack on Yugoslavia was supposedly intended to combat: the logic of ethnic cleansing.

Real crimes, false guilt

Ethnic cleansers mobilize support by portraying their victims as deserving of victimization--by asserting that, as a group, they are guilty of such crimes or are otherwise so contemptible that being driven from their homes is a small price for them to pay.

Ideally, the propaganda will make use of real atrocities committed by members of the group that one wants to expel. In drumming up support for ethnic cleansing in majority-Serb areas of Croatia and Bosnia, for example, Serbian media in the early '90s dwelt obsessively on the collaboration of some Croatians and Bosnian Muslims with the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia during World War II--collaboration that was real enough, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, but which did not transmit a genetic culpability to Croatians and Bosnian Muslims in general. (Belgrade's media seems to have generally avoided this imputation of blood guilt to Albanians during the conflict over Kosovo, instead presenting mostly disingenuous assertions of brotherhood.)

This same technique can easily be used against ethnic Serbs, since there's no lack of atrocities committed by Serbians. Here's the New York Times' liberal columnist Anthony Lewis (5/29/99), explaining why "those who have been critical" of the bombing of Yugoslavia should "think again about which side they are on":

In 1992 the Serbian commander in Bosnia, Ratko Mladic, told his gunners in the hills around Sarajevo, "Burn it all." And they did: hospitals, universities, mosques, homes. That should be remembered when Serbs today describe themselves as victims.

What should be remembered, exactly? That a Serbian committed infamous war crimes, therefore whatever is done to Serbians is excusable? That's probably not too different from what Mladic was thinking about the Bosnian Muslims.

Target Milosevic--or Serbs?

At the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO was stressing the idea that Milosevic alone was responsible for the war, and that the airstrikes were aimed at only him. "We're not at war with anybody, and certainly not with the people of Yugoslavia," NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea insisted at a NATO briefing.

And at first, most of the U.S. media went along with this line, presenting a rather colorless, opportunistic bureaucrat as a Hitlerian lunatic who had single-handedly launched war after war to satisfy his own personal hatreds. "The Face of Evil" was how Newsweek described Milosevic on its April 19 cover. Time's Lance Morrow (4/12/99), with astute grasp of the use of physical detail to inspire hate, described Milosevic's "reddish, piggy eyes set in a big round head." Time (5/3/99) took him even lower down the bestiality scale with a cartoon of "Slobbo the Nutt," a "worm-like leader."

From the beginning, however, there were prominent pundits and news outlets that took issue with the idea that Serbian civilians should not suffer from the bombing. In the April 5 Time, for example, reporter Bruce Nelan took issue with NATO's use of lighter bombs in the Yugoslav war, noting that "smaller bombs means there's less certainty about destroying the target in one attack. And if the pilot has to come back, that increases the risk to him in order to lessen the risk of civilians on the ground--a kind of Disneyland idea of customer service that rankles many war fighters at the Pentagon."

Not long into the war, NATO did relax the rules of engagement for the bombing campaign, quite predictably increasing the number of innocents killed by U.S. bombs--a development that was cheered by some pundits. New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote on April 6 that "people tend to change their minds and adjust their goals as they see the price they are paying mount. Twelve days of surgical bombing was never going to turn Serbia around. Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does. Give war a chance."

Likewise, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (4/8/99) criticized the "excruciating selectivity" of NATO's bombing raids and applauded the fact that "finally they are hitting targets--power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports, television transmitters--that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby."

"There would be nothing moving"

It's worth remembering that the laws of war, which the United States and other members of NATO are obligated by treaty to observe, specifically forbid the targeting of civilians or facilities used mainly by civilians. (A rare U.S. media acknowledgement of these obligations occurred in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch op-ed, "Is U.S. Committing War Crimes From on High?", 5/3/99.) Protocol 1, Section IV of the Geneva Convention sets forth the basic rule:

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Keep that legal standard in mind when you read Friedman in the New York Times (4/23/99), sounding remarkably like Ratko Mladic:

Let's at least have a real air war. The idea that people are still holding rock concerts in Belgrade, or going out for Sunday merry-go-round rides, while their fellow Serbs are "cleansing" Kosovo, is outrageous. It should be lights out in Belgrade: Every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted.

Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too.

And when you listen to Bill O'Reilly, the top-rated commentator on the Fox News Channel (4/26/99):

If NATO is not able to wear down this Milosevic in the next few weeks, I believe that we have to go in there and drop leaflets on Belgrade and other cities and say, "Listen, you guys have got to move because we're now going to come in and we're going to just level your country. The whole infrastructure is going."

Rather than put ground forces at risk where we're going to see 5,000 Americans dead, I would rather destroy their infrastructure, totally destroy it. Any target is OK. I'd warn the people, just as we did with Japan, that it's coming, you've got to get out of there, OK, but I would level that country so that there would be nothing moving--no cars, no trains, nothing.

These commentators, and others like them, are advocates of war crimes; they're advocating that NATO commit the exact same crimes for which Milosevic was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal. The same section of the Geneva Protocols that forbids the deliberate killing of civilians forbids the targeting of civilian objects, and obviously it's no more legal to tell people to leave their homes or be bombed than it is to tell them to leave their homes or be shot. And the laws of war do not allow one side to commit criminal acts against civilians because crimes have been committed by the other side.

Accountable for the dictator

The concept that underlies these bloodthirsty calls for attacks on Serbian civilians is collective guilt: the idea that an entire ethnic group can be held responsible for the actions of their leaders--or rulers. As Anthony Lewis put it (New York Times, 5/29/99): "NATO air attacks have killed Serbian civilians. That is regrettable. But it is a price that must be paid when a nation falls in behind a criminal leader."

U.S. media saw no contradiction between calling Milosevic a "dictator" and holding the people of Yugoslavia morally responsible for his actions. After starting out with a paragraph worrying that Milosevic might "retreat... from Kosovo with his dictatorship intact," the New York Times' Blaine Harden went on to assert: "It is worth remembering, though, that Mr. Milosevic is an elected leader, having won three elections that were more or less fair." Arguing with a member of Congress, Fox's O'Reilly (4/26/99) declared: "I don't understand why you don't think the Serb people should be held accountable for this dictator. He serves at their behest."

Actually, in his current role as president of Yugoslavia, Milosevic was not popularly elected; he was chosen by the Yugoslav federal assembly, in an irregular vote in which he was the only candidate allowed. Perhaps a more direct indication of the level of Milosevic's support is the fact that an opposition coalition won the November 1996 local elections in 14 of Serbia's 19 largest cities, including many of the communities where NATO's attacks were concentrated.

Still, there was a widespread sense that the Serbs, by failing to respond with outrage to reports of atrocities in Kosovo, had lost the moral standing to protest the NATO bombs falling on Belgrade. In a New Republic article (5/10/99) headlined "Milosevic's Willing Executioners," Stacy Sullivan writes: "The relative absence of effective Serbian protest and, especially, the silence of intellectuals on the matter of war crimes raise disturbing questions about the culpability of Serbs as a whole in the actions of the authoritarian government that rules them." The New York Times' Harden (5/9/99) makes a similar case in an article with the frightening headline "How to Cleanse Serbia"--though it's hard to take an analysis of the Balkans very seriously that refers to Montenegro as an "obscure" place.

How could the people of Serbia sit by while such terrible things are being done? In a country like the United States, where the government has sponsored massive atrocities in countries from Indonesia to Guatemala with only muted protests--where the secretary of state replies to a report that half a million children have been killed in Iraq by sanctions with the statement that "we think the price is worth it" (60 Minutes, 5/12/96)--this question should really not be such a puzzle.

Clearly, believing that there is something essentially wrong with Serbs is a more comforting position than recognizing that people in various countries have the ability to rationalize away the bad things that their governments do. That's a syndrome that media figures who justified the U.S. bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia should hardly have been unfamiliar with.

Clark a Sr. Advisor to right wing military think tank CSIS 14.Sep.2003 15:59

CSIS Press Release


Former Supreme Allied Commander Named Distinguished Adviser

Contact: Mark Schoeff Jr. 202-775-3242, Stephen Chappell 775-3167

WASHINGTON, July 10, 2000 Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who commanded the first major combat operation in NATO history, was named today a distinguished senior adviser at CSIS.

Clark, Supreme Allied Commander Europe from July 10, 1997, until May 3, 2000, will work with the Center across the full range of its programs, concentrating particularly on international security. Clark was in overall command of NATO's military forces in Europe and led approximately 75,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations participating in ongoing operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. In 1999, Clark commanded the alliance's military response to the Kosovo crisis -Operation Allied Force.

Clark also was head of the U.S. European Command, responsible for all U.S. military activities in 89 countries and territories covering more than 13 million square miles of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East and involving approximately 109,000 U.S. troops.

Clark served as commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to July 1997, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible for most U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. From April 1994 to June 1996, he was the staff officer responsible for global politico-military affairs and U.S. military strategic planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also led the military negotiations for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton.

Clark graduated first in his 1966 class at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He holds a master's degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools.

Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards), Distinguished Service Medal (two awards), Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards). In addition, Clark received more than 20 major military awards from foreign governments, including honorary knighthoods from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands as well as the Commander of the Legion of Honor from France.

"Wes Clark combines extraordinary skill as a soldier and military strategist with vast experience in public policy and distinguished scholarship. We are fortunate to have the benefit of his association with the Center. He will be a great asset to CSIS as we engage the foreign and security policy agenda facing the nation in the new century," said CSIS president and CEO John Hamre.

Clark Worked With Terrorist Organazation KLA 14.Sep.2003 16:10

Excerpt from Zpub

For those in the audience who did not have a flier, I began to explain the picture which showed General Clark in a congratulatory handshake with Hashim Thaci, leader of the KLA, which under the noses of KFOR had murdered or ethnically cleansed thousands of Kosovo Serbs and had destroyed more Orthodox Christian churches and monasteries than were destroyed in 500 years under the Ottoman Empire. Next to Thaci was Bernard Kouchner, Chief U.N. administrator in Kosovo, British General Sir Michael Jackson, and Agim Ceku, who commanded the Croatian Army in "Operation Storm" that ethnically cleansed 250,000 Serbs from Krajina and murdered thousands and who now commands the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), the thinly disguised successor to the KLA. It should be noted that the KLA, with whom we allied ourselves, at one time was designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. Of course, this is the same KLA about whom Senator Joe Lieberman said: "The United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same values and principles . . . Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." (Washington Post, Apr.28, 1999). Clark at Borders bookstore, Pentagon Center Mall, 17 Jul 2001 by Colonel George Jatras, USAF (Ret.)

Clark (right) shakes hands with KLA terrorist Hashim Thaci (left)
Clark (right) shakes hands with KLA terrorist Hashim Thaci (left)
Tony Blair (left) shakes hands with KLA terrorist Hashim Thaci (right)
Tony Blair (left) shakes hands with KLA terrorist Hashim Thaci (right)
Madeleine Albright (left) shakes hands with KLA terrorist Hashim Thaci (right)
Madeleine Albright (left) shakes hands with KLA terrorist Hashim Thaci (right)

Clark Attempted To Bomb CNN Bureau in Belgrade 14.Sep.2003 16:16


Gen. Wesley Clark Fights On and On

November 12, 1999

At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict,CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast.

With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, "a horse's ass". Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the Nato command two months early.

Adding to this humiliation have been numerous post-war reports from the ground in Kosovo making it clear that the air campaign supervised by Clark inflicted little damage on the Serb army. Derisive comments from Serb generals on the general ineffectiveness of Nato's tactical air campaign have only rubbed salt in his wounds. Accordingly, on September 16, in a desperate effort to redeem the tarnished record of his military command, Clark summoned the Nato press corps in Brussels to hear his own version of events.

True to form, Clark's presentation opened with a gross distortion of the truth: "From the outset of this campaign, we said we would be attacking on two air lines of operation. There would be a strategic attack line" against Serb air defenses, headquarters, supply lines and a "tactical line of operation against the Serb forces in Kosovo and in southern Serbia".

In fact, neither Clark nor anyone else in the U.S. chain of command imagined that the war would involve more than a brief demonstration of Nato firepower in the forms of attacks on air defense radars, communications centers and other fixed targets, thus providing Milosevic with the excuse the U.S. thought he wanted to throw in his hand.
"The Joint Chiefs went along with [the war] on the strict understanding that it would last a maximum of two days", says one Pentagon official with direct knowledge of these events. "No one really planned for what to do after that."

Clark intended the briefing to provide unassailable confirmation of his wartime claims that Nato pilots had destroyed hundreds of Serb tanks and other heavy weapons. Yet he had a problem, since the teams he dispatched to Kosovo immediately after the war could only find 26 tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces destroyed on the ground. Accordingly, Clark tried to dazzle his audience with military managerial techno-speak about the "building block methodology" employed in preparing his assessment, which permitted NATO's supreme commander to add another 67 "successful strikes" to the "catastrophic kills" represented by the 26 tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces he had already claimed.

With the sleight of hand of a true briefer, Clark left the impression in the minds of the press corps that in each of these 67 strikes the targets had actually been destroyed. But the "methodology" meant merely that the target was added to the score so long as two or more sources-i.e. the pilot's claim, plus perhaps video footage or a report from someone else in the area-indicated that the weapon had hit the target. With such casuistry, Clark was able to inflate the total figure to 93-not far from the wartime boast of 110 such kills.

Even the paltry claim of 26 destroyed targets in this category should be viewed with skepticism. An alert friend of CounterPunch in the defense community points out that slide # 27 in the briefing features a "tank" destroyed by a U.S. Navy F-14 mission. Actually, slide #27 shows not a tank but a second world war U.S. tank destroyer known as the M-36, famously ineffective even when introduced in 1943, and later donated to Yugoslavia some time in the 1950s. Perhaps, our friend suggests, "The Yugos took one look at what they got, and then put the things in front of the nearest VFW-equivalent meeting halls. Then, along come [the Nato attacks] and the word goes out: 'we need hulks to serve as decoys for the Americans to blow up.' Wes Clark & staff collect the imagery and proudly display their 'kill'".

This same observer notes that the Pentagon is working on what will be a "lying, cheating, thieving" after-action report, basing his description on news that the work is being supervised by deputy defense secretary John Hamre, a noted time-server and catspaw of the uniformed military.

Among the many issues the report is not expected to address is the sudden disappearance, half way through the conflict, of the $2 billion B-2 stealth bomber, described by Clark as one of the "heroes" of the war. Forty-three days into the conflict, the B-2 was reported as having flown "nearly fifty" sorties. When the war ended after 78 days of bombing, an authoritative report stated that the B-2 had flown a total of 49 missions, indicating that it "fell out of the war" half way through. Presumably, the costly behemoths were deteriorating at such a rate that the Air Force decided to relegate the plane to its alternative mission as backdrop for President Clinton's demonstrations of martial resolve on TV.

Another topic on which we may expect Hamre to remain diplomatically silent is the ingenuity with which the Serbs diverted the anti-radar Harm missiles launched in enormous numbers by Nato's planes. Early on, the Serbs discovered that a microwave oven, adjusted to operate with the door open, appears exactly like an air defense radar to the $750,000 missiles - a very cost-effective exchange.

Despite such embarrassments, Clark can take heart from the fact that his influence on warfare already transcends the Balkans. Since Operation Allied Force laid waste to the Serbian civilian infrastructure, the targeting of such infrastructure has become routine and acceptable. The Israelis, who have for years shown relative care in avoiding the Lebanese infrastructure in their raids, were quick to change tactics, citing the Balkan operation as a legitimizing precedent. More recently the gangsters in the Kremlin have used the same justification for their terror-bombing of Chechnya.

Since Clark may be chagrined at his reception in post-war Washington, he should perhaps look to Tel Aviv and Moscow for a more fulsome recognition of his role in history.

Clark Dodges Most of Service In Vietnam War 14.Sep.2003 16:21

David H. Hackworth


April 20, 1999


NATO's Wesley Clark is not the Iron Duke, nor is he Stormin' Norman. Unlike Wellington and Schwarzkopf, Clark's not a muddy boots soldier. He's a military politician, without the right stuff to produce victory over Serbia.

Known by those who've served with him as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince," he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear. A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units -- rifle platoon to tank division - for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie.

Very much like generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, the architect and carpenter of the Vietnam disaster, Clark was earmarked and then groomed early in his career for big things. At West Point he graduated No. 1 in his class, and even though the Vietnam War was raging and chewing up lieutenants faster than a machine gun can spit death, he was seconded to Oxford for two years of contemplating instead of to the trenches to lead a platoon.

A year after graduating Oxford, he was sent to Vietnam, where, as a combat leader for several months, he was bloodied and muddied. Unlike most of his classmates, who did multiple combat tours in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, he spent the rest of the war sheltered in the ivy towers of West Point or learning power games first hand as a White House fellow.

The war with Serbia has been going full tilt for almost a month and Clark's NATO is like a giant standing on a concrete pad wielding a sledgehammer crushing Serbian ants. Yet, with all its awesome might, NATO hasn't won a round. Instead, Milosovic is still calling all the shots from his Belgrade bunker, and all that's left for Clark is to react. Milosevic plays the fiddle and Clark dances the jig. 'Stormin' Norman or any good infantry sergeant major would have told Clark that conventional air power alone could never win a war -- it must be accompanied by boots on the ground.

German air power didn't beat Britain. Allied air power didn't beat Germany. More air power than was used against the Japanese and Germans combined didn't win in Vietnam. Forty three days of pummeling in the open desert where there was no place to hide didn't KO Saddam. That fight ended only when Schwarzkopf unleashed the steel ground fist he'd carefully positioned before the first bomb fell.

Doing military things exactly backwards, the scholar general is now, according to a high ranking Pentagon source, in "total panic mode" as he tries to mass the air and ground forces he finally figured out he needs to win the initiative. Mass is a principle of war. Clark has violated this rule along with the other eight vital principles. Any mud soldier will tell you if you don't follow the principles of war you lose.

One of the salient reasons Wellington whipped Napoleon in 1815 at Waterloo is that the Corsican piecemealed his forces. Clark's done the same thing with his air power. He started with leisurely pinpricks and now is attempting to increase the pain against an opponent with an almost unlimited threshold. Similar gradualism was one of the reasons for defeat in Vietnam.

Another mistake Clark's made is not knowing his enemy. Taylor and Westmoreland made this same error in Vietnam. Like the Vietnamese, the Serbs are fanatic warriors who know better than to fight conventionally in open formations. They'll use the rugged terrain and bomber bad weather to conduct the guerrilla operations they've been preparing for over 50 years.

And they're damn good at partisan warfare. Just ask any German 70 years or older if a fight in Serbia will be another Desert Storm. It's the smart general who knows when to retreat. If Clark lets pride stand in the way of military judgment, expect a long and bloody war.

Clark Employed by Stephens Group (Clinton crime family) 14.Sep.2003 16:28


Clark is a longtime friend of Clinton which helped rise to the top. He has also been employed by the Stephens Group, part of the Stephens family empire that helped to launch Clinton's career and keep him in the 1992 primaries despite cash problems. Wesley Clark joined Little Rock-based Stephens Group Inc. [111 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (800) 643-9691, www.stephens.com] as a corporate consultant to help develop emerging-technology companies.

For Immediate Release June 29, 2000 ... "U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark recently retired after 34 years of dedicated military service to his country. A native of Little Rock, Ark., Clark and his wife now reside in Arlington, Va. Their son, Wesley Jr., is a screenwriter in Los Angeles."

if the above was true Moore would not be urging Clark to run 14.Sep.2003 16:30


So there is one person out there digging with Karl Rove' and flinging all that filth here in indymedia. Why do you think Michael Moore is calling on the General to run? Because the stuff that was just flinged out is the kind of nonsense that the corporate media flings at us.

It was great to see that Michael Moore is NOT following the crowd that says:

"Nobody but Bush. Nobody that can beat Bush. No one strong enough to withstand Bush, must be allowed to stand in Bush's way."

I haven't made up my mind, anymore that Michael Moore has, who I'm going to vote for -- Kucinich, Dean, Kerry -- I wasn't sold on any of them, although I would enthusiastically campaign for them in the general election against Bush. However, like Moore, I'm thrilled that one more strong, reasonably progressive, anti-Iraq war candidate will be soon (we hope) be joining the race.

P.S. CounterPUnch is the run by the kind of loon that refuses to see conspiracies where they actually exist (the Kennedy assassination), but instead dreams them up where they don't exist.

Wesley Clark's Biography from NATO Web Site 14.Sep.2003 16:45

SHAPE - Public Information Office, July 1997

[Editor's note: this biography no longer exists on the NATO web site; it was retrieved from the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.]



General Wesley K. Clark became the Supreme Allied Commander Europe on 11 July 1997. He is also the Commander-in-Chief, United States European Command.

General Clark's last assignment was as Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to July 1997, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests in Latin America and the Caribbean. His previous assignment was as the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff (April 1994-June 1996) where he was the staff officer responsible for world-wide politico-military affairs and U.S. military strategic planning. He also led the military negotiations for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton.

General Clark is an Armor Officer who has commanded at every level from Company to Division. As the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas (August 1992-April 1994), he transitioned the Division into a rapidly deployable force and conducted three emergency deployments to Kuwait. During the Cold War, he commanded the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (April 1986-March 1988), and the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division (February 1980-June 1982) at Fort Carson, Colorado. General Clark has also commanded three companies, to include a mechanized infantry company in combat in Vietnam.

General Clark spent 5 years training leaders and soldiers at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California, and with the Battle Command Training Program (BCTP). As the Commander of National Training Center (October 1989-October 1991), General Clark helped train many of the forces that subsequently saw combat operations in Desert Storm. During this time period, he developed new training methodologies for Division and Corps level training, helping to train 13 Divisions, and he conducted the first ever Corps level BCTP training exercise. In his first assignment at the National Training Center, as Commander Operations Group (August 1984-January 1986), he revised the overall training program by improving scenarios, enhancing After Action Reports, and developing the first Brigade-level training exercise and the first heavy-light rotations.

In addition to his work on the Joint Staff, his other major staff assignments have included service as Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia (October 1991-August 1992), Chief of the Army's Study Group, Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, Washington, DC (October 1983-July 1984); Chief, Plans Integration Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC (July 1983-September 1983).

General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a master's degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools. General Clark was a White House Fellow in 1975-1976 and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He has also served as an instructor and later Assistant Professor of Social Science at the United States Military Academy.

Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards).

General Clark was born on 23 December 1944 and grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is married to the former Gertrude Kingston of Brooklyn, New York. He and his wife have one son, Wesley, who lives in California.

(As of 18 August 1997)

...Or... 14.Sep.2003 16:47

alternative theory

Michael Moore didn't do his homework. Portland Indymedia did.

PS: More info on CSIS military think tank members, from the CSIS web site follows.

CSIS Affiliates: [from website] The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.

CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers Board of Trustees Chairman Sam Nunn Senior Partner, King and Spalding Vice Chairman David M. Abshire President, Center for the Study of the Presidency, and Cofounder of CSIS Chairman, Executive Committee Anne Armstrong* Former U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Members George L. Argyros Carla A. Hills Betty Beene Ray L. Hunt Reginald K. Brack Henry A. Kissinger William E. Brock Donald B. Marron Harold Brown Felix G. Rohatyn Zbigniew Brzezinski Charles A. Sanders William S. Cohen James R. Schlesinger J. Michael Cook William A. Schreyer* Ralph Cossa Brent Scowcroft Douglas N. Daft Murray Weidenbaum Robert A. Day Dolores D. Wharton Richard Fairbanks Frederick B. Whittemore Michael P. Galvin* R. James Woolsey Joseph T. Gorman Amos A. Jordan, (Emeritus) John J. Hamre* Leonard H. Marks, (Emeritus) Robert S. Strauss, (Emeritus) *Member of the Executive Committee Counselors William E. Brock Henry A. Kissinger Harold Brown Sam Nunn Zbigniew Brzezinski James R. Schlesinger William S. Cohen Brent Scowcroft Richard Fairbanks Senior Advisers J. Carter Beese Amos A. Jordan Bradley D. Belt John Kornblum James M. Bodner Robert H. Kupperman Stanton H. Burnett Laurence Martin Richard R. Burt Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty Wesley K. Clark Walter Slocombe William K. Clark, Jr. Robert Tyrer Arnaud de Borchgrave Anthony Zinni Diana Lady Dougan Luis E. Giusti Fred C. Ikl (Distinguished Scholar in Residence)

Dump All Incumbents 14.Sep.2003 16:59

just more of the same

We make war with democrats.

We make war with republicans.

We were at war with Iraq all along.

It's all the same.

The "American People" will continue to be suckered by the stupid "Good Cop / Bad Cop" game that the republicans and democrats play.

Boy Wesley did a fine job on Yugoslavia, didn't he? The last I heard, the Geneva Convention bans bombing targets that arn't justified by military neccesity and specifically bans bombing targets of a strictly civilian nature. That didn't stop the prick from bombing sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, scools and hospitals did it? He's a war criminal.

Generals only want war as a "last result". Bullshit! What they "want" is totally irrelevant. Generals do as they are told. They have no choice, unless the want to become some "General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Nato Commander and Conciensious Objector". When was the last time you saw that?

What horseshit dribble. What a scam.

Fuck Michael Moore, and fuck his dumbfuck Oscar, who cares about a bunch of movie stars dressing up and patting each other on the back, anyway? "Waaa, I like the war criminal because he defended me!". Why don't you marry him then, asshole!

maybe... 14.Sep.2003 19:59


maybe someone could send this wealth of knowledge to michael moore...

Thanks! 15.Sep.2003 00:31


I urge people to send the link to this thread out to people you know, along with Michael Moore! Send this link to his 'suggestiong for our links section!'

Homeland Security *
If you have an idea for Mike's Office of Homeland Security, send your suggestions to  homelandsecurity@michaelmoore.com

Links *
If you have an idea or suggestion for our Links section, please send your suggestions to  links@michaelmoore.com

News *
If you have an idea or suggestion for our News or Must Read section, please contact  news@michaelmoore.com

For technical inquires about the site, bug reports or questions about the mailing list please contact  admin@michaelmoore.com

Contacting Michael
If you have something you want to tell Michael directly, contact him at:  mike@michaelmoore.com. Michael gets thousands of emails and does his best to personally answer as many of them as possible. Occasionally his email box "overflows" and you may get an error when trying to contact him. Please be patient and try sending your message to Michael again at a later date.

* Emails to the above addresses that do not pertain to the specific topic of the email address(es) specified will most likely be deleted due to sheer volume of messages received. For instance, if you cannot get through to  mike@michaelmoore.com, please do not send the message to  news@michaelmoore.com. Or, if you would like to suggest a Homeland Security mission, please only send to  homeland@michaelmoore.com. Thanks!

hooray for hollywood 15.Sep.2003 00:32


MM's veritable hyperventilating cheerleading and boosting for the General to take on the runt "Oh, General, only you--only you have the clear vision and determination to bring the nation back on track..." Michael pulling out every cheap appeal to vanity (granted he's got the right subject to practice on!), goading on and on. After the whipped cream clears, doesn't this sound like another Moore set-up for a spectacular documentary? You folks have done yeomen's (and valuble) work in fleshing out the General--all Michael wants is to get the General and the runt on the same stage and watch the fireworks--an film it!!!!

MIchael Moore, Hollywood Liberal 15.Sep.2003 06:36

Anti-American Freedom Fighter

Michael Moore is a good example of why Liberals are absolutely worthless. This clown actually believes that Wesley Clark is opposed to Militarism! Michael Moore forgets that this is the same Wesley Clark that was the Supreme Nato Commander in charge of the criminal war on Yugoslavia no less.

What most Americans don't realize is that the US armed and sponsored various Islamicist organizations in Yugoslavia--including many with connections to Al-Queda and Usama Bin Laden even--as part of its gameplan to dismember that nation.


Moreover, Americans also don't realize that the attack on Yugoslavia is fundamentally connected to the subsequent American attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq in that controlling Yugoslavia is critical for controlling oil pipelines from the Caspian Basin to Western Europe. In other words, all 3 wars are intimately related to the issue of Anglo-American drive to dominate oil supplies and routes in the Middle East and the Caspian.

Furthermore, its obvious that Wesley Clark himself is being presented and promoted by the American Establishment as yet another Kinder, Gentler Frontman for American Imperialism--much like Howard Dean is being marketed as the "antiwar" candidate (ha).

As has been said many times before, Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally alike in that they both advocate and speak for the interests of American Empire. The only differences between the two are TACTICAL DIFFERENCES with the Demcorats favoring a more multilateralist approach to American Empire and the Republicans favoring a more (Bushian) unilateralist approach.

The real issue is not Democrat or Republican, but the Anglo-American Empire itself.

Just a bunch of wild and crazy guys 15.Sep.2003 07:51


>Yep them Serbs are a fun loving bunch.<

Major War Criminals/Suspects
Below information and documents are from Helsinki Human Rights Watch, International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, United Nations Special Committees for War Crimes in former Yugoslavia, and other international organizations and sources including referenced articles from newspapers.
It has been quite a while since last update, hence the information maintained on this site is not up-to-date. So, please visit official sites for recent developments.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (read all about the Tribunal Cases)
Rules of the War Crimes Tribunal are available at the Court TV site and the U.N. ICTY site

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948

Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War requires the parties to enact legislation to provide effective
penal sanctions for those committing or ordering to commit "grave breaches" of the
Convention; and to search for such persons and to bring them to trial. Article 147
states that grave breaches are the following acts committed against protected persons
and property:

willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological
experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or
health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a
protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in forces of
a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of
fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of
hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property,
not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

see Rafael Lemkin's definition of genocide.

You should read "Ethnic Cleansing", described by Alex Seredin, to shake yourself off


Slobodan Milosevic
President of the Republic of Serbia (now President of FRYugoslavia).

from ICTY Milosevic & Others Case Website:
Statement by Justice Lousie Arbour, Prosecutor ICTY (Press Release by ICTY)

Indictment of Slobodan Milosevic and 4 deputies (M. Milutinovic, N. Sainovic, D. Ojdanic, V. Stojiljkovic) (charged with crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war) [regarding their involvement in the atrocities in Kosovo]

Decision on Review of Indictment and Application for Consequential Orders
War Crimes and Individual Responsibility: A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INDICTMENT OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC (prepared by Paul Williams and Norman Cigar - The Balkan Institute)

Web Guide to Indicting Milosevic from BosNet

Milosevic, 4 deputies charged with war crimes (CNN May 27, 1999)

Newsday articles:
Peacemaker? / Serbia chief linked to mass killings coming for [Dayton] talks and Federal Army Tied To Bosnia Crimes / Serb leaders `death camp' link by Roy Gutman
Mapping the Serbian Concentration Camps
L.A. Times article: A Deal with the Devil Won't Stick
Serb Chief Painted As Warmonger by Ex-Aide


Radovan Karadzic
President of the Serbian Democratic Party of BiH.

indicted with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Charged (November 16, 1995) with genocide for killing up to 6,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995. Also, charged (July 25, 1995) for siege of Sarajevo and use of U.N. peacekeeping soldiers as hostages. Warrant for his arrest has been issued by the Tribunal.

Indictment of Karadzic and Mladic

U.N. Tribunal charged him and Ratko Mladic, among other things,
with furthering the internment of thousands of non-Serbs in
concentration camps, where the prisoners were subjected to inhumane conditions
and where many died.
Besides, charged with the responsbility for shelling of Sarajevo, as well as the
smaller Bosnian towns of Tuzla and Srebrenica, "in order to kill, terrorize and
demoralize the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilian population."
Also blamed for abetting the "systematic" campaign of sniping at civilians in
Sarajevo over the past three years and for the seizure and use as human shields of 284 U.N. peacekeepers in May and June, 1995.
Please pass on the information about this class-action law suit to your Bosnian friends:
Doe v. Karadzic (information from Yale Law School)

Petition: Arrest Karadzic and Mladic!
PBS's Frontline: The World's Most Wanted Man site (lots of information)
L.A. Times article "Bosnians Recall Karadzic, a Neighbour Turned Enemy"
L.A. Times article Serb Chief Sends Lawyer to Tribunal
The World of Radovan Karadzic
Massacre in Srebrenica
Srebrenica: A Cry from the Grave


Ratko Mladic
General of JNA, former commander of JNA forces in Knin and Banja Luka
currently commander of Serbian troops in BiH.

indicted with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Charged (November 16, 1995) with genocide for killing up to 6,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995. Also, charged (July 25, 1995) for siege of Sarajevo and use of U.N. peacekeeping soldiers as hostages. Warrant for his arrest has been issued by the Tribunal.

Indictment of Karadzic and Mladic

U.N. Tribunal charged him and Radovan Karadzic, among other things,
with furthering the internment of thousands of non-Serbs in
concentration camps, where the prisoners were subjected to inhumane conditions
and where many died.
Besides, charged with the responsbility for shelling of Sarajevo, as well as the
smaller Bosnian towns of Tuzla and Srebrenica, "in order to kill, terrorize and
demoralize the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilian population."
Also blamed for abetting the "systematic" campaign of sniping at civilians in
Sarajevo over the past three years and for the seizure and use as human shields of 284 U.N. peacekeepers in May and June, 1995.

Petition: Arrest Karadzic and Mladic!
Massacre in Srebrenica
Mladic Abused French Pilots


Dusan Tadic

indicted war criminal. In custody.
On May 7, 1997, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia convicted Dusan Tadic of Crimes Against Humanity. He is convicted of 11 of 31 counts of war crimes and other counts. Read all about the Tadic case in Trials Chamber or in Appeals Chamber of ICTY

Charged (February 13, 1995) by the International Yugoslavia Tribunal in The Hague (the first international war crimes trial since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials following World War II.)
The 38-year-old Tadic is charged with "the collection and mistreatment,
including killing and rape, of civilians within and outside the Omarska camp."
In one fatal case, U.N. officials have said, Tadic and his cohorts beat three
prisoners unconscious and then forced a fourth to bite off the others' testicles.
Tadic reportedly moved to Germany on a Muslim prisoner's passport in 1993 and
was recognized by other Muslims, who reported him to police.
The German government is expected to pass a law allowing for his extradition in March.

L.A. Times article "A Tribunal in a Time of Atrocities"

Momcilo Krajisnik
Aide to Radovan Karadzic
Detained on April 3, 2000.
Read related article from CNN


Djordje Djukic
Bosnian Serb General
Charged (February 29, 1996) with assisting shelling of civilians during siege of Sarajevo. Transferred to the custody of War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague after being captured by the Bosnian forces. Pleaded not guilty. Released because of fatal health conditions. Died short time after his release.


Milan Martic
leader of militant Serbs in Croatia

Charged (July 25, 1995) with oredering cluster bomb attacks on Zagreb, Croatian capital which killed at least seven civilians.
Warrant for his arrest has been issued by the Tribunal.
Indictment of Milan Martic
Martic: Wanted by The International Tribunal, Yet Remains at Large


Zeljko Meakic
The commander of the Omarska concentration camp in northern Bosnia-Herzegovina.
He is charged (February 13, 1995) with genocide for his role in the 'ethnic cleansing' of Serbian-held regions of Bosnia, together with a charged with atrocities at Omarska camp.
Indictment of Zeljko Meakic


Goran Borovnica
Bosnian Serb.
Charged (February 13, 1995) with expelling Muslims to various camps and killing and raping civilians near Omarska.


Veselin Sljivancanin
Yugoslav Army officer
Held responsible (November 7, 1995) for killing 261 non-Serbs rounded up at hospital in Vukovar, Croatia.


Milan Mrksic
Yugoslav Army officer
Held responsible (November 7, 1995) for killing 261 non-Serbs rounded up at hospital in Vukovar, Croatia.


Miroslav Radic
Yugoslav Army officer
Held responsible (November 7, 1995) for killing 261 non-Serbs rounded up at hospital in Vukovar, Croatia.


Dragan Nikolic
Serb commander of Susica camp in Bosnia.
Charged (November 4, 1994) with genocide for killing, torturing Muslims.


Mirko Babic
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Zdravko Govedarica
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Momcilo Gruban
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Milojica Kos
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Miroslav Kvocka
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


??? Gruban
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Nedeljko Paspalj
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Milan Pavlic
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Dragoljub Prcac
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Milutin Popovic
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Drazenko Predojevic
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Mladen Radic
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Zeljko Savic
Charged (February 13, 1995) with atrocities at Omarska camp.


Nikica Janjic
Doubly charged with atrocities at Omarska (February 13, 1995) and Keraterm (July 21, 1995) camps.


Dusan Knezevic
Doubly charged with atrocities at Omarska (February 13, 1995) and Keraterm (July 21, 1995) camps.


Dragomir Saponja
Doubly charged with atrocities at Omarska (February 13, 1995) and Keraterm (July 21, 1995) camps.


Zoran Zigic
Doubly charged with atrocities at Omarska (February 13, 1995) and Keraterm (July 21, 1995) camps.


Dusko Sikirica
Serb commander of Keraterm prison camp.
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Predrag Banovic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Nenad Banovic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Damir Dosen
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Dragan Fustar
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Dragan Kondic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Dragan Kulundzija
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Goran Lajic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Nedjeljko Timarac
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities at Keraterm camp.


Blagoje Adzic
Retired General of the JNA and former Minister of Defense of Yugoslavia
and Chief of Staff of the JNA.


Dragoslav Bokan
a Serbian paramilitary leader.


Mirko Jovic
a Serbian paramilitary leader.


Zivota Panic
General and Chief of Staff of the JNA and former Acting Minister of Defense
of Yugoslavia.


Zeljko Raznjatovic, also known as 'Arkan'
a Serbian paramilitary leader; commander of the Tigers
(also wanted by Interpol for crimes committed in Western Europe).


Vojislav Seselj
a Serbian paramilitary leader; President of the Serbian Chetnik Movement
and the Serbian Radical Party (SRS). Commander of White Eagles


Goran Jelisic (nickname 'Adolph')
acting commander of Luka prison camp at Brcko in Bosnia.
Charged (July 21, 1995) with genocide, murder, and violations of the customs of war.
Indictment of Goran Jelisic


Ranko Cesic
Bosnian Serb
Charged (July 21, 1995) with killings, atrocities at Luka prison camp.


Slobodan Miljkovic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities against Muslims and Croats during 'ethnic cleansing' of Bosanski Samac.


Blagoje Simic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities against Muslims and Croats during 'ethnic cleansing' of Bosanski Samac.


Milan Simic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities against Muslims and Croats during 'ethnic cleansing' of Bosanski Samac.


Miroslav Tadic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities against Muslims and Croats during 'ethnic cleansing' of Bosanski Samac.


Stevan Todorovic
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities against Muslims and Croats during 'ethnic cleansing' of Bosanski Samac.


Simo Zaric
Charged (July 21, 1995) with atrocities against Muslims and Croats during 'ethnic cleansing' of Bosanski Samac.


Ivica Rajic
Bosnian Croat militia leader
Charged (August 29, 1995) with killing Muslims during attack on Bosnian village of Stupni Do.


Zejnil Delalic
Bosnian Muslim
Charged (March 22, 1996) with war crimes committed at Celebici prison camp in central Bosnia.


Hazim Delic
Bosnian Muslim
Charged (March 22, 1996) with war crimes committed at Celebici prison camp in central Bosnia.


Esad Landzo
Bosnian Muslim
Charged (March 22, 1996) with war crimes committed at Celebici prison camp in central Bosnia.


Zdravko Mucic
Bosnian Croat.
Held in custody at Scheveningen, The Hague.
Charged (March 22, 1996) with war crimes committed at Celebici prison camp in central Bosnia.

The American Pot Calling the Kettle Black 16.Sep.2003 05:00

Anti-American Freedom Fighter

It this the best you got? Regurgiting propaganda from a politically bankrupt organization like the Hague Tribunal?

The Hague Tribunal itself is increasingly being exposed as nothing more than a Kangaroo Court controlled by America and the West in general to retroactively legitimate their criminal war against Yugoslavia.


What Americans and their apologists refuse to face is the truth that the USA waged a dirty 10 year long war against Yugoslavia in which America sponsored and supported various Islamicist organizations connected to Al-Queda as part of its broader plan to break up that nation along ethnic lines.


More outrageous is the fact the greatest act of ethnic cleasning that occured in the Balkans occured in the 1995 AGAINST the Serbs in which the USA was a criminal party. This little war crime was called Operation Storm, and it entailed more than 150,000 Krajina Serbs being ethnically cleansed (and killed) from this area under the direction of and sponsorship by the Clinton Regime. Somehow I doubt you will see the Hague Tribunal putting American rulers on trial for this atrocity any time soon.


This is dirty little secret which Americans cannot hide no matter how many lies about war crimesthey spew .

Notice that "Mesoptamian tar baby" carefully ignores all of these issues and does even bother to respond to the article I cited which suggests the more politically devasting fact that the US Government was in bed with AL-Queda for the past decade no less! Perhaps, he knows that it would start raising very distrubing issues of who really did 9-11. (Hint: they are in Washington DC).


Ultimately, true war criminals on this planet are almost always Americans and their accomplices who hide behind lies about "democracy and freedom" to justify their crimes against humanity from Yugoslavia to Iraq. And some of these unindicted war criminals even have the gall to consider running for the White House.

Hell you could say that if Wesley Clark is selected as President, he will fit right in at the White House amongst his fellow American War Criminals.

My suspicion 16.Sep.2003 12:47

pragmatic lefty

My suspicion is that some "progressives" or lefties or whatever you want to call them want Clark to get into the race because they are sick of reading about Howard Dean. The Dean supporters are the same crop of self-congratulating liberal stepford wife Democrats that behaved very badly in 2000, who seem to know everything about social issues, nothing about economics, and only dislike the Iraq war because it has the potential to get real icky. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't deluded about his "liberal" credentials.

Clark probably sucks on the foreign policy / militarism front, but he makes Dean look like an ass because his domestic stances are pretty liberal and very straightforward. So I think people are taking pleasure in seeing the "flash mob" get rained on.

Also, Lew Rockwell? Can't we leave that opportunistic libertarian crap out of here? Of course the libertoons hate Clark, because he's pro-taxation.

My Observation 16.Sep.2003 13:32

Pragmatic Green

My observation is that we're getting all the choices the elite see fit to throw at us. As usual, the illusion of choice among a dozen corporate whores.

fair.org on Clark 16.Sep.2003 16:45



Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might
enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been
the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent
coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the
various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's
"anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign
against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of
Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO
commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The
only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a
four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03).
Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell
trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard
Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the
general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom
"many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15
Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq
war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside
announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep.
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The
Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the
war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with
grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be
understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the
beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And
I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements
before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of
positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military
strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column
declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London
Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine
(10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument
to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the
war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of
troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained
on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have
made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're
here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to
move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he
later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're
going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with
us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But
the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line,
too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the
United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who
they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark
seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles
O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When
O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute:
"Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any
doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be
found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom
of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the
powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and
reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03).
"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical
of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean
plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War.
If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four
divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly
made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the
region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a
sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and
Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards
of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark
explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom
of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The
way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive,
since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily
silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of
victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall
and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up
the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the
continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a
single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power,
especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable
today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome
Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views
"anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

America's Al-Queda Connections 17.Sep.2003 07:01

Anti-American Freedom Fighter

"Also, Lew Rockwell? Can't we leave that opportunistic libertarian crap out of here? Of course the libertoons hate Clark, because he's pro-taxation."

The Lew Rockwell article is a repost from an article by Brendan O'Neill and does not really address the issue of Wesley Clark. O'Neill addresses the issue that most Americans (on the LEFT AND RIGHT) ignore: NAMELY THAT THE USA HAS A LONG HISTORY AND CONTINUING HISTORY OF WORKING WITH AL-QUEDA.

The fact that most self-styled Antiwar activists ignore this fact and dismiss it shows you how DELIBERATELY ignorant they are.

Imagine if there were similar proof of Saddam Hussein or Iraq having a similar relationship to Al-Queda in the Balkans.

All of these Americans--including the phony Peace Movement--would be hyping it as evidence that "Saddam did 9/11."

When their own "democratic" nation of America sponsors and supports Terrorism, no one even bats an eye--and they gloss over this issue like it is no big deal.

This is an example of the twisted morality of the American people in general. The more self-righteous Americans become the more morally bankrupt they are in reality.

Read the article for yourself:

Clark & Colombia war / School of the Americas 17.Sep.2003 09:30

Rick Rozoff

From: Rick Rozoff < r_rozoff@yahoo.com>
To:  r_rozoff@yahoo.com
Subject: Death Squad Democrat: Wesley Clark And Colombia
Date: Sep 15, 2003

General Clark's last assignment [prior to becoming
Supreme Allied Commander Europe/NATO Commander in July
of 1997] was as Commander-in-Chief, United States
Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to July 1997,
where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible
for the direction of most U.S. military activities and
interests in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Human rights violations have reached staggering
proportions: In 1996 Colombia suffered some 3,600
political assassinations. Of those for which
responsibility can be identified, a third were
committed by the guerrillas. But about two thirds were
committed either by right-wing paramilitary groups
closely aligned with the military, or directly by the
military. There were also dozens of disappearances.
 link to www.law.northwestern.edu

The Pentagon has offered conflicting figures on the
number of missions carried out. According to Defense
Department documents, U.S. troops were involved in 10
training exercises in fiscal 1996 involving 114 U.S.
troops and 651 Colombian troops. But according to the
Special Operations Command of the Southern Command,
there were 28 deployments in 1996. The Defense
Department documents said only three JCET exercises
took place in 1997 involving 143 troops, while the
U.S. Southern Command lists 29 involving 319 troops.

Under a special law (Section 2011, Title 10) most of
the U.S. military personnel in Colombia operate under
the "Joint Combined Exchange and Training" program
which places them outside of any Congressional
oversight....U.S. "trainers" regularly took part in
operations against the guerrilla forces. One senior
U.S. military officer in Colombia admitted. "We decide
on the ground how far we can go. We can call anything
counter-drugs. If you are going to train to take out a
target, it doesn't make much difference, if you call
it a drug lab or a guerrilla camp. There's not much
difference between counter-drugs and
counter-insurgency. We just don't use the [language]
much anymore because it is politically too sensitive..
(quoted in the "Washington Post," July 13, 1998). The
U.S. Southern Command admitted that Special Operations
forces, numbering several hundred, took part in 28
joint operations with Colombian forces in 1996 and 29
operations in 1997.


Given at the 1996 Command & General Staff Officer
Course graduation ceremony, United States Army School
of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia -- 16 December


Terrorism and Wesley Clark 17.Sep.2003 12:04


What does terrorism mean?

Gen. Clark speaks in Berkeley Tuesday, Oct. 17th

Terrorism has long been a useful term for the state. But what does the term actually mean? This is a matter of some debate. "The state calls its own violence law," said Max Stirner, "but that of the individual crime." Within natural limits, the state does pretty much what its masters tell it to do. This is no reason for us to do what we are told to do. History has demonstrated conclusively the foolhardiness of accepting without question definitions told to us by others. So let's define terrorism ourselves, shall we?

This is not as simple as it looks. First of all, we must recognize that the most obvious dichotomy, state terrorism vs. private terrorism, doesn't tell all of the story. But let's deal with it first. The powers that be would all have us believe that private terrorism is terrorism and that state terrorism is not terrorism. This is simply untrue. The vast overwhelming majority of terrorist acts in all of human history has been the work of states.

When they take place during wartime, the perpetrators are called "war criminals" rather than "terrorists." There is a very sound reason that the powers that be teach us to reserve the term "terrorist" for practitioners of private terrorism alone. This Orwellian manipulation of language is a subtle form of mass mind control and must be resisted with great fervor.

We are warned with increasing frequency that, even though the Cold War has been over a decade, America must still gird her loins for war. "Rogue states," we are told, already present a serious terrorist threat. Soon, if we do not squander our funds on an unworkable and unnecessary neo-Star Wars type mythical umbrella of anti-missile protection, these so-called "rogue nations" will nuke (or worse) us from above. By every particular of our government's own definition of a "rogue state," America itself can be considered a rogue. It's just a big rogue and the others are little rogues, that's all. Every terrorist war crime of which they are accused, America is guilty, too, and in most cases more so by factors of 10.

Which brings us to the Yugoslav war. Bosnian Serb leader and army commander Ratko Mladic is an indicted war criminal. He is also not a very nice guy. He is, in fact, a ruthless, brutal thug. He is certainly no more brutal and ruthless than his Croat and Muslim counterparts, but that's beside the point. A thug is a thug is a thug. But that's not why he was indicted. He was indicted because his side failed to win the war. This is nothing new. Luftwaffe commander Herman Goering was indicted as a war criminal for the same reason. And for the same reason, Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris was not indicted.

Politically, Mladic's role in the Yugoslavian civil war was no different than that of any West Virginian militia commander in America's own civil war. When Virginia broke away from the United States, West Virginia broke away from Virginia and stayed in the Union. They won. No West Virginia militia commander was ever indicted for any war crimes his troops may or may not have committed.

When Bosnia broke away from Yugoslavia, the Republic of Serbska broke away from Bosnia. They lost. Now Mladic is a wanted man. This is not to say that he is not also a war criminal. Far from it. This is only to say that, as Clauswitz pointed out over a century ago, war is politics by other means. This is the nature of politics. Winners write the history. Losers have no choice. Don't believe for one moment that America's own civil war was not fought with ruthless brutality by both sides. By historical standards as well as by the standards of the day, it was a particularly brutal war. Atrocities abounded. War without atrocities is impossible. War itself is an atrocity. All wars are fought with ruthless brutality by both sides. The only alternative is certain defeat. Victory, however, is never certain, not even to the most ruthless and brutal commanders.
Gen. Wesley Clark

Which brings us to Gen. Wesley Clark, commander of NATO during the bombing of Serbia. Except in the sense that all wars are civil, Clark did not fight in a civil war. Instead, he led an invading force of imperialist invaders in the cynical dismemberment of a sovereign nation so that the avaricious plutocrats who hold NATO's leash could feast on the corpse of its economy. Like both Goering and Harris before him, when Clark's military campaign stagnated he turned in his impotent rage to slaughtering civilians. Warriors kill other warriors. Cowards kill women and children. This despicable coward shames every American. Think Herman Goering, but this time with smarter bombs and bigger allies. That's Wesley Clark, terrorist, coward, and war criminal.

On Tuesday, Oct. 17, Clark will be speaking in, of all places, Berkeley. At 6 p.m., he will be at the Berkeley Community Theater. I can imagine few places outside of the Balkans where he is less welcome. His appearance will undoubtedly be met with vigorous protest. Terrorist war criminals are not to be tolerated in our midst, or else we share in the guilt. Make no mistake about it, this man is every bit as much a terrorist as is Osama Bin Laden. If anything, he's worse. His body count is certainly higher.

The temptation will surely arise among some to give him a taste of his own medicine, to meet terror with terror. This would be a public relations disaster for all who wish to see justice prevail. If, while on its way to the Community Theater, Clark's car succumbed to an Irish-style culvert bomb or a Georgian-style rocket-propelled grenade attack, the media would paint Clark as a fallen hero and his killers as brutal terrorists. No matter how richly he deserves to be blown to goo, preferably by one of his own bombs, it would be supremely counter-productive to make of this fiend a martyr. I recommend strongly against it.

Certain individuals, who shall remain nameless, told me that some demonstrators will be bringing hangmen's nooses to the anti-Clark demo. They encouraged others to do the same. While I must admit that waving them around would make for some superior street theater, actually lynching the guy is a bad idea because justice would not be served. Hanging is too good for a guy like Clark. I'd rather see him spend his life at hard labor, undoing by hand the damage his war crimes have wrought.

I recommend strongly against terrorism in general. My objection is not based on any moral objections. Far from it. Terrorism is, if anything, the least inhumane form of warfare possible, if only because it affects the least number of people. I eschew terrorism because warfare, even the least inhumane warfare possible, simply cannot create the world I want to live in. It will take simultaneous mass grassroots organizing on a planet wide scale to even come close to what I, and those like me, seek to achieve. There are no shortcuts, violent or otherwise.

Organizing on such a scale used to not be technologically possible. In the '60s, there was a planetwide mass uprising of youth. The whole world was engulfed. But we couldn't communicate with each other. We couldn't coordinate our actions. This is no longer true. The Internet has made instantaneous worldwide communication so cheap and easy that it is no longer the sole purview of the privileged few and the corporate-government complex. This quantum leap in technology has borne heady political fruit. 2000 was, as the current saying goes, "The year everything changed." If the anti-IMF/WB/WTO/NAFTA/GATT forces keep up this momentum and if current trends continue, the NWO will soon have to quit slathering its fangs and start licking its wounds.

If this comes to pass, it will be mainly the work of anarchists. Both the left and the right, each in its own way, talk a good anti-NWO game, at least when they're not blaming each other for its very existence. But it is the anarchists who take to the streets and stalk this monster in its very lair.

Demonstrations against the de facto world government held in Prague on Sept. 26 ("S26") were accorded barely 15 seconds on America's corporate TV news. What was suppressed outright was that scores of simultaneous coordinated demonstrations were held in solidarity with the action in Prague on every continent except Antarctica. The Internet made this possible. If we'd had the Internet in the '60s, you would be living in a much different world today.
"Reclaim the Streets" in Berkeley

One such solidarity demo was held in Berkeley. It was called "Reclaim the Streets." I was there. That's where I heard about Gen. Clark's impending arrival. The demo was, in many ways, a typical Berkeley demo, loud but indecisive. There were, however, a couple of interesting tactical innovations on the part of the demonstrators. People met up at the downtown BART station. As the march began, it headed straight for City Hall and the new jail. Both were conspicuously defended. At the last possible minute marchers swung north. Then a certain individual, who will remain nameless, began passing out torches. Yes, torches. It's been quite a while since the last time a mob carrying torches headed up Berkeley's main drag. Yet that's exactly what happened when the marchers rounded the next corner. It didn't accomplish a whole hell of a lot but it sure was a glorious sight. Predictably, it was not shown even on local news, let alone on the corporate networks.

They weren't the greatest possible torches. They were two foot-long pieces of 1 inch-by-1 inch scrap lumber, with one end wrapped in paraffin-soaked rags. The paraffin melted faster than it burned, so it ran down the sticks and got on people's hands. It didn't burn very long, either. Within a few blocks the torches had all guttered out.

Three foot-long 1.75-inch oak dowels with rags soaked in pitch would have been much more impressive, and would have lasted longer, too. And even when they'd burned out, they'd have made dandy weapons. But I guess nobody thought of that.

Or maybe they did.

And the guy who passed out the torches probably would have been wiser to mask up beforehand, too. But, hey, it's not my place to criticize. I didn't even bring any torches. All I brought was my press card and my notebook. That's all I ever bring to these things. I'm not a rioter. Nor do I incite riots. I'm a journalist. I come only to observe. Besides, I'm too old to riot. It'd probably give me a heart attack or something.

The key intersection of Shattuck and Center was soon occupied. A 20-foot tall English Anti-Roads Campaign-style tripod was erected. A protester climbed to the top. These tripods are very effective demo props, even better than the now famous giant puppets. During the Battle of Seattle, one guy with a tripod single-handedly blockaded one intersection for hours. I couldn't help but wonder why the demonstrators in Berkeley deployed only one tripod. Simultaneous deployment of multiple tripods at key intersections around the city would have forced the police to scatter their forces. But I guess nobody thought of that, either.

Even so, people were able to take over this key intersection and hold an enthusiastic techno/hip-hop dance party right in the middle of it. This is called "creating a Temporary Autonomous Zone" ("TAZ" for short). Two portable sound systems, mounted on bicycle trailers, pounded out excellent beats. Soon the cheery glow of a bonfire had most people dancing around a pile of smashed-up newspaper vending boxes. Most newspapers make a better source of kindling than they do of information. After a good long while the cops moved in and drove people back with threatening gestures. They were firm but restrained. No doubt they had heard about the Czech policemen who had been set on fire by molotov cocktails earlier in the day and didn't want to provoke a similar fate for themselves. The protesters withdrew to the opposite side of the intersection and regrouped. They immediately built a second bonfire, even as a fire truck was moved in to foam the first bonfire out. Then the cops got a little pushier and captured the second bonfire.

Neither side really wanted to fight, so the crowd began to retreat, slowly at first, but always in good order. They immediately moved on through a second key intersection, University Avenue and Shattuck, kindling a series of small, symbolic fires in the street as they went, all the while chanting, "Whose streets? Our streets. Whose streets? Our streets," again and again. For the moment, at least, they were.

After nearly 40 years of ongoing confrontations, the cops and the demonstrators of Berkeley have developed a healthy respect for each other. A certain degree of detente has developed, and with it certain unspoken rules of engagement. Another theory holds that the city government is intimidated by demonstrators and keeps their cops on a very short leash. Whatever the reason, street demos in Berkeley often resemble battles between condottieri. There is a great deal of noise and posturing on both sides, but few on either side get seriously hurt.

This is not to say that cops have never committed vicious brutalities in Berkeley. They have. But for the most part, this has been the work of outside forces, county cops, state cops, and even the National Guard. Berkeley actually has two police forces, the University of California police and the municipal police. City Hall controls the municipal police. The university controls the UC cops. The UC cops work on and near campus. The UC cops are most decidedly not on a short leash. They are vicious, brutal, and dangerous. Wisely, they were not engaged on S26.

Two blocks north of Center Street, Shattuck Avenue intersects University Avenue, Berkeley's main drag. Shattuck and University is the largest intersection in Berkeley and is considered the heart of the city. The crowd turned west on University, in part because to turn east would have taken it very quickly into UC cop turf. Experience has taught that it is most unwise to unnecessarily engage a second force while being pursued, even halfheartedly, by the first.

It was at Shattuck and University that one guy tried to burn down a McDonald's. This was a stupid thing to do because there were workers inside. Also, the street outside was well lit and the cops were video taping everything. The rest of the crowd kept its distance from this guy and kept on moving.

When the demonstrators passed the Citibank branch at 2323 Shattuck Ave., two of them were seen breaking windows. In part, Citibank was targeted because it's a symbol of global capitalism. In part it was attacked because the windows were made of glass and not of Lexan. Most bank windows in Berkeley, especially the ones at ground level, are made of Lexan. Bankers may be cold-blooded, evil, and ugly, but stupid they usually are not. Citibank bankers must be an exception. Glass bank windows in Berkeley? I sure wouldn't trust my money to the care of people that dumb.

The bank windows were broken with metal street barricades of the kind used to keep cars from driving into holes in the street and crushing the workers inside. Personally, I believe that Berkeley's powers that be leave these things, as well as all those newspaper vending boxes and trash cans, lying around during demos to give demonstrators something on which to vent their anger. They may even have arranged for a token, breakable bank window to be where it could be reached. It's a whole lot cheaper to let people blow off steam doing minor damage than it is to let their anger build up to the point that they try to burn City Hall and lynch the mayor.

It remains to be seen what sort of action will develop when Clark shows up in town. Perhaps demonstrators will adopt the interesting new tactical technologies that the Italian group Ya Basta used in Prague. Or maybe they'll stick to the tried-and-true. Time will tell. I'll keep you posted. I do intend to be there. But while I'm there, I intend to break no laws. Nor do I advocate that anybody else break any laws. Specifically, I do not advocate rioting. I want to make that perfectly clear, right here in public. If people riot anyway, it's not my fault.

But kids today, what can you do?

Well, I'm out of space again, that's all for this time. Next time we'll examine one of terrorism's less obvious but equally important dichotomies, that between attacks against people and attacks against property. We'll also take a look at certain technological innovations that enable a third option, attacks against information. Specifically, we'll look at HERF guns, TEDs and the mysterious Z-Ray. It'll be fun. So stay tuned.

An Open Letter to Michael Moore 17.Sep.2003 15:07

Terry Lodge tjlodge50@yahoo.com

You Are Way Off Base About Wesley Clark

Dear Mike:

I've long appreciated your work, your politics and your writings. And precisely because of that, I'm surprised by and disappointed in your solicitation of Wesley Clark's candidacy for the Democrat nomination for President.

Wesley Clark is a war criminal. He commanded the U.S. forces and the whole NATO mission in the Kosovo war, which from the allies' perspective, was a stunning bombing campaign. Toward the end of the comflict, he very nearly touched off a major global confrontation when he ordered NATO forces to attack an airfield where a Russian force had landed with the intention of injecting themselves on the side of the Serbs to halt the butchery. Had Clark's order been followed, it would have touched off the most dangerous <Russian-U.S>. military confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

Fortunately, the British officer who had actual on-the-ground control of the NATO troops explicitly refused to attack the Russians, thus avoiding a catastrophic military confrontation with a politically unstable nuclear weapons state (holding the second largest arsenal in the world).

Clark is getting his poltical advice from Bill Clinton, his commander-in-chief when Wesley attacked Kosovo. That, alone, should be a major clue to Clark's politics. Though the U.S. suffered no casualties in the Kosovo "war", hundreds of civilians were killed, most of them in obvious circumstances (on strategic bridges and highway stretches, in the Chinese embassy and in office buildings that were being bombed). Worse, Clinton authorized Wes to "try out" depleted uranium in the Kosovo conflict - and so together they have left a 4,500,000,000-year-long legacy that will surely produce an epidemic of health effects on many Croats and Serbs and others for generations to come.

All this - and I haven't even touched on the wrong-headed injustice of the U.S.' joining the Balkan war anyway. It surely couldn't have been because the human rights record of the Croats was more "humane."

In those days, the Pentagon encouraged and assisted al-Qaeda to move its operatives into the Kosovo region to become part of the "Kosovo Liberation Army," a collection of ethnic cleanser-murderers, brigands and drug traffickers who were, then and now, important guarantors of the continued flow of Aghanistan's #1 cash crop - heroin - into the West.

It was Wesley Clark who touted the doggedness of those KLA "freedom fighters" - but then before September 2001, al-Qaeda operatives, despite the organization's suspected role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, were still a source of useful CIA assets.

I suggest you review the writings cited below and consider whether a reconstituted Wesley Clark, with his ho-hum stereotypical New Democrat viewpoints, is really the great savior of our damaged political dialogue that you've held him up to be.



Michael, I've admired you for years, from "TV Nation" to "Bowling," but you're way off base about Wes Clark.

Terry Lodge

Terry Lodge is an attorney in Toledo, Ohio.

Wesley Clark: A Republican In Democrat's Clothing 17.Sep.2003 17:02



Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who today announced his candidacy for President, joined the field of contenders competing for the Democratic nomination. But as recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office -- as a Republican.

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

Wesley Clark Cozy with Republicans 17.Sep.2003 17:04


Ex-NATO commander Clark talks of wars at GOP dinner


May 12, 2001

Retired NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark told a Republican gathering Friday night in Little Rock that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States.

Clark, a Little Rock native, was the European Supreme Allied Commander for NATO and was commander in chief of the United States European Command. He commanded the alliance during the 78-day air war against Yugoslav forces in 1999 that forced the retreat from Kosovo.

Clark was the keynote speaker at the Pulaski County Republican Committee's annual Lincoln Day dinner.

During the war, Clark made little secret of his belief that the alliance should consider a ground invasion, and he chafed at the graduated air campaign pursued by the Clinton administration. Clark acknowledged, however, that the airstrikes were necessary. Clark noted that World War I began in the Balkans, and World War II followed from the failure to keep the peace agreement that ended the previous conflict.

"I did my best to bring peace there," Clark said.

Clark discussed his work in the Balkans and his career in the military. He said his work strengthened his affection for the American way of life.

"There are a lot of people in the world who really love and believe in the United States. They love what we stand for, they love American civic involvement, they want to be us," Clark said. "That's why our work abroad is so important."

Clark said he drew a lesson from his time in Vietnam.

"I learned you never commit the United States of America to any mission unless you go in with a clear intent to win," he said.
Clark was replaced early as NATO commander but professed no bitterness. President Clinton said in 1999 that the selection of another general for the job had nothing to do with Clark's conduct during the war.

Last August, Clinton gave Clark the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The medal, the nation's highest civilian award, was established by President Truman as a wartime honor. President Kennedy reintroduced it as a way to honor civilian service.

Clinton Crime Family Likely Behind Clark's Pres. Bid 17.Sep.2003 17:07


He does appear to be supported by much of the Clintons' political war machine. Among those flocking to his campaign are Clinton veteran gutter fighters Mark Fabiani, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Oldaker, Vanessa Weaver, George Bruno, Skip Rutherford, Peter Knight, Ron Klain and perhaps even former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, among others. . . The Clinton "orchestration" behind Clark's campaign is so apparent that commentators are already speculating whether General Clark is running for himself &SHY; or as a stalking horse for Hillary and/or as a puppet for Bill. Is all this being arranged to knock down rivals and clear the way for a Clinton-Clark "C-C Rider" ticket in 2004?. . .

In 1993 Wesley Clark, after a solid-but-not-stellar military career, was commanding the 1st Cavalry Division at a sweaty 339-square-mile base in Texas called Fort Hood. On a late winter day his office got a call from Democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards (later defeated and replaced by George W. Bush). The Governor had an urgent matter to discuss. Crazies about 40 miles north of Fort Hood in Waco, Texas, had killed Federal agents, she said. If newly sworn-in President Bill Clinton signed a waiver setting aside the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits our military from using its arms against American citizens inside our borders, could Fort Hood supply tanks, men, and equipment to deal with the wackos at Waco? Wesley Clark's command at Fort Hood "lent" 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. Whether Clark himself helped direct the assault on the Davidian church using this military force at Waco has not been documented, but it certainly came from his command with his approval. . .

Even Clark's vaunted fourth star as a general was unearned, according to Robert Novak. It was twice rejected as undeserved by Pentagon brass, but then was awarded by his patron Bill Clinton after Clark begged the President for it. "Clark," wrote Novak, "is the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general."

Wesley Clark, a Democrat in Democrat's Clothing 17.Sep.2003 17:24


Wesley Clark is not a Republican in Democrat's Clothing. Wesley Clark is a Democrat in Democrat's Clothing.

You act as if it is only Republicans who are war criminals and genocidial murders. Ever heard of the Vietnam War? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Better yet, how about Clinton's criminal wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq? These crimes were all committed by the quintessential Phony American Progressives--the Democrats.

Democrats and Republicans--unindicted American War Criminals all.

Wesley Clark: Deluded in Democrat's Clothing 17.Sep.2003 20:22

more militarism is not the solution

Here's a piece written by Clark himself, where he praises Bush and Blair for their war on Iraq: "As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." Far from an anti-war piece, he seems to delight in a military "victory" and the massive firepower wielded by the U.S. Most alarming is his delusional take on France, Germany, and Russia, which he characterizes as approving of the war on Iraq--a sort of "the ends justifies the means" logic. Read it and judge for yourself.

Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK

What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory

by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime's last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there's the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed the primary military objective and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

Also See:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate? Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"
But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won't work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.

Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success but they can't win. That's done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armored fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armored vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimizing friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction.

It's to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn't do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won't return and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn't pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime's survival. And what it produces, it sells.

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice indeed, may have been already that they are "next" if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the "road map", this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel's northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

Mike, what about your movie? 17.Sep.2003 22:27

former fan

Miichael Moore:

I just watched your movie "Bowling for Columbine" in which you repeatedly referred to the bombing of Kosovo that was most intense on the day of the Columbine massacre, and asked why no one saw the relation between state violence and school violence. You used Serbian government footage of bombing of residential areas. Are you not aware that Clark was leading this bombing? If you are aware of this, are you suggesting that Clark is not responsible because he "just following orders" of Clinton?

What in the hell are you thinking? I just lost all respect for you. Anyone but Bush, even another war criminal?

Former fan

Wesley Clark for President? Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons 18.Sep.2003 13:40

Wayne Madsen

Wesley Clark for President?

Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons

Let it never be said the neo-conservatives are not persistent. That's why they must be rounded up by the FBI and charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. But let's save that issue for another time.

The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a "New Democrat." The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman's candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a "go-to" candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year.

The "New Democrats" (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark's presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of "Mecca" for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes.

Now enter "Arkansan" Wesley Clark. Like Hillary Clinton, Clark is a Chicago transplant to Little Rock. And he is about as power driven as the former First Lady. According to Pentagon insiders, when Clark was Commander of the US Southern Command in Panama from June 1996 to July 1997, he was fond of "ordering" Latin American military commanders and defense ministers to appear before him. Some of the Latin American officials, particularly those from Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, refused to be bullied by Clark, whose personality is said to be acerbic. From his pro-consul position in Panama, Clark supported with US military advisers and American mercenaries, continued warfare against anti-oligarchic movements in Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, Mexico, and Bolivia.

Fast forward to the Kosovo wars when Clark was NATO commander. Not only did Clark lord over the first unprovoked aerial bombardment of a major European city (Belgrade) since Adolf Hitler's Luftwaffe pounded virtually defenseless European cities, but he almost got into a shooting war with Russian peacekeeping troops in Kosovo. It was only the intervention of the British government, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Hugh Shelton that prevented Clark from starting World War III. When Clark ordered British Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson to forcibly block Kosovo's Pristina Airport to prevent Russian planes from landing, the Briton replied, "Sir, Ia*TMm not starting World War III for you.a** Jackson was backed up all the way to Number 10 Downing Street. Clark was forced to back down. Eventually, Cohen fired Clark as NATO commander three months before his term was to expire.

Before becoming NATO Commander, Clark was the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From this vantage point, Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt. Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries deposited millions of dollars into U.S. coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians and train them in their use through the use of private military contractors like Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). And when some of the weapons and cash for the Bosnians became "unaccounted for," where did some of the guns and cash wind up? In the hands of Al Qaeda and Iranian Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) units in Bosnia.

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark.

A long time ago, the French, tired of war, turned to a short general named Napoleon to lead them to peace and prosperity. Instead, Napoleon seized imperial power and ensured the French would have more war. After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the "anti-war" candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of the forthcoming book, "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."

A few words of insight from Charls Bukowski 19.Sep.2003 08:20

Rex Mondo Rex_mondo@hotmail.com

In "Notes of a Dirty Old Man", a collection of essays and rants by Charles Bukowski, he makes a key point. Being given a choice between eating warm shit or cold shit doesn't change the essential fact that you're eating shit.

Robert Fisk on Wesley Clark 20.Sep.2003 14:17

Democracy Now

AMY GOODMAN: Well, John Hlinko, we have just reached Robert Fisk in Baghdad. We want to thank you for being with us, cofounder of the DraftWesleyClark.com campaign. Zoltan Grossman, thanks for being with us from the University of Wisconsin.

We're going not to the break right now, which we usually do, but because we have Robert Fisk on his satellite phone at this moment. we want to go directly to him.

Robert Fisk, we'll get your comment at the beginning, hearing that Wesley Clark is now running for president as the antiwar warrior. Then we'd like to get your observations of what's happening right now on the ground in Iraq.

ROBERT FISK: I have to say first of all about General Clark, that I was on the ground in Serbia in Kosovo when he ran the war there. He didn't seem to be very antiwar at the time. I had as one of my tasks to go out over and over again to look at the civilian casualties of that have war.

At one point NATO bombed the hospital in which Yugoslav soldiers, against the rules of war, were hiding along with the patients and almost all the patients were killed.

This was the war, remember, where the first attack was made on a radio station, the Serb Radio and Television building. Since then we've had attacks twice on the Al Jazeera television station. First of all in Afghanistan in 2001, then killing their chief correspondent, and again in Baghdad, this year.

This was a general who I remember bombed series of bridges, in one of which an aircraft bombed the train and after, he'd seen the train and had come to a stop, the pilot bombed the bridge again.

I saw one occasion when a plane came in, bombed a bridge over a river in Serbia proper, as we like to call it, and after about 12 minutes when rescuers arrived, a bridge too narrow even for tanks, bombed the rescuers.

I remember General Clark telling us that more than 100 Yugoslav tanks had been destroyed in the weeks of that war. And when the war came to an end, we discovered number of Yugoslav tanks destroyed were 11. 100 indeed.

So this was not a man, frankly whom, if I were an American, would vote for, but not being an American, I don't have to.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk speaking to us in Iraq. And then you have the time that the British general, Michael Jackson, Wesley Clark had told him to get his British troops to the airport before the Russians got there, so it wouldn't be perceived that the Russians were liberating and General Michael Jackson responded to him, 'I'm not going to start World War III'.

ROBERT FISK: Yes. Jackson did indeed say that. One member of Jackson's staff confirmed to me that the quote is true. I think the words--I think the verb is wrong, but World War III is correct.

It was a very strange atmosphere to that war, over and over again when NATO has bombed the target, it was clearly illegitimate. Or when they killed large number of civilians, they were either silenced, or they lied.

We had the very famous occasion, infamous occasion when American aircraft bombed an Albanian refugee convoy in Kosovo, claimed later or NATO claimed later it was probably Serb aircraft. It was only when we got there and found the NATO markings on the bomb, that NATO fessed up admitted that they had done it themselves and had been confused.

When I went to the scene months later and tracked down the survivors, it turned out that although they were confused, NATO aircraft had gone on bombing that convoy for 35 minutes even though there were civilians there, because mixed in among them, most cruelly, this was an act of Milosevic's regime, were military vehicles as well.

We shouldn't be romantic about the Serb military or the Serb security police they were killers and murderers. But NATO, in its war against the Serbs, committed a number of acts which I think are very close to war crimes, and General Clark was the commander. So this is a man who wants to be the president, democratic president of the United States of America. Well I don't interest myself in what he thinks about the last war in Iraq. I watched it first hand and had my own opinions. But I sure as hell know what it was like to be under the bombs of his war in Serbia.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, I want to ask you about General Powell's visit, Secretary of State General Powell's visit to Baghdad. But we still have Steve Rendall in the studio who is leaving in one minute as we listen to this description of what's happening in Iraq. We were wrapping up the discussion of Wesley Clark whether or not he was for this war. Your final comments, Steve?

STEVE RENDALL: I'd like to just say that politicians would like to be all things to all people. Our problem is not with Wesley Clark's campaign, it's with the media's portrayal of him.

One point I'd like to say, your listeners should go look at the daily column that Clark wrote for the Times of London, right around the time of the fall of Baghdad. He wrote there, for instance, the day after the fall of Baghdad he wrote "Liberation is at hand. Liberation, the powerful bomb that justifies painful sacrifices, erases lingering doubts and reinforces bold actions." He also wrote that George W. Bush and prime minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt".

This is the day after, this is on April 10, the day after the so called fall of Baghdad. He was cheering this event, and it's very hard for us to see reporters casting him as antiwar candidate.

AMY GOODMAN: Steve Rendall, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Robert Fisk, nothing succeeds like success. It sounds like people who didn't know how it was going to turn out wanted to make sure they were on the side of the winning forces, which makes me think of the piece you wrote where you said that Thomas Friedman was in Iraq, he asked a U.S. soldier, he was looking for something, for directions and they said to him, 'that's on the enemy side of the bridge'.

ROBERT FISK: You have to be reality wise, Amy. Here in Baghdad, American troops are attacked I'm told up to 60 times a day, just in Baghdad, and they're losing an average of a man a day. If you're an American soldier, you're 20 years old, you didn't think it was going to work out like this, you were conned into believing the war was a great thing for democracy and liberation, and you're being shot every day, you regard an Iraqi as a potential enemy. So of course the guy said 'enemy side of the bridge'. That's a very telltale remark, because it shows how terribly wrong everything has gone for military, for the U.S. administration, our own prime minister Tony Blair.

But individually you find American soldiers here who can be very sympathetic and who realize it's gone wrong. I talked to U.S. troops in the streets of Baghdad, and they do not want to vote for the Republican party, if they ever did before in the next election in the United States.

You also find soldiers who behaving very badly with lack of fire discipline, lack of discipline of every kind. I was town in Fallujah a few weeks ago where American soldiers saw a man sitting in a chair in the street said, 'you get up and I'll break your fucking neck'. Well, that is not the kind of language that is going to win hearts and minds. When I complained to his sergeant about the way he had spoken, he made excuses and said 'well the guy got up at 3:00 this morning, he's been shot at every day, he's been here since March or whatever'. So I said well, you know, I understand all that. One has to have sympathy as a human being for another human being in a predicament. But it was your country that wanted to invade this place. You were desperate to come in, you didn't want the arms inspectors, you haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. Now you're here, and you don't like it.

And this is the big problem over and over again, I'm finding soldiers who say, 'yes, we believe we can help the Iraqi people'. Then you find many, many officers below that who say, 'I want to go home'. And this is an Army that is tired, low morale, low fire discipline, low discipline all around. The number of shootings of civilians is skyrocketing. I've just been talking to you about today. If you go into the hospitals here in the afternoon..

JUAN GONZALEZ: Robert, I want to ask you about the issue of low morale. Those of us who remember the Vietnam War understand that the major turning point was when those soldiers there realized that they were not engaged in a war of liberation, they gradually began to build up resistance and enormous morale problems with soldiers going AWOL and shooting their own officers at times. Are you seeing any signs that this demoralization among the troops may possibly even lead to resistance within the ranks of the soldiers?

ROBERT FISK: Well, I'd say we haven't reached Vietnam stage yet. No one is fragging their own officers. There was one incident, I think it was in Kuwait, where a grenade was thrown by a U.S. soldier at other U.S. soldiers.

We haven't reached the Vietnam point, and after all America was losing thousands of troops in Vietnam. And it's only in the hundreds in Iraq since the war began. As I say when I talk to ordinary soldiers, there's a great difference, for example, between units that were here during the war and haven't left and actually fought in the war, lost quite a few people for them anyway, and are still here and feel that they have been lied to because they were supposed to have gone home after the victorious, wonderful war in which they were liberating people.

And the newly arrived troops, for example the 101st Airborne up in Mosul whose morale seems to be a lot higher, although frankly, their attitude to house raids, breaking down doors and screaming at people doesn't seem to be much better than say, the Third Infantry division, who clearly don't have the same morale problems. But we're not at the Vietnam stage, and we shouldn't pretend that we are. What we should compare it to is Lebanon in 1982, when it was six months before anyone threw a stone at an American soldier. But now within six months they killed scores of American soldiers here in Iraq. And what has happened is that there is a real guerilla army working increasingly sophisticated. I was very interested to note, when I met the U.S. general who was in charge of prisoners of war at the former prison outside Baghdad three days ago, she actually referred to a resistance force. She didn't talk about terrorists. not once did it cross her lips.

What you find is that the real soldiers, I'm talking about non-reservists, full time U.S. soldiers, they know they're involved in a guerilla war. They know it's not working. They know the place is falling to bits. What they tell me is when it gets up to the generals on your side of the lake, they don't want to admit it.

I have colleague of mine on the State Department Press Corps, which arrived with Colin Powell, I was present at Powell's very strange press conference here. And my colleague told me they still don't realize in Washington how bad it is. That's the impression I get on the ground here.

AMY GOODMAN: Why was it strange? We only have 30 seconds, your phone probably has less, but I just want to get to Fallujah, to the U.S. soldiers who apparently came a day before, who killed something like eight Iraqi policeman and a Jordanian guard this month.

ROBERT FISK: I went down there. What obviously happened is the policemen, once they were on under fire screamed 'we are the police, we're the police', and the shooting went on. They then fled into the Jordanian Army hospital compound, and the Americans then opened fire at the compound for up to 30 minutes, setting several of the buildings on fire. This is a hospital run by America's Jordanian allies. These were soldiers without fire discipline.

You told me for the first time, I haven't learned this here, that they just arrived in Iraq. Well clearly have a lot to learn, don't they.

AMY GOODMAN: The report is American soldiers just arrived in Fallujah, the day before. But finally, the Powell press conference.

ROBERT FISK: The extraordinary thing was, Powell presented everything as upbeat. He suggested that journalists were concentrating on negative things. He wasn't trying, he said, to persuade us how we should tell our stories or what our agenda should be, but we should concentrate on all the goodwill towards the occupation forces or the C.P.A., the coalition.

Ambassador Bremer, the pro-counsel here, the American pro-counsel stepped forward to say there were more than 1,600,000 barrels of oil produced the previous day. That doesn't change the fact that Iraqi is still importing oil, even though it's one of the richest oil countries in the world. But you simply couldn't get Powell in any question to talk about the fact that so many things are going wrong. You wondered had he brought the fantasy from Washington, or was he being fed the fantasy here in Baghdad by Bremer and his staff at the C.P.A.

A fact is that months after the war was officially supposed to be over, there were hundreds of people dying in this country every week by violence. I'm just watching two Apache helicopters as I speak to you now just flying over the buildings in front of me, on 'antiterrorist patrol', as it's called. There is a real guerilla war underway here, and when you are on the ground you realize it's moving out of control. Washington is still trying to present this as a success story and it's not, anymore than Afghanistan.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank I very much, Robert Fisk for being with us. Robert Fisk is correspondent for the Independent newspaper based in Beirut right now in Iraq. returning as he has so many times.

Thank you for joining us. You are listening to Democracy Now!

Wesley Clark: A Republican In Dems Clothing, Part 2 23.Sep.2003 10:55

David Rennie, UK Telegraph

Clark 'chose Democrats after White House brush-off'

(Filed: 23/09/2003)

General Wesley Clark, who soared to the head of the field for the Democratic presidential nomination after his late entry to the race, found his momentum checked yesterday by a string of leaks aggressive even by Washington standards.

Senior Republicans revealed details of an extraordinary conversation in which Gen Clark, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Nato supreme commander, complained that he had wanted to be part of the Republican Bush administration, but switched party after being given the brush-off by the White House.

The latest edition of Newsweek magazine reports that - after the Sept 11 attacks - Gen Clark thought he would be invited to join the Bush administration's national security team.

However, the proposal was reportedly squashed by the White House political chief, Karl Rove.

A furious Gen Clark apparently told two prominent Republicans: "I would have been a Republican, if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Challenged by Newsweek, Gen Clark insisted his remarks were merely a "humorous tweak".



Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans -- just two years ago. . . During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military: "We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

Clark continued: "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

Clark on President George Bush: "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Wesley Clark Lies About NATO Air Campaign 02.Oct.2003 10:41


MAY 15, 2000 - The air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by Newsweek, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 'confirmed' strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58...

The Air Force protested that tanks are hard to hit from 15,000 feet, but Clark insisted. Now that the war is long over, neither the generals nor their civilian masters are eager to delve into what really happened. Asked how many Serb tanks and other vehicles were destroyed in Kosovo, General Clark will only answer, 'Enough.' . . .

At the end of the war the Serbs' ground commander, Gen. Nobojsa Pavkovic, claimed to have lost only 13 tanks. 'Serb disinformation,' scoffed Clark. But quietly, Clark's own staff told him the Serb general might be right. . . His team found dozens of burnt-out cars, buses and trucks-but very few tanks. When General Clark heard this unwelcome news, he ordered the team out of their helicopters: 'Goddammit, drive to each one of those places. Walk the terrain.' The team grubbed about in bomb craters, where more than once they were showered with garbage the local villagers were throwing into these impromptu rubbish pits. . .

Wesley Clark Loves Big Brother 02.Oct.2003 10:42


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's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.

Wesley Clark: A Republican In Dems Clothing, Part 3 02.Oct.2003 18:34


October 2, 2003 - On Wednesday, two weeks after Clark formally joined the race for the White House, his campaign filed papers at the Capitol to withdraw his registration as a paid lobbyist for an information-services company based in Little Rock, Ark. Also Wednesday, a campaign spokeswoman acknowledged that Clark had not yet taken care of another step in his rapid transition to presidential candidate: registering as a Democrat at home in Pulaski County, Ark. "He fully intends to sign on the dotted line and fill out the paperwork," Clark spokeswoman Kym Spell said, "but in the last 12 days he hasn't had time to do that."

A supervisor in the Pulaski County registrar's office, Sara Osborne, said Clark declined to state a party affiliation when he submitted his voter registration application in December 2001. But Osborne said Clark requested a Democratic ballot while voting in the state's May 2002 primary election - a common procedure for Democrats in a state with an open primary system.



Wesley Clark was an ardent advocate of live-fire bombing on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques - putting him at odds with virtually every Democrat in New York, The Post has learned. It also puts Clark in conflict on the emotional issue with one of his most important backers in Congress - Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan). Rangel said the revelation would not stop him from supporting Clark, but added, "I hope that when he's elected, over a drink I can give him hell over Vieques."

. . . "I fully support every possible effort to continue the training at Vieques," Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2000.
"To provide our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen with less than this optimum training in the future would be unconscionable, cause undue casualties and place our nation's vital interests at risk," he wrote in 1999.

During the Clinton administration, Clark opposed a four-month bombing moratorium, claiming that sailors and Marines "may not be fully combat ready" without Vieques' "realistic live-fire strike-warfare training."

The Awful Truth About General Wesley Clark 02.Dec.2003 12:00

Fake Democrats for Fake Elections

Another compilation on the two-faced Clintonite:


Wesley Clark Supports Terrorist "School of the Americas" 19.Dec.2003 10:44


December 18, 2003

WASHINGTON - In a position that's likely to alienate some Democratic primary voters, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is a big booster of the controversial "School of the Americas" - which critics charge has history of graduating Latin American soldiers accused of rape, murder and torture.

Clark fought for years to keep the school at Fort Benning, Ga., open, even testifying on its behalf in Congress, despite graduates like imprisoned Panamanian ex-strongman Manuel Noriega.

Clark's backing of the school - whose curriculum once included teaching torture, execution, kidnapping and blackmail - puts him at odds with many Democratic officials and groups like Amnesty International, who want the school closed.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) calls the school a "stain on our reputation" and leads the effort to close it. "With all due respect to the general, the school is an insult to our troops," he said. Nearly all Democrats in New York's congressional delegation oppose the school and Reps. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) voted to shut it.

"I would urge the general to support an accounting for the training that's gone on there," said Alex Arriaga, government-relations director for Amnesty International.

Clark isn't embarrassed about ties to the military installation - his campaign Web site features a commencement speech he delivered there a few years ago. "There is nothing going on in these institutions that you in the United States Congress wouldn't be extraordinarily proud of," Clark once testified to Congress.

The school has served as a training ground for thousands of Latin American officers, whose instruction had reportedly including how to torture and assassinate.

Aside from Noriega, the school is known for alums like Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina, Haitian coup leader Raoul Cedras, Salvadoran death-squad organizer Roberto D'Aubuisson and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

One of the most controversial school incidents occurred in November 1989, when a Salvadoran army patrol executed six Jesuit priests, their cook and her daughter. The United Nations found that 19 of the 26 soldiers graduated from the school.

In response to complaints, the Pentagon "closed" the school in 2000, but reopened it in 2001 under a new name.

The degree of hatred for Clark shows how much all you fear him. Keep it up! :-) 13.Jan.2004 12:49

A huge fan of General Clark's, er: President Clark I mean... j_farris@go.com

While it might be fun for all you anti-government people to spin all kinds of crap on a good man, you should thank mother nature that we have people like him that go off to war so pansies like you can play soldier back at home! While I don't agree with many of his positions I have to say he is a great judge of Charector, and can recognize talent and a leader when he see's it. Hooray for him, and fung-goo to all you who besmirch the good name of the General er: next President of the United States of America! John

Michael Moore is a Great Judge of Charecter in his appraisal of Clark! 13.Jan.2004 13:14

Clark for Presdient!!! Wes will Win!!! j_farris@go.com

While it might be fun for all you anti-government people to spin all kinds of crap on a good man, you should thank mother nature that we have people like him that go off to war so pansies like you can play soldier back at home! While I don't agree with many of Michael Moore's positions I have to say he is a great judge of Charector, and can recognize talent and a leader when he see's it. Hooray for him, and fung-goo to all you who besmirch the good name of the General er: next President of the United States of America! John

John Farris & Michael Mooron, So Easily Duped 15.Jan.2004 16:08

more militarism is not the solution

"While it might be fun for all you anti-government people to spin all kinds of crap on a good man"

Did you even READ the detailed background on war criminal Clark? Can you read? You really think replacing one warmonger with another will make things better?

"you should thank mother nature that we have people like him that go off to war so pansies like you can play soldier back at home!"

Funny, they said the same thing about Bush. Sorry, I don't play soldier. There's nothing playful about killing people.

"While I don't agree with many of Michael Moore's positions I have to say he is a great judge of Charector, and can recognize talent and a leader when he see's it."

Yes, Moore sure can recognize "charector." Maybe you will too when you graduate from kindergarten.

"Hooray for him, and fung-goo to all you who besmirch the good name of the General er: next President of the United States of America! John"

Close your eyes, wrap yourself in that flag, and bend over, because you're going to get screwed (again). At least Bush is honest about one thing: he runs as a Republican.

Wesley Clark Lied About his Position On Iraq War 15.Jan.2004 17:56


XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX


**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."


Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:


Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."


Wesley Clark Threatens Your Civil Liberties, Right To Privacy 15.Jan.2004 18:00

Center for Public Integrity

On September 17, 2003 about 21 months after his more experienced rivals had begun the arduous task of assembling their campaignsWesley Clark, a military man who had never run for elective office, announced his intention to seek the presidency. While many state party officials and outside observers questioned whether Clark could be a credible candidate after entering the race so late, he quickly confounded expectations. Within a week of his announcement, polls showed him leading the Democratic pack and even with or slightly ahead of President George W. Bush.

Even more impressive, a group of high-powered advisers and supporters lined up behind Clark for his bid. Jumping onto the general's bandwagon were Mickey Kantor, the former commerce secretary and chair of the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, and Donnie Fowler, national field director of Al Gore's 2000 campaign and the son of former DNC chairman Don Fowler (Fowler resigned from the campaign in early October). Mark Fabiani, who served as Clinton's point man on Whitewater for the 1996 campaign and as Gore's deputy campaign manager in 2000, also signed on, as did Ron Klain, a Washington attorney who worked on Clinton's 1992 campaign, his transition team, and later as former attorney general Janet Reno's chief of staff. Political neophytes generally can't count on assembling seasoned campaign hands, but then Clark isn't exactly a political neophyte. Clark raised his profile as a television analyst, landed a job at a politically powerful Arkansas investment bank, and plied the age-old game of trading on his military contacts as a corporate lobbyist. The former supreme allied commander in Europe, four star general and Rhodes scholar is a very savvy Washington insider.

Clark was born in Chicago on December 23, 1944 to Veneta and Benjamin Kanne. Four years later his father suffered a fatal heart attack, and the widow Vannete returned with her son to her hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas. There she met and married a banker by the name of Victor Clark.

Given his stepson's small wiry frame, Victor informed Wesley that he was not destined to play basketball. So in the eighth grade, Clark channeled his competitive drive in another direction and started swimming at the Little Rock Boys Club. He attended Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp, where, under the tutelage of swimming director Jimmy Miller, he developed into a strong swimmer. The Boys Club also taught the youth about leadership, and awakened in Clark an interest in public service.

When he entered Hall High in the 1950s, opposition to a Supreme Court order to desegregate schools led the Little Rock school system to temporarily shut down. Fearing that the schools might not reopen for Clark's sophomore year, his parents sent him away to Castle Heights Military Academy in Lebanon, Tennessee, where he stuck it out for a year before returning home. He reenrolled at Hall High and helped the school's swim team win the state championship by swimming two legs of the four-man individual medley relay. He graduated in 1962.

Despite being offered scholarships to Ivy League schools, Clark had decided during his junior year that the United States Military Academy at West Point and a career in the military best suited his desire to be a public servant. Only one obstacle stood in his waya congressional appointment. Every cadet entering the academy must receive a nomination from a member of Congress or the Department of the Army.

Clark got no response from his letter to Arkansas Senator J. William Fullbright, but the 16-year-old was undeterred and went to Capitol Hill in search of a sponsor. First, he visited Arkansas Senator John L. McClellan, who gruffly informed Clark, "You're not old enough, you're not big enough and you're not smart enough." Failing with the senators, Clark turned to Arkansas representative Dale Alford, then serving his only term in Congress. Alford decided to select his nominee by administering the potential cadets a civil service exam. Clark received the highest score on the test and won the appointment.

At West Point, Clark continued to excel. He finished first in his class as a plebe and went on to graduate first among the class of 1966. After graduation, Clark attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, where he earned a masters degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. While there, he went on a speaking tour to explain the U.S. policy in Vietnam, though he had been one of the first members of his West Point class to question the war.

Shortly thereafter he found himself in Vietnam, where he served with the 1st infantry division staff in Lai Kae before being transferred to a field command. Soon after, Clark was shot four times while out on patrol, but managed to direct a counterattack and successfully lead the platoon to safety. For his injuries he received a purple heart, and for his valor, a silver star.

The severity of the injuries landed Clark an extended stay in the hospital and a ticket out of Vietnam; he needed months of care and a year of rehabilitation to recover from his wounds. When he had recovered, Clark accepted a teaching position at West Point; he was soon promoted to major and assigned to the staff of the supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, then Alexander Haig, who went on to become Ronald Reagan's first secretary of state.

Clark quickly ascended through the military ranks, taking command of a tank battalion at Fort Carson, and then the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, in the late 1980s. In 1994 he accepted a position with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as director of strategic plans and policy, an appointment that garnered the general his third star and further contacts necessary to finish his ascent.

As military aide to Chief Negotiator Richard Holbrooke, Clark helped plan and implement the military side of the Dayton Peace talks that brokered an end to the war in Bosnia. This feat earned the general his fourth star, and helped position him for his next assignmentcommander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command, Panama, where he assumed responsibility for all U.S. forces in the region. Just over a year later Clark reached the pinnacle of his military career when President Clinton nominated him as NATO's senior military officer as supreme allied commander of Europe.

Both promotions came at the behest of high level officials and may have earned Clark the ire of some within the ranks. Defense Secretary William Perry overrode the Army's recommendation and secured Clark the appointment to Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command, Panama. Then, in 1997, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Shalikashvili overrode the Army again to ensure Clark became the Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

Whatever the case, Clark led NATO to victory in its first military encounter by holding together the quarrelsome 19-member alliance throughout the 78 days of bombing that drove Slobodan Milosevic and the Serb forces out of Kosovo. Ironically, his accomplishment also cost him his job.

There are conflicting accounts of the reasons for Clark's dismissal; in his book, he blamed it on Defense Secretary William Cohen and General Hugh Shelton, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, adding that President Bill Clinton said he had nothing to do with the early departure.

Clark's competitive naturea State Department official once told the New York Times that "He's competitive drinking coffee with you"might have had something to do with his dismissal. In his rise to the top, the commander had relied on the top brass to advance him at the expense of his fellow officers, earning him their enmity. Clark's conduct in Kosovo also landed him on the wrong side of Cohen and Shelton, particularly his incessant demand for ground troops and Apache helicopters and his public questioning of his superiors' judgment. In January 2000, Clark left his job at NATO; that summer, the four star general retired from the military.

After more than three decades of military service, the General transitioned to civilian life, accepting a consulting position with Arkansas-based Stephens Inc., one of the largest investment banking companies off Wall Street. A year later, the retired general pondered running for governor of Arkansas. A few months after that, the first "Draft Clark" movement emerged, in which supporters tried to persuade Clark to challenge Arkansas Republican Senator Tim Hutchinson in the 2002 midterm elections.

Neither opportunity provided the allure necessary for Clark to relinquish his position as a military analyst at CNN or the lucrative lobbying and consultant contracts he procured as a business executive. That is, not until the presidential election provided him with the platform to challenge the unilateral foreign policy of the Bush administration.

Two weeks after declaring his intention to run for president, Clark was still registered to represent a high tech contractor, Acxiom Corporation, giving him the rare distinction of seeking the White House while registered as a lobbyist. Shortly after Clark announced his candidacy, a company spokesman said the general no longer lobbied for Acxiom, but, according to the Senate Office of Public Records, Clark had not filed any termination papers.

Clark has been lobbying for the firm since January 2, 2002; Acxiom has paid more than $830,000 for Clark to advance its agenda and meet with government officials. Clark also serves on the company's board of directors.

According to federal disclosure records, Clark lobbied directly on "information transfers, airline security and homeland security issues," for Acxiom, which sought funding to do controversial informational background checks on passengers for airlines. Privacy advocates have criticized the program, called the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II, because of concerns that the data collected would be an overly invasive violation of individuals' rights to privacy. The public outcry has been so strong that there is a bi-partisan effort to create more oversight for the program to protect privacy interests if CAPPS II is implemented.

Clark lobbied the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Transportation for the company. Clark also reported, on his lobbyist disclosure forms, that he promoted Acxiom to the Senate and the executive office of the president. According an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette report, he even met personally with Vice President Richard Cheney.

He also made a pitch for the kind of tracking that the company's wares can perform while acting as a commentator on CNN. On January 6, 2002, four days after filing as a lobbyist for Acxiom, Clark told an interviewer, in response to worries that private planes could be used for terrorist attacks, "We've been worried about general aviation security for some time. The aircraft need to be secured, the airfields need to be secured, and obviously we're going to also have to go through and do a better job of screening who could fly aircraft, who the private pilots are, who owns these aircraft. So it's going to be another major effort."

Naturally, he did not reveal to CNN's viewers that the company he lobbied for had a substantial stake in this issue.

Republican Wesley Clark Alleges Nonexistent Iraq-al Qaeda Connections 17.Jan.2004 10:30

CNN: Half the News, All the Time

Clark defends 2002 Iraq statement

Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Posted: 0301 GMT (11:01 AM HKT)

LONDONDERRY, New Hampshire (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Monday a statement he made in 2002 about connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda was consistent with his belief that Saddam Hussein was not linked to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In an October 2002 news conference in which he endorsed a New Hampshire Democrat for Congress, Clark said, "Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda."

According to a videotape provided by a rival campaign, Clark said, "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to al Qaeda, that there would be some al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing, 'Gee, I wonder since I don't have any Scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of al-Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"'

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Clark said Monday the two-year-old statement is not inconsistent with views he expressed in a book and during his presidential bid.

"It would be naive to think the Iraqi intelligence agency never tracked anyone from al-Qaeda, but that's a far cry from saying there's any relationship between Saddam Hussein and 9/11," he said. "I've always said there's no relationship. I was doing nothing but explaining a New York Times front-page story of that day and discounting it."

On the day of Clark's 2002 news conference, the Times reported the CIA's claim that it had credible reports that al Qaeda leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Asked Monday if he thinks low-level contacts still exist between al Qaeda and Iraq, Clark said he has no idea.

"My point has been simply this: There wasn't any likelihood that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11," he said. "It would not surprise me if the Iraqi intelligence agency had sometime met with someone from al Qaeda in Beirut, Lebanon, or somewhere else, just to find out who they were or what they were doing."

Also Monday, former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, the national chairwoman of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, renewed criticism of Clark's praise for the Bush administration two years ago.

Shaheen and two other state Democratic officials noted that Clark was a keynote speaker at a Republican fund-raiser in May 2001, and that he praised President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other members of the administration. They also played a video of Clark's speech.

Clark and Kerry are competing for second place, behind Howard Dean, in the New Hampshire presidential primary on January 27.

Shaheen said "the issue here is this candidate is not a Democrat," and doesn't support Democratic values.

"I welcome Wesley Clark to our party," she said. "But I just don't think someone who raised money for Republicans, praised George W. Bush after he had begun his systematic reversal of Bill Clinton's policies" should be the Democratic nominee, she said.

Clark responded: "When you're attacked like this, it's the sincerest form of flattery in politics."

From http://www.clarkmyths.com 17.Jan.2004 11:12


Is Clark a Waco-burning republican war criminal?


Myth 7: Calling General Clark a "war criminal" should be beyond the pale. But if Counterpunch is going to print baseless charges, we take a moment to refute them.

The far-left is obsessed with the idea that Clark is a war criminal because he successfully prosecuted the war in Kosovo. Far from being pacifists who support human rights, the far-left reveals itself to be vicious, hateful, and willing to take the word of a convicted genocidal maniac over the international community to suit their prejudices. Stirling Newberry at the Clark Sphere has more:

With so called "progressives" like these, who needs Rush Limbaugh?

Zoltan Grossman's article, loaded with factual errors and innuendo needs a clear response.

Here it is.

Hours after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began on March 24, 1999, the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign began, expelling hundreds of thousands of Albanians, and creating an enormous refugee crisis.

The ethnic cleansing began before the bombing, and Milosevic was already under investigation for War Crimes by the UN, he would be indicted during the course of the Kosovo campaign. He had attempted to purge and conquer the Krajina region of Croatia, had backed the ethnic cleansing by "The Serb Republic" in Bosnia, and the siege of Sarajevo.

The The BBC timeline says

September 1998:

"Heavy fighting continues despite Serbian assurances that the offensive is over. At least 36 ethnic Albanian civilians are reported to have been massacred in three separate incidents."

And also in October of 1998:

"Following intensive diplomatic efforts by US envoy Richard Holbrooke, Yugoslavia agrees to allow a 2,000-strong monitoring force into Kosovo to ensure it complies with UN demands, averting the immediate prospect of NATO airstrikes."

Far from being "the stick", it was Milosevic who continued to order and direct atrocities, for which he is now on trial, in an effort to break the back of the Kosovar people. There was, unlike in Iraq, a clear breach of the peace.

As The UNHCR report makes clear, the Serbians were planning to destroy the identity of the Kosovar people, and the blame rests with them. Before the bombing there were 100,000 displaced Kosovars in Europe, and 266,000 displaced within the former Yugoslavia, as well as a million refugees of other ethnic groups from previous Serbian attempts to uproot whole peoples in pursuit of a "greater Serbia". The March 24th attacks did not "create" a humanitarian crisis - over 1.5 million refugees is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the people who Professor Grossman labels as being turned into refugees, already were, they were merely displaced and still inside areas under Serbian control, some in makeshift concentration camps.

The Serbian democratic opposition strongly condemned the bombing as undermining and delaying their efforts to oust President Milosevic, and as strengthening his police state.

Milosevic was driven from power in the wake of his defeat in Kosovo, a year later he was in hiding - despite having held on through months of protests previously, and survived numerous elections where he seemed like a sure loser before the attack. Unlike in Iraq, the civilian inhabitants retained power and sovereignty over Serbia. The bombings also began the process by which Montenegro was able to break away from Serbia.

Second, the NATO bombing alienated Serbian civilians who had led the opposition to Milosevic. Cities that had voted heavily against Milosevic were among those targeted with bombing. U.S. jets dropped cluster bombs on a crowded marketplace in Nis. Civilian infrastructure, such as trains, busses, bridges, TV stations, civilian factories, hospitals and power plants, were repeatedly hit by NATO bombs.

As for the litany of complaints about war itself, rather than getting into a detailed rebuttal based on the mechanics of target selection, and reminding readers that the target list was approved by every single NATO country, let me quote one of the harshest critics of the blunt instrument of military force, as reported by The Guardian:

The general who led NATO's forces in Kosovo believes the bombing campaign might not have been necessary if new electronic methods of waging war had been used to force President Slobodan Milosevic into submission.

General Wesley Clark, the outgoing supreme allied commander in Europe, stunned a recent session of the US senate armed forces committee by calling for a complete rethink of western strategy and questioning the need for the aerial assault on Serbia, which caused an estimated 1,500 civilian casualties and came close to losing the propaganda war.

His testimony last month was the highest level of endorsement so far given to the use of forms of "cyberwar" which, their supporters argue, could have stopped Serb ethnic cleansing faster and with far less bloodshed.

In otherwords, the military weapon was the tool, which he had, but, even then, he regarded it as dangerous and potentially obsolete. Reading Waging Modern War finds Clark similarly skeptical about treating new "smart" weapons as clean and surgical, rather, they are prone to error, limited in their use, and dangerous.

Obviously Professor Grossman has no problems standing around while people elsewhere are slaughtered. That's between him and his conscience, if he can sleep at night knowing that genocide is on the menu elsewhere, and feels no compunction about letting it happen, just so long as he is not involved, that is, of course, his karma. He also seems to have no problems simply recycling articles: there is nothing new in his ranting, and nothing other than ranting to connect it with current events. It seems, in fact, that he hates successful intervention even more than blundered expansionism.

However, one reason that many humanitarians strongly support Wesley Clark is detailed in Samantha Power's book A Problem from Hell - Clark was the only high ranking US official to push to prevent the genocide there - one that was not stopped, and which lead to 500,000 people being hacked to death, and touching off a war which has killed, according to the UN, perhaps as many as 3,000,000 people. Obviously Professor Grossman can sleep at night with that too, on his conscience.

What is amusing is, after excoriating the US for the ill effects of the bombing campaigns, he then screams that "America did not drop one bomb to stop Croatian ethnic cleansing". In otherwords, after screaming that we used force, he screams we didn't use it faster and more often. After accusing us of killing civilians for a good end, he accuses us of not killing enough of them fast enough.

According the UN there are Croatians wanted or on trial for crimes against humanity, including their former chief Army officer - clearly something was done, and done without dropping bombs. The US - with Wesley Clark as one of the "quiet heroes" of the process - forced a negotiated peace in Bosnia. Clark himself acted as military attach to Richard Holbrooke during the process, and risked his life to try and save three diplomats in an overturned Armored Personnel Carrier - something that I doubt Professor Grossman has the courage to do.

The problem with this article is that it is driven by hate - it will dredge up vague accusations, and try a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attack. Clark is evil for having bombed, he is evil for not having bombed. He's evil for having stopped ethnic cleansing, and evil for having used force. He's evil for bombing too much, and evil because he can't make everything perfect. In otherwords: Grossman is incoherent, irrational and dishonest, and merely wants to scream at the top of his lungs.

Myth 5: Shortly after Howard Dean asked General Clark to be his running mate, Mr. Dean said Wesley Clark was a "Republican." The facts tell a different tale.

The old joke about the Democratic Party is that our party often organizes itself as a circular firing squad. Indeed, it seems as if Democrats lose out on a broader agenda too often because of internal bickering. I am dismayed, therefore, that the individual carrying the mantle of honesty and straight talk this primary season, Howard Dean, is in fact dishonestly spreading fear and false allegations about General Clark, a man wounded in the service of his country, whose perseverance and integrity stopped a genocide and whose personal principles have engaged progressive social policy his whole life.

Howard Dean, after attempting to recruit Clark as his VP pick, claimed on Face the Nation that Clark was a Republican, and that Clark was a proponent of the war in Iraq. ''He was a Republican until 25 days ago,'' Dean commented. "I assumed he was a Democrat all along," Dean said. He continued, "I had assumed he was always against the war. It's not like he misled me. I just never asked him the questions." Both of these charges are simply untrue. Clark is not nor has he ever been a Republican. He has, however, supported the Democratic Party apparatus, and been one of the sharpest critics of Republican foreign policy, the failed leadership of George Bush and Tom Delay. Clark campaigned in 2002 for Democrats Katrina Swett, Max Cleland, and Tom Lantos, he voted in the Arkansas primary as a Democrat, and gave money to Democratic Senatorial candidate Erskin Bowles. Prior to this time, he served in the military for 34 years, a non-partisan institution that explicitly frowns upon partisan political involvement. Registered as an independent, Clark nevertheless voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Gore in 2000. His criticisms of the war in Iraq have been coherent, prescient, and devastatingly effective, and Clark was the most public defender of Michael Moore's passionate dissent at the Oscars.

Before Clark entered the race, Clark was actually an informal advisor to Dean's campaign. Indeed, Dean said about Clark: "His thinking has helped me enormously," he said in August. "Our views are strikingly similar on a lot of issues, including Iraq." Does this sound like someone who "never asked him the questions" about Iraq? No. And do Clark's positions on issues - pro-choice, in favor of a strong progressive tax system, multilateralism, teacher empowerment, pro-environment and alternative energy, and anti-tax cut - sound Republican? Of course not.

What gives Dean's charges, dishonest as they may be, credence, is that Clark spoke at both Democratic and Republican fundraisers in early 2001, and that he praised Bush's team in May, 2001, before 9/11 and before the aggressively unilateralist direction of this administration had taken shape. The path of Clark's return to the Democratic fold is illustrative, as it's the path most of America will understand, and will follow, in 2004.

Clark joined the Democratic Party earlier this year, after a gradual and sharpening disagreement with the direction of Bush's foreign and domestic policy team. The reason he did not join earlier, though, is because Clark himself was unceremoniously betrayed by Democratic administration officials after 34 years in the military and a stunning success in Kosovo, a military victory achieved despite tremendous internal opposition in the Pentagon and no American casualties. One month after this Balkan victory, Secretary of Defense William Cohen had Clark fired, and General Hugh Shelton leaked his firing to the press one hour after Clark himself was told. President Clinton disclaimed responsibility, and Clark retired, stunned, elegantly remaining silent on his ouster even though he had delivered the most important foreign policy success of Clinton's Presidency. (General Shelton has continued to this day to make vague accusations about Clark's character.) After the crude manner in which he was treated by the Democratic political leadership in the White House, Clark returned to civilian life and began to explore partisan politics and a business career. The Democratic Party suggested he run for Governor of Arkansas, the Republicans suggested he run for Congress.

This was a dark time for Clark. His principles had always been progressive. In his career, his actions have expressed a broad appreciation for social justice. In the early 80s as an army commander, he went beyond enforcing shiny shoes and clean barracks and addressed such incipient social problems as spousal abuse and teenage suicide in military families. He fought for preventative health care and empowerment of teachers, and reformed the entire model for instituting accountability in the armed forces. His exploration of the Republican Party, therefore, did not go well. In his own words, he said that after becoming discouraged, after trying to speak out and not being heard by the Republican Party, he came back, depressed, to Arkansas. He was sorting through the belongings of his biological father - Benjamin Kanne - and came across a small card which read "Delegate - Democratic National Convention".

Clark, as near to emotionalism as he allows, said "I knew then what I had to do, I had come home." And he is home. He campaigned for Democrats in 2002, he has criticized the Republican agenda, and he has presented a clear alternative, which Governor Dean, despite his angry tone of defiance, has not. This is likely why Howard Dean wanted Wesley Clark for his Vice Presidential choice I

ndeed, the real story here is Clark's unmatched integrity and vision for a nation founded on public service and shared burdens, shared risks, and shared rewards, and his choice of the Democratic Party as that vehicle which best represents those ideals. This choice stands in stark contrast to Howard Dean, who, despite rhetoric of principled honesty, picks principles as they become politically convenient. In the early 1990s, before he represented the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party', Dean allied with Newt Gingrich in outspoken opposition to a strong Medicare and Social Security programs. Prior to the war in Iraq, Dean spoke about how Saddam Hussein probably had weapons of mass destruction, while after the war, he claimed he was the only Democrat not 'fooled' by Bush's claims that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, while it distresses all of us to countenance negativity on a fellow party member, Dean's attacks only serve to highlight Dean's own record of dishonest hypocrisy.

To those who claim Clark is late to the Democratic Party, that is undeniably true. But Clark is not new to public service, and he is not new to the principles of the Democratic Party. Indeed, there is nothing that represents Democratic Party principles and human rights more than stopping a genocide. Nothing. One could play the horserace game, and point out that General Clark is our best chance to take back the White House. More than that, Clark is our chance to take back our country and elect Democratic leaders on every level. Do not let rumors and scurrilous self-serving political gamesmanship prevent us from electing the greatest President we may well see in our lifetimes.

Myth 8: Accusing General Clark of being involved with the seige at Waco, Texas is a sure fire way to stir up partisan political passions. Closely examining the facts is a sure way to douse them.

This is one of the more amusing smears, because it's not only untrue, it's ridiculous. The bottom line is this, from the Clark Sphere: "Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it. While observers from Delta Force were present, no elements of the First Cavalry were in operational control." You can find more below:

The Facts on Waco

Waco is Clinton's Bay of Pigs - an operation planned before he took office, and handed to his new AG. The tactical elements in charge had been selected before hand.

PBS compiled this timeline.

It takes the timelines from the two major reports - the 1993 report which had key omissions, and the later Danforth report. The FBI turned over to congress information relating to use of military shells, but did not highlight it, leading to charges of a cover up by Republican congressmen later. Waxman then documented that the material had been turned over to congress, but was buried among voluminous documentation.

This is the Department of Justice's first report on Waco and other materials.

It is important to remember that Clinton had been in office less than a month when the stand off started, and the action had been planned in advance. Reno was not even AG until March, and certainly had not had any time to even place her own people in charge. While the right wing likes to portray Waco as Clinton's fault - and Reno's - the truth is that the team doing the ground level work consisted of Reagan-Bush people, and at key points, it showed. Reno took full responsibility, which is what the person in charge should do - but let's not kid ourselves, ground level bungling made Waco what it was, and the people on the ground had not been put there by Clinton or Reno.

Both of these reports state that Acting AG Gerson ordered the military vehicles from Fort Hood, that they were driven by FBI tactical agents. That the only meetings with military commanders on strategy were not with Clark or other elements at Hood, but with US military Delta Force officers. Clark was ordered by McClarty on behalf of the Gerson to release vehicles to the operation, and, according to some reports train people to drive them. No members of the first cav were assigned, and Clark had neither operational nor advisory input on the matter. Both the Scruggs and Danforth reports concur on this point.

The military involvement at Waco has lead to wild speculation, and the conspiracy theorists urge to make everything one big glom - with their target du jour being the grand villain - has lead to Clark being thrown into the mix. However, Clark did not issue the tear gas, nor were any of his people present. The 40mm rounds were not issued by the First Cavalry. There were three Delta Force officers there as observers. Film included in the anti-Waco documentary shows that FBI agents were driving the tanks, and not military personnel.

The unforthcoming nature for years of the Clinton Administration did a great deal to damage the credibility of the initial report - and the concealment of evidence from Reno by the FBI lead to a reform at FBI by Freeh, who Clinton would later appoint as director.

The legal trail that Danforth pursued in his investigation is here.

Find law on the Waco stand off.

Bottom lines:

Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it. While observers from Delta Force were present, no elements of the First Cavalry were in operational control. The events of April 19th, 1993 were based on ineptitude of a number of FBI tactical agents, who repeatedly used ham-handed negotiating techniques, and possibly, a desire for glory hunting by those leading the siege. Many of the people involved in Waco were involved in previous questionable actions, including one sniper who was involved with Ruby Ridge in 1992, and who may have fired sniper rounds during the siege.

The record of Waco stands in stark contrast to the documented style of negotiations during Dayton and during Kosovo - clearly these operations were not conducted by the same people. Wes Clark has been adamant on a number of occasions that military hardware and personnel should not be used in law enforcement situations, they are too blunt an instrument. Waco stands in sharp contrast to the tactical doctrine of using minimum force that he taught prior to being a commander at Ft. Hood, and which he espoused afterwards as Southern Commander and then SACEUR


Wesley Clark: The Butcher of Waco 17.Jan.2004 11:49


Summary of Wesley Clark's role in the massacre at Waco.

The School of the America's Watch on Wesley Clark 20.Jan.2004 16:51


General Wesley Clark on Defensive on School of the Americas (SOA/WHISC), Once Under His Command

Clark "Proud" of SOA/WHISC, Downplays Atrocities

From June 1996 to July 1997, General Clark served as Commander of the US Southern Command, where he was responsible for US military activities concerning Latin America, including the School of the Americas (SOA), now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). On Sept. 20, 1996, Pentagon officials admitted that SOA manuals used from 1982 to 1991 advocated the use of torture, extortion, and extrajudical executions against dissidents in Latin America. The New York Times wrote "an institution so clearly out of tune with American values should be shut down without further delay."

On December 16, 1996, a few months after the Pentagon admission of the torture manuals, Clark visited the SOA, not to demand accountability but to give a commencement speech at an SOA graduation ceremony. Six years later and still, no one has been held accountable for the use of the torture manuals at the SOA. The SOA trained death squad leaders, assassins and military dictators. Its graduates were found responsible for some of the worst human rights atrocities in Latin America, including the El Mozote massacre of more than 900 civilians in El Salvador in 1980, the murder of Guatemalan Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998 and of Colombian Archbishop Isa燰s Duarte in 2002.

At almost every campaign stop, Gen. Clark is facing critical questions concerning his connection to the SOA and his continued unpopular support of the school. Asked about his continued support of the SOA during an event in Manchester, NH, on Dec. 19, 2003, Clark responded, " I'm not going to have been in charge of a school that I can't be proud of." In reaction to a question asked in Concord, NH, about the torture manuals Clark stated: "We're teaching police procedures and human rights . . . [We've] never taught torture." Despite cosmetic changes, the SOA remains a combat training school that teaches Latin American soldiers commando tactics, psychological operations, sniper and other military skills. Its graduates continue to be linked to massacres and other crimes. A few examples:

In April 2002, the Venezuelan Army Commander-in-Chief Efrain Vasquez and General Ramirez Poveda -- both graduates of the SOA -- were key players in an attempted coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan government. In total, the school has produced at least eleven military dictators.

In October 2003 it became public through documents released by the Mexican Secretary of Defense that SOA-trained ex-soldiers are now working as highly trained hired assassins for the Gulf Drug Cartel. SOA graduates comprise over a third of 31 renegade soldiers who were previously part of an elite counter-drug division of the Mexican Army.

In December 2003, the Colombian prosecutor general's office ordered the dismissal of SOA graduate Oscar Eduardo Saavedra Calixto for failing to prevent a 2001 massacre of 27 civilians in the village of Chengue. human rights Reports consistently cite SOA-trained Colombian officers for collaboration with paramilitaries.

In 2001 the SOA changed its name at a time when SOA opponents were poised to win a congressional vote that would have closed the school. The vote lost by 204-214 and even though the school renamed, Amnesty International joins other human rights groups in calling for its closure. A broad movement of human rights groups, churches and temples, students, veterans and others maintain that the underlying purpose of the school remains the same: to control the economic and political systems of Latin America by aiding and influencing Latin American militaries. New legislation to close the school was introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) and has been co-sponsored by 102 Members of Congress. Opponents of the SOA/WHISC are preparing for a large-scale Lobby Day in DC on March 30th. 28 people are scheduled for trial on Jan. 26, facing 6 months for civil disobedience when 10,000 people demonstrated at Ft. Benning, home of the SOA.

Wesley Clark: Supporter of Torture School, Spy Software, PATRIOT Act 21.Jan.2004 10:52

James Ridgeway, The Village Voice

Wesley Clark Remains Cagey on the Stump
The General's Stance on Lobbyists, Military School, Patriot Act
January 18th, 2004 11:30 AM

PEMBROKE, NW HAMPSHIREDespite a rousing campaign rally led by Michael Moore, Wesley Clark himself remains a bundle of questions. His standard stump speech is a motonous recitation of how he went to church as a kid, became patriotic when he saw Kruschev thumping the table and threatening the U.S., and so on. Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, thinks Clark can produce the same kind of enthusiastic support the Green Party candidate drew at rallies across the country four years ago, only more so. He pictures the race ultimately as a campaign between the General and the Deserter, i.e. Clark vs. George Bush. When Clark himself was asked on Saturday whether he thought the president was a deserter, he replied that he had heard these charges, but that Bush had not been prosecuted, and anyhow that was then and this is now.

Meanwhile, questions about Clark's past continue to dog the former NATO commander. For one thing, he has strongly supported the School of Americas, a U.S. military training school that taught scores of Latin American army officers the techniques of modern warfare, includingaccording to a declassified Pentagon reportoff-the-books skills like execution, torture, and kidnapping. Among its most notable graduates was former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Clark never ran the school, which turns out about 1,000 officers a year, but worked with it when he headed the U.S. Southern Command.

In his campaign appearances, Clark defends the school, which has been closed and reconstituted as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. When a woman at a retirement home earlier this week pointed out to Clark that the school's graduates had been accused of murder, The Boston Globe reports, the general riposted: "There's been a lot of rotten people who've gone to a lot of rotten schools in the history of the world. And a lot of them went to this school. But a lot of them have gone to Harvard Business School and a lot of other places."

Clark's role as a lobbyist for a company seeking a War on Terror contract with the Department of Homeland Security continues to raise questions. Records show that Acxiom, a company that was seeking homeland security contracts, agreed to pay Clark hundreds of thousands of dollars for his help in persuading the government to buy the company's wares. Clark was a registered lobbyist while he served as a military analyst on CNN, and was still a lobbyist when he declared his candidacy on September 17, 2003.

After he quit the military (or was sackedno one seems to agree on what actually happened), Clark worked as a consultant for Stephens, Inc., an Arkansas investment firm. Then he thought about running for governor of Arkansas, then for Tim Hutchinson's Senate seat, and finally for president.

Federal disclosure records show that Clark lobbied directly on "information transfers, airline security, and homeland security issues" for Acxiom. The company was pushing the by now notorious CAPPS II, a creepy program designed to profile all airline passengers. Clark, who reportedly got $800,000 in fees for his work, lobbied the Justice Department, CIA, and Department of Transportation. According to The Arkansas Democrat Gazette, he met personally with Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Washington Post reported in January 2002 that Clark attended a meeting at the Department of Transportation, at which he described "a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger" to detect "subtle signs of terrorist intentions."

On the stump, Clark is cagey when answering questions on the Patriot Act, saying he opposed the Justice Department proposal of a wider, more invasive act. But he often notes that the sunset provisions are necessary. As for Patriot Act 1, now in force, he will only say it needs reviewing.

The Progressive on the war crimes of Wesley Clark 22.Jan.2004 11:12

Matthew Rothschild, "The Progressive"

January 19, 2004

Michael Moore, McGovern Surrender to Clark

In a sign of abject and anyone-but-Bush desperation, leftie filmmaker Michael Moore and George McGovern, the dove of the Democrats in 1972, have both come out for General Wesley Clark.

Moore, in a January 14 posting on his website, wrote, "I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country. And he will cream George Bush."

Why Moore thinks Clark will get the United States out of Iraq and end that war is beyond me. I've listened to Clark in almost every debate, and he has no plan for ending the war. Unlike Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, he is against pulling the troops out. He tends to say much the same thing as Howard Dean or John Kerry or John Edwards or Dick Gephardt: internationalize the effort, get the U.N. more involved, and bring more troops in from other countries. Clark wants to hand over much of the task to NATO, which has long outlived its original mission and is now, essentially, a U.S. interventionary force around the world. That's fine for Clark. But should that be fine for Michael Moore and George McGovern?

Moore claims that Clark "will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of Third World countries." How is he going to do that? In the debates, Clark is one of the more avidly pro-free trade among all the Democrats, perhaps second only to Joe Lieberman (the sole Democrat Moore says he would not back). Unlike Gephardt or Dennis Kucinich, Clark is not for abandoning NAFTA or the FTAA or the China deal. He utters the obligatory phrases about protecting jobs and the environment, but he doesn't back that up with anything. And sometimes, he is just plain pro-business.

"I think that American business is the source of jobs and opportunity in this country," Clark said in the September 25th debate. "We need to look very carefully at how we create positive incentives for business."

Clark has come out with a relatively progressive tax proposal, and he now parrots the Democratic line on abortion, affirmative action (to his credit, he filed an amicus brief in support of the Michigan case, Moore notes), education, health care, and the environment. But here is a guy who voted for Nixon and Reagan and praised George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney early in the Administration.

Moore deflects this by saying Clark is "the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side." But Moore refuses to acknowledge another way to win, and that is by turning out new voters: progressive young people, poor and working class people who don't believe either party delivers for them, and an increased percentage of the black and Latino vote. Instead, Moore focuses on what he calls "the fence sitters."

Like Moore, McGovern has one overwhelming concern. "I wanted to figure out which of these Democrats has the best chance of defeating Bush. [Clark] is the one," he said on Sunday in New Hampshire, according to The New York Times.

But both Moore and McGovern, who are known as peaceniks, need to explain a few things.

First, there's the war in Yugoslavia. As Supreme Commander of NATO during the Kosovo war, Clark was ultimately responsible for targeting the bridges and electrical grids of Yugoslavia and for using cluster bombs and depleted uranium. (I asked him at a press conference in Madison, Wisconsin, this fall about depleted uranium. He said: "There is no indication it causes any trouble," except perhaps if you put something in your mouth that is covered with it.). During the Kosovo war, Clark also repeatedly targeted Yugoslavia's TV headquarters, killing twenty people there.

"At least 1,200 civilians have died in NATO accidents," Steven Erlanger of The New York Times reported at the end of the war.

On May 27, 1999, The Wall Street Journal ran an article that said: "On the sensitive topic of civilian casualties, Gen. Clark emphasized that no air war was perfect and that, to prevail, the (NATO) ambassadors should brace themselves for more collateral damage."

During the war, Clark also fobbed off the problems facing the hundreds of thousands of refugees in Kosovo whom the Serbs predictably forced out after NATO started the bombing. Refusing to drop relief supplies to the refugees, Clark said, "Our view on this is that, frankly, this is a problem that's caused by President Milosevic. He needs to address this problem."

Second, there is Clark's support for the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, which has trained some of the most notorious human rights abusers in the hemisphere. On the campaign trail, as Joanna Weiss of the Boston Globe noted on January 17, Clark "vigorously defends" the School of the Americas, which now goes by the name of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. Weiss also found a quote from Clark's 1997 testimony before the Senate Armed Services on the School of the Americas: "This school is the best means available to ensure that the armed forces in Latin America and the armies in Latin America understand U.S. values and adopt those values as their own."

Clark gave a graduation speech at the school in 1996, Weiss added. I found a copy of that speech on the web. "I have met School of the Americas' graduates who are aides to the highest military leaders, and I have met School of the Americas' graduates who are highest military leaders," Clark said. "I think you know in your command structures who the School of the Americas' graduates are, and you know that they are respected."

Many progressives are going to find Clark's support for the School of the Americas very difficult to swallow, just as they are troubled by his past support for Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush team.

But it is the inexorable logic of the anybody-but-Bush position that even a nominal, newly minted Democrat who favors business and lauds the School of the Americas is acceptable.

For Michael Moore, who endorsed Ralph Nader last time, and for George McGovern, who so courageously opposed the Vietnam War, to enlist behind General Clark now is tantamount to waving a white flag on some basic progressive issues.

-- Matthew Rothschild

More on Clark's support of Republicans 24.Jan.2004 10:38

CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

News - January 23, 2004

In latest debate, stories not fully told

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wesley Clark left a few things out Thursday when he defended his Democratic credentials; namely, the Republicans he's supported for president.

"I voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore," the retired general said in a Democratic presidential debate Thursday, then stopped there. He also has said previously that he voted for Republicans including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush.

Stories not fully told were part of the story of the night.

John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who addressed his days as a protest leader against that war, talked about how "we camped on the Mall underneath the Congress," although accounts of that April 1971 demonstration had him staying in a friend's Georgetown town house while the masses stayed in tents.

Kerry spokesman David DiMartino said Kerry did sleep on the Mall and used the Georgetown house for protest organizing during the day.

Some of the characterizations of legislation were arguable.

Sen. John Edwards, voicing his objections to the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996, said it "took away the power of states ... to be able to do what they chose to do" about gay civil unions." He said, "I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make."

States have that option under the law. The act allows states to refuse to honor same-sex unions performed outside their boundaries, but also lets them legalize the unions if they want. It specifies that such unions would not be recognized by the federal government.

Edwards did, however, acknowledge "I don't claim to be an expert on this."

Kerry flatly accused President Bush of "pushing seniors off of Medicare into HMOs."

The new prescription drug program subsidizes costs for low-income patients and encourages private insurance companies to offer coverage for the elderly willing to opt out of traditional Medicare. Nothing in the law forces seniors off of Medicare.

Kerry's assertion was shorthand for an argument that Medicare could eventually become so expensive under the program that the elderly will be effectively coerced into private plans.

"If a person is hearing this and says, 'I'm going to be forced out, they've been misled," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. "Kerry argues, however, that the nature of the system is such that that's going to be the product. The next president will be well into a second term before we will find an answer."

Overall, said Jamieson, who has been tracking the accuracy of statements made in the campaign, the "claims of the candidates were more precise and the uses of evidence more careful than in past debates."

Howard Dean, as he does routinely, stated that 60 percent of taxpayers only got $304 from Bush's tax cuts. That calculation applies to the lowest earning 60 percent of taxpayers - many of whom pay little or no federal income tax to begin with. Middle income earners, especially those with children, saved substantially more than that from the lowering of income tax rates across the board.

Also in the debate, Clark was asked to account for his assertions earlier in the campaign that he would prevent another terrorist attack from happening like that of Sept. 11, 2001. "I never used the word 'guarantee," he said.

Clark's assurances, however, were close to categorical.

"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark was quoted by the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire earlier this month. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

War Criminal Clark Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia 27.Jan.2004 10:54

Democracy Now!

Time for FACTs, not rumours 02.Feb.2004 14:32


This section is an FAQ devoted to debunking common rumors, myths, and falsehoods about Wes Clark, with clarification on his true character and platform. After all, if there's one thing Deaniacs and Clarksters share in common, it's the frustration whenever their candidate is inaccurately reported in the media.

Many of the following video and audio clips are courtesy of US4Clark.com. Please visit their site and send them some PayPal love if you find them informative. Thanks!

Essential smear rebuttal articles:

Rebuttals to the infamous New Yorker hit piece: Slate: Defending the General | Boyer Plate

"Waiting for the General" by Elizabeth Drew article for the New York Review of Books (a must-read!)


*#1: Was Clark a Republican up until he ran?

No. He voted for Bill Clinton twice and Al Gore in 2000, and even campaigned for Democrats like Max Cleland. However, he has voted for Republican presidents in the past. Part of why this idea has been so widespread is because candidates like Joe Lieberman (he's one to talk), Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards have used it to exploit Clark?s main weakness in the primary race: his short time as an official Democrat. Howard Dean, despite offering Clark a Vice-Presidential spot, came out the week Clark announced and repeatedly called Clark "a Republican until 25 days ago" (which wasn't true, as is explained below), and Joe Lieberman called him a "Democrat of convenience." Clark took it in good humor (.mp4) though, and has refused to attack other Democratic candidates. Instead, he's focused on making his case for why he's the best candidate to beat Bush.

Clark was grateful for the chance Brian Williams gave him to clarify his affiliation at Clark's first presidential debate, saying: ?I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro- environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat."

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Clark said:
?When it came time for me to choose a political party, I looked at my beliefs: I?m pro-choice, because I believe a woman should have the right to choose and be in control of her own body. I?m pro-affirmative action, because I feel we did a great job of it in the Army. I?m pro-environment, I?m pro-education, and I?m pro-health. So it occurred to me that I was either going to be a very lonely Republican, or a very happy Democrat. And I am a very happy Democrat.?

Claims that Clark is a Republican are primarily based on two things: his voting record fifteen years ago (he voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I), and a speech he gave at a Republican fundraiser, where he praised George W. Bush and other administration officials. When this is examined more closely however, the Democratic choice in '72 was George McGovern, who was the preferred candidate of many who felt an antipathy toward Vietnam and against the soldiers sent to fight. Is it really reasonable to expect Clark, a soldier who wasn?t allowed to be openly partisan, to vote for someone that openly disapproved of the war Clark took four bullets in? In Clark's own words: "When I came back from Vietnam, I saw war protestors pouring blood on the Capitol steps. It was clear these people weren't going to vote Republican, and I wasn't going to vote with them." Clark continued to vote for candidates who made a strong military a top priority until Bill Clinton in 1992.

Clark has been increasingly outspoken out against irresponsible Republican policies such as tax cuts for the wealthy, pre-emptive warfare, and Bush's opposition to the University of Michigan's affirmative action admissions policy. It should also be noted that the speaking engagement Clark was originally invited to wasn't a fundraiser, but Clark was unable to attend initially due to a scheduling conflict. Clark was also reported in Newsweek as saying he told two Colorado Republicans he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his calls. Despite Clark's clarification that it was a "humorous tweak" and the lack of any calls in the White House records, it has been interpreted as the truth by those eager to inflate any evidence that Clark might be a Democrat in name only.

Little known fact: Only 3% of Arkansans are registered partisans. The state law allows residents to vote in primaries and elections without having ot register with any party, so any claims that Clark was a registered Republican are false. To prove his full devotion to the party, Clark took the time to register as a Democrat in Arkansas.

Although there is no evidence of Clark reversing his original views to suddenly hold progressive values (his peers in the military have described him as left-leaning, not a "yes man," and an "outside the box" thinker), Howard Dean, Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry, and John Edwards have still questioned Clark?s loyalty to the party (Dick Gephardt simply called him a "flavor of the month" candidate). This shallow criticism does nothing to help the already-poor image the Democratic Party has of disliking the military and being weak on defense, and it continues the notion of the "circular firing squad."

So to compare the facts, on the "Clark is a Republican" side we have:

  • Voted for Republican Presidential candidates (Nixon, Reagan x2, Bush I)
  • Said we need Bush and his cabinet in office because "we've got a lot of tough decisions ahead" in a "Lincoln Day speech" (10:03) before 9/11 and praised Bush's team (which included Colin Powell, and Clark's colleagues Rumsfeld and Cheney), who were widely respected at the time (more)
  • Donated to Republicans
  • Said "he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his calls"
  • Wasn?t a registered Democrat until recently


  • Voted for Democratic Presidential candidates (Clinton x2, Gore)
  • Arkansas voters aren't required to register for a political party in order to vote/Clark is now a registered Democrat (and a member of progressive think tanks)
  • Spoke (and continues to speak) glowingly of Democrats
  • Republican event wasn't the original venue for his speech/attended (and attends) Democratic fundraisers (where he praises the party)
  • Donated to and campaigned for Democrats (such as Max Cleland in Georgia)
  • Declined an offer by Arkansan Republicans to run for the House
  • Continues to gain support from Democrats (To the disappointment of his opponents)
  • Called the Rove comment a "humorous tweak"
  • Search of White House phone logs showed no record of any calls made by Clark to Karl Rove

There?s a not-so-subtle fact that seems to be escaping Dean, Edwards, Lieberman, and Kerry: Clark is a proud Democrat at best and nonpartisan at worst. His core views haven?t changed and his actions and statements on record have been increasingly progressive as Clark became more disenchanted with the Republican Party. More seriously, the more people harp on this issue, the more it shows the Democratic Party can?t evolve beyond a circular firing squad. And strangely enough, Clark seems to have an uncanny knack for voting with the majority of the country in every election he's voted in. To quote Clark: "you're gonna get a lot of people like me" and it's up to the Democrats to prove that they are a party that will welcome those who are frustrated with the current Republican leadership with open arms--by doing so, we will win this election and our country back.

For an audio clip of Michael Moore's thoughts on Clark's voting record, click here (courtesy of US4Clark.com)

For a short video of Clark talking about what he thinks the Democratic Party needs, click here (.mp4).

*#2: What's Clark's war stance? How does it compare to Dean's?

The Clark04.com FAQ

Mark Fiore Cartoon: Dissent Exposed! (Clark: Iraq could become more open to fundamentalists if we attack)

Clark fundamentally opposes pre-emptive warfare in the case of non-imminent threats. He opposed the invasion of Iraq because he didn't feel the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's possible WMDs was solid enough to justify diverting resources from Afghanistan before Bin Laden was captured and the Taliban. He would have supported a resolution that would have taken the case of Iraq's WMDs to the United Nations, but would not have supported a resolution that took us to war. When an invasion was clearly the Bush agenda, Clark called for as much international legitimacy and be as broad a multinational coalition as possible for the operation. He wrote articles, books, and testified with a handful of other Generals before the Senate and House (on 9/26/2002) Armed Services committees to warn against using force with diplomatic options remaining and with the war in Afghanistan still unfinished.

PRO-War? The illusion of Clark being "pro-war" began over a gaffe he made in a small group interview on a plane with several reporters the first week of his campaign. During what he thought was an informal chat (13:47) about the philosophy of pre-emption, Clark said that "on balance," he "probably" would have voted for the resolution that gave Bush the opportunity to go to war. However, after saying that, he also explained why he would could also see himself voting against it (reason being that he would have voted for a resolution to take the case to the United Nations, but not to war). This pseudo-ambivalence was construed as a "flip-flop," and Clark said that not shortening his answer was a "true gaffe," but has repeatedly pointed out his undoubted cricitism of the Iraq war. It is unfortunate that the false notion of Clark supporting the war has been said for political gain by candidates like Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman (see below and #11).

Advising Swett. Another area of criticism cited by those who accuse Clark of supporting the war was that Clark advised House candidate Katrina Swett that voting for the resolution could be used ?as a means of reinforcing the current weapons inspections? and as leverage for America to take its case to the United Nations. Although this is the defense of candidates like John Kerry, Clark doubted Saddam Hussein had significant weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat warranting an invasion and occupation. Of all the Presidential candidates, it could be said that Clark's war stance was the most similar to Bob Graham's, who voted against the war (and of course, is no longer running now). It is important to consider that Swett, who lost, now works for the campaign of Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.

Reporting vs. supporting. When Hussein had been successfully ousted (well before his capture), Clark was a writer for the London Times. He wrote an article praising the skill and speed involved in the operation's success. He was later attacked for inconsistency, but he feels once Americans commit troops, "they should fight to win," and that he will praise "The English, the French, even Republicans" if they do something right. He also praised the capture of Saddam Hussein, but stands by his arguments that the war was unnecessary and hurtful to the true War on Terrorism.

Democrat Attacks. Despite Clark's clear record on opposing the invasion of Iraq, candidates like Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman pounced on Clark's opening week gaffe. "Wes Clark has six different stances for the war," said Lieberman in a Democratic debate. Dean went on television shows repeatedly said Clark supported the war. He continues to call himself "the only candidate who opposed the war." When Bob Graham first corrected Dean on this way back when, Dean's response was that he was the only "major" candidate who opposed the war. After Graham dropped out, Dean continued to use this claim, even as recently as December 2003, to the anger of many supporters of pacifist candidate Dennis Kucinich. Even though Kucinich might not be considered a "major" candidate, Clark certainly is.

Howard Dean felt Saddam should be disarmed, multilaterally if we can, unilaterally if we must. He was not "anti-invasion," unlike Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, Carol Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton, and Wes Clark. Here is what Dean's position on the war was before we invaded:

"as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." Salon.com (free day pass registration required)

As for trusting Bush's judgment:

Like Clark, Dean also felt that the President could be trusted to tell the truth on WMD claims, saying "I think we have to trust the President to tell the truth on this," and believed that the President's judgment on the threat of WMDs warranted an invasion, multilaterally if possible, but unilaterally if we must.

Unlike Clark, Dean supported the Biden-Lugar amendment to the congressional resolution, which was not likely to stop Bush from going to war, according to a comparison by the Congressional research service (you can download the .pdf here). It is now widely believed that with Bush being hellbent on invading Iraq that anything short of a formal vote for Congress to declare war might not have been strong enough to prevent a pre-emptive strike.

So to summarize, Dean first believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that were a threat to national security. He then called for:

  • Another hoop for Bush to jump through on his rush to war (via Biden-Lugar)
  • Giving Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm (as of Feb. 6th, 2003) before resorting to military action
  • A unilateral invasion "if the UN chooses not to enforce its own security resolutions"

He proposed no alternative coalition (NATO or otherwise), and felt pre-emptive warfare was justified if the UN wouldn't get involved.

The UN weapons inspections process hadn't completed before the United States invaded Iraq, but this is an important distinction to make between Dean's stance to antiwar candidates like Dennis Kucinich, former candidate Bob Graham, and Wesley Clark--who opposed the invasion of Iraq at all costs (in the case of Kucinich and Graham, they voted against it--Clark testified against it). To conclude, Dean's stance on this critical issue is far from solid, and this is one of the many reasons opponents of the Iraq war have switched to Clark--because he is the leading candidate who consistently opposed the invasion and the notion of-pre-emptive warfare.

Whether or not the Iraq war should be a litmus test for the Democratic nominee is subjective, and also a question of strategy in the primary election vs. the general election. In recent polls, a majority of Americans do not care if the nominee was against the war from the start and a small majority support the invasion's link to the war on terror--although the approval ratings go down on the question of whether or not the war was worth the costs. It is clear that unlike the primaries, the general election will be about getting results, not proving ideological purity. Clark is another candidate who isn't pinned down by his vote, but this opening-week slip-up undoubtedly cost him in terms of crossover anti-invasion supporters who aren't familiar with all the actions he took to persuade the administration not to invade. Like Dean, Clark never had to vote for the resolution, so the full range of his actions and words must be compared for voters to make their final judgment. The record shows that Clark completely rejected the possibility of a unilateral invasion for what he didn't think was an imminent threat.

Clark Essentials on his war stance:

Clark Myths.com Debunk: A pack of beltway reporters announced that General Clark had "flip flopped" on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Digby sets the record straight.

Ian Masters Interview with Elizabeth Drew on the Media Smear Campaign Against Clark 11/02/03 Audio Clip. Renowned journalist Elizabeth Drew explains the smear campaign against Clark, the difference between military reporters and civilian journalists, how Clark was misreported as being "for the war," and theorizes about Clark's chances after seeing him in action.

Judy Woodruff Interview with Elizabeth Drew Drew defends Clark on CNN. It's just too bad she had to do all the reporting that everyone else passed on.

John Kerry: "Al Gore Backed the 'Wrong' Howard Dean"

*#3: How much political experience does Clark have?

Maybe Tom Harkin said it best: "To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office."

NATO. Saying Clark lacks the experience to be president not only overlooks the variety of roles and responsibilities Clark had in his extensive military service (34 years of service, from front-line grunt to 4-star and SACEUR), but the breadth of the military?s capabilities (including a judicial system, health care provider, and its educational facilities). Clark addressed this myth in a Newsweek article before he announced his candidacy.

?It would depend on how you define political experience. My political experience is in dealing with governments. I dealt with 19 governments in NATO and 20-odd governments that were part of NATO?s Partnership for Peace. I worked with ambassadors and ministers of foreign affairs and ministers of defense and, in some cases, heads of state, in Latin America and Europe and parts of Africa. I dealt extensively with the U.S. Congress, as well as, in some cases, local authorities here and in Europe.?

OMB and more. In addition, Clark was a White House fellow in the Ford Administration's Office of Management and Budget. After returning to civilian life, he lobbied for several companies in Washington, including Axcion and Stephens Corp, but left those positions to become an investment banker. Click here for more on Clark's post-military career (from the CCN).

Investment banker, WaveCrest Chairman. Clark has been an admirer of George Soros for years, and wanted to pursue the same course of investing in budding foreign democracies with his earnings from the stock market. Before he was drafted, Clark had made over two million dollars as an investment banker, and provided scholarships for college-bound students who demonstrated leadership in their academic pursuits. In short, he has been successful in the private sector (knows how to balance a budget, provide health care, and run a business), and passed up defense contracting consultant jobs to further technology for hydrogen-fueled vehicles and personal electric generators as a chairman for WaveCrest Laboratories.

The Bush Comparison. As Bush has shown for the past three years, a disciplined President provided with a good (well, relatively capable at least) staff of advisors can somewhat manage the job. Even the staunchest of Bush fans will find it hard to deny that Clark is more capable than he was, and has a more aggressive plan to jumpstart our economy and protect America than Bush did during his term until 9/11. As we are all seeing now, Clark is very adaptable, and a strikingly quick learner. As the recent GQ article says: "Even if he's never played the game before, he's never a beginner at anything."

John in Houston from the CCN has more:

"1. What elected offices has Clark held?
His background is that of a 34 year career military officer, in which he rose to the very highest levels of leadership and responsibility by meeting and exceeding performance review standards all along the way. So, although he did not reach any rank by election, he advanced to every one through a thoroughgoing process of review and recommendation. And as an officer he was held accountable for his every decision to a degree surpassing the accountability to which any elected offical is subject, and he obviously was held responsible for decisions involving life and death. So, while he has not held any elected office, he actually accomplished something which was even better. His entire military record is open for inspection.

2. What experience does he have in negotiating?
This happens to be one of the great strengths of his background, training, and experience. General Clark led the military negotiations that led to the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, ending the conflict in Bosnia-Herzogovina as assistant to Richard Holbrooke. His duties as Supreme Allied Commander Europe involved high-level diplomacy on a daily basis as he coordinated the efforts of 19 NATO nations in successfully halting the "ethnic cleansing" which threatened 1.5 Kosovar Albanians. During this period, Wes Clark routinely dealt with prime ministers and foreign ministers as well as military commanders and had "head of state status." Read Waging Modern Wars for details. In 2001 he became the first soldier to win the Jit Trainor Award for Distinction in the Conduct of Diplomacy from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service.

3. What executive experience does he have as a civilian?
After retiring from military service in 2000, Clark became a licensed investment banker working for the Stephens Inc. He became Managing Director Merchant Banking in March of 2001, a post he held until resigning in February 2003. Clark is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm, and serves on the Board of Directors of Messer-Griesheim, Acxiom Corporation and SIRVA Corporation. He is also Chairman of the Board of WaveCrest Laboratories.

4. What longstanding alliances will help him wring legislative victories out of a Republican-controlled Congress?
Wes Clark has longstanding friendships and respectful working relationships with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. That ability to work in a bipartisan manner was in fact a necessity in his position in the Pentagon. The Congress was controlled by Republicans during the Balkan Campaigns. Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and Wes Clark working together managed to bring a victory for the United States and for NATO with zero combat casualties.

5. What experience does he have in balancing a budget?
From 1975-76 Wes Clark was White House Fellow in the Office of the Director of Management and Budget. He has a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics from Oxford University and taught Economics as Instructor and later Assistant Professor of Social Science at West Point.

6. What domestic policy successes has he been responsible for?
The U.S. military has in the last century in many ways become a more progressive "society" than the civilian society. In his command experience, Wes Clark was responsible for developing and carrying out policies that directly affected all the military families in his region, policies which were in every sense domestic policies. The policies involved education, child care, women's rights, etc. For example, Wes Clark was responsible for schools across Europe with some 40,000 students. That would be the equivalent being the superintendent o of a very large school district in the States. And he was not only superintendent but also teacher, being responsible for developing curricula that would help officers train poorly-educated all-volunteer recruits and mold them into efficient fighting units."

Dave Cullen, a freelance writer and a fan of Clark and Dean, writes about the military microcosm in his blog here. (He has not endorsed Clark over Dean)

Great NH radio interview on the economy

*#4: Was Clark fired by Bill Clinton? ("Does he have 'character and integrity issues?'")

In short, no--after Clark stopped the ethnic cleansing of 1.5 million Albanians without the loss of a single NATO life in combat, Clinton awarded him the highest civilian honor: The Presidential Medal of Freedom. Clark's character was sniped his first week as a candidate by the smear of General Hugh Shelton, and despite having won the Kosovo war, he was asked to retire early to allow for Joseph Ralston to replace him as Saceur of NATO. His character and competence have been thoroughly debunked on Cat M.'s Salon.com blog Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic, under the section In Defense of Clark (scroll down). Reporter Elizabeth Drew has also written an excellent piece on the smear campaign against Clark in her article "Waiting for the General" for the New York Review of Books (she also defended Clark in an Interview with Ian Masters and on CNN with Judy Woodruff (courtesy of US4Clark.com).

Here's an excerpt from Cat's blog:

"Allegation #2: Clark was fired.

It appears true that Clark did not mesh well with the brass over at the Pentagon, particularly Defense Secretary Cohen. The New York Times addresses this today, quoting a book by David Halberstam. Halberstam alleges that the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Clinton they needed to find a position for Joe Ralston, an Air Force general and close associate to Cohen, who had been denied an earlier promotion to the Joint Chiefs for committing adultery. According to the article, these members falsely told Clinton that Clark's NATO assignment was already up and promoted Ralston as a replacement. Halberstam says "Clinton signed on, apparently not realizing that he had been snookered." Thus, Clark was 'retired' prior to the end of his stint as NATO commander.
Clark wrote in his own account of the incident that Clinton later told him he had "nothing to do with it." Given the recent comments Clinton has made about Clark and that he subsequently awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom--the highest civilian honor--it seems unlikely Clinton held Clark in poor regard.
Clark's difficulties with the Joint Chiefs and senior Pentagon officials are well-known. The Washington Post discusses them in a September 17 article. Ret. General Barry McCaffrey attributes the tension to the fact that Clark ?...was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good ol? boys.? Yet McCaffrey has high praise for Clark, stating "He is probably among the top five most talented I?ve met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country.?
In the same article, Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor says ?There is this aspect of his character ? he is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent.? As for his peers, it?s a function of jealousy and envy, and it?s a case of misunderstanding. General Clark is an intense person, he?s passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country.? It is telling to note that Clark's naysayers in this article remained anonymous."

Generals Norman Schwartzkopf and Tommy Franks have also parroted the Shelton smear, but neither worked with Clark or knew him personally.

Three more facts to consider:

1. General Hugh Shelton, who said Clark was fired "on matters of character and integrity" once Clark announced his candidacy, is an advisor for Presidential candidate John Edwards.

2. Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, spoke glowingly about Clark at Clark's retirement speech on May 2, 2000: "General Clark, thank you for your service in a most noble cause, and thank you for your courage, your character and your commitment, which has greatened the hearts of American people and the people of Europe. We are truly indebted to you, forever in your debt."

3. The other military officers who have praised Clark's judgment. Here is an excerpt from the Ian Masters Interview with Elizabeth Drew:

Drew: "I was talking to Michael Gordon who?s a very able, very tough military reporter there at the NY Times and by the way, he wrote a piece in September saying that Clark?s judgment during the Kosovo war, which Gordon covered, was very sound. And I called him up to talk about some of these issues and he said ?you know, I know what happened to Clark on his seeming to say that he would have voted for the resolution ? he just didn?t understand the difference between dealing with the military reporters [and political reporters]. We military reporters used to have these sort of free-flowing, very candid, policy hypothetical discussions with him and nobody was trying to mousetrap him or think ah-hah ? he said that?. So he got on the plane, it was the second night of his campaign. There were 4 reporters and he got into what he thought was a discussion like that, not realizing the political press?s propensity to jump on any seeming inconsistency. So it?s very interesting. There were 4 reporters, 1 was from the LA Times and she didn?t seem fit to even mention it ? she treated it as a very minor thing, she understood what was going on?.his record is clear."

Clark Myths.com Debunk: For the radical right, there is no bigger boogie man than Bill Clinton. We provide some perspective on President Clinton's relationship with General Clark.

#5: Did Clark almost start WWIII?

Despite what Michael Jackson said--no. Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic has more:

"Allegation #1: Clark nearly started WWIII while serving as NATO commander in Kosovo.

This allegation is based on an account Clark writes about in Waging Modern War. Russian president Boris Yeltsin sent 200 Russian troops unannounced to the Pristina airport during the Kosovo conflict, intending to send thousands more. This move was met with critical response from NATO allies and the Russian press. Secretary William Cohen was quoted as saying it put the entire NATO operation at risk.
According to Associated Press reports, in a congressional hearing on 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.
Anticipating that the Russians would send aircraft, Clark ordered tanks to occupy the Pristina runways and prevent the Russians from landing, which Clark claims was on orders from the Pentagon. The British again opposed him, and Jackson's superior told Clark that Clark's US superiors disavowed the plan. Clark says he was surprised to hear that but when he contacted the officials back at the Pentagon they told him to drop the plan. Instead, he contacted Hungary and other US allies in the region and requested them to deny the Russians the right to use their airspace. The allies complied, and the Russians' plan to carve out a non-NATO sector for themselves in Kosovo was thwarted.

Would Clark's plan to block the airways at Pristina have led to "WWIII"? Only if Yeltsin was incompetent. The tides had already turned for Milosevic, and clearly the US/NATO forces made far more valuable allies to Russia than Serbia.
Perhaps it should be noted that Lt. General Michael Jackson has his own skeletons. In 1972, he was one of three British commanders present when troops opened fire on Irish protestors, killing 13. Blair convened a new tribunal on "Bloody Sunday" in 1998, and the investigation is ongoing. Recently discovered documents written by Jackson are being examined to see whether they constitute a coverup. Perhaps General Jackson's involvement in this disastrous event impacted his perception of the Russian situation, filling him with undue concern that the situation at Pristina could quickly escalate, mirroring the havoc of 'Bloody Sunday.' It is difficult to rationalize why he would have imagined Yeltsin would start WWIII over what was later referred to by NATO, the US, and Russia as a minor issue.
One further comment for critics to consider. If the French had sent 200 troops unannounced to Baghdad Airport with plans to send thousands more during the middle of the Iraq War, what would have been the right thing for [General Tommy] Franks to do about it?"

Clark Myths.com Debunk: Katrina vanden Heuvel said Wesley Clark advocated a dangerous assault on Russian forces who unilaterally occupied the Pristina Airfield just after the conclusion of the Kosovo conflict. Unfortunately, she is missing the context and gets the timeline of the incident wrong. Eric Tam sets the record straight.

#6: Was Clark at Waco?

No. This is another myth debunked thoroughly by Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic and Clark Myths.com.

Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic:

"Allegation #5: Clark was responsible for burning down the Branch Davidian Compound at Waco.

An organization called Counterpunch levies that charge here. By their own admission they have unearthed no evidence. They claim that Clark was commanding the Cavalry Division of the III Corps in Ft. Hood at the time and that Governor Ann Richards met with Clark's assistant commander, who subsequently met with the National Guard.
They quote the government's investigation into the matter regarding two "senior officers" who traveled to DC and met with the Justice Department and the FBI. These men are not named in the report and Counterpunch says they could not unearth their identities, but they arbitrarily assume that one of the men was Clark.
They make this assumption based on the dubious claim that the Waco onslaught, which utilized Division III tanks, resembles Clark's attacks on Milosevic in Kosovo coupled with a quote from one of the officers, who told Reno that if this were a foreign military operation, the focus would be to take out the leader.
Regardless of the fact that the report found no wrongdoing by the US and concluded that the Branch Davidians were responsible for the fire, it is laughable to pin this on Clark merely because an unidentified military officer advocated taking out the leader first. Breaking the chain of command is typical military policy, as witnessed when the US bombed Gaddafhi's palace in Libya under Reagan and during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, when bombs were dropped anywhere Omar, bin Laden or Hussein were believed to be hiding."

Editor's note: Fox News and Newsweek have also parroted this story, with no additional evidence but to say it was previously reported in the Washington Times (quite predictably).

Clark Myths.com Debunk: Accusing General Clark of being involved with the seige at Waco, Texas is a sure fire way to stir up partisan political passions. Closely examining the facts is a sure way to douse them.

#7: Is Clark a War Criminal?

That depends. Was Clark convicted of war crimes? Yes. Then again, so were Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and all the other international leaders who intervened against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. Who raised the charges? Bitter members of Milosevic's regime. Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic has more:

"Allegation #4: Clark was convicted of war crimes.

This is true. Clark, along with former President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana were convicted in absentia in a Belgrade court for war crimes, including the deaths of 546 Yugoslavian soldiers, 504 civilians and 138 Serb policemen and sentenced to twenty years. Warrants have been issued for their arrest should they ever set foot in Belgrade. Milosevic's regime arranged the trial in its last days; the new Yugoslavian government says the verdict is an embarrassment.
This is why the Bush administration and congress strongly oppose making US servicemen, military leaders and civilian leaders subject to international criminal courts. They fear these courts could be used as a political tool instead of a legitimate arbiter of justice. Although the UN has established checks and balances to prevent this, the US is unwilling to take its chances, perhaps because Bush could end up among the indicted."

Clark Myths.com Debunk: Calling General Clark a "war criminal" should be beyond the pale. But if Counterpunch is going to print baseless charges, we take a moment to refute them.

#8: Is Clark friends with Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney?

As a General and White House fellow, Clark worked with many of the ?hawks? currently in the Bush administration. In a Salon.com interview he even went so far as to say: ?I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.? After 9/11, Clark spoke at a Republican fundraiser (which wasn't the original venue he agreed to)

This is scary if you?ve opposed the neocon doctrine of pre-emptive strikes since day one, but there?s hope yet. After that very interview he was sure to note that he disagrees with them on many fundamental issues. This could be a red flag to some, while to others it?s the mature trait of respecting someone you?ve worked with while simultaneously disagreeing with them. The reason for being in the latter camp is due to Clark?s later responses like this:

?[In 1974, when I was a fellow] the reason the White House was [paranoid] was not only because of Watergate but because of the two guys in charge: Donald Rumsfeld, who was Gerald Ford's chief of staff, and Dick Cheney, who was his assistant.

?Today you've got the same people in there running things, trying to close down access to government. Rumsfeld and Cheney are patriotic men, and I know they are doing the best they can. It's just that I disagree with them. I don't believe that government is made better by secrecy and restraint. It's made better by transparency, by being open and honest. If you're right, you're right. If not, you take your licks. (Rolling Stone - October 16, 2003)

Responding to Tom DeLay (R-Tex) claiming that Clark?s criticisms of the Bush administration were politically motivated, the former General gets harsher:

?Wolf, he's got it exactly backward. It's upside down. I am saying what I believe. And I'm being drawn into the political process because of what I believe and what I've said about it. So it's precisely the opposite of a man like Tom DeLay, who is only motivated by politics and says whatever he needs to say to get the political purpose. And so, you know, it couldn't be more diametrically opposed, and I couldn't be more opposed than I am to Tom DeLay. You know Wolf, when our airmen were flying over Kosovo, Tom DeLay led the House Republicans to vote not to support their activities, when American troops were in combat. To me, that's a real indicator of a man who is motivated not by patriotism or support for the troops, but for partisan political purposes.?

Old colleagues? Yes. Current friends? No. And certainly not peas in a pod.

#9: Would a Clark Presidency be Politics-as-Usual or would he fight for Democratic values? (Is he Bush-lite?)

If Clark's platform and campaign are anything to go by, certainly not. No one knows what either man will do once in office, but when you compare Clark?s background:

  • Birth father was a Chicago South Side Democrat (died from a heart attack when Clark was four)/Mother married a Republican Little Rock banker after moving
  • Raised in a working-class neighborhood; worked on stepdad's struggling farm
  • General and Washington outsider, save for his time as a White House fellow in the Ford Adminstration and short time as a lobbyist
  • Jewish roots on his birth father?s side, was discriminated against while growing up (witnessed desegregation in his public school)
  • Raised Baptist, converted to Catholicism
  • Attended West-Point after scoring the highest on an aptitude test (he was discouraged by both of his Senators at first), graduated first in his class
  • Repeatedly espouses liberal views, even when he was in the military
  • Early reaction to 9/11: called for building coalitions to fight terror (source)

to Dean?s background:

  • Grew up in his family?s Park Avenue apartment and house in East Hampton, NY, attended private school
  • Raised Republican and comes from a line of wealthy Republican investment bankers (George W. Bush's grandmother was a bridesmaid at Dean's grandmother's wedding - source)
  • White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
  • Went to Yale on his father?s legacy, earned decent grades, got his first job on Wall Street in his father?s firm after graduating
  • Governed Vermont for five terms as a self-described triangulating moderate
  • Early reaction to 9/11: called for a ?re-evaluation? of some of America's civil liberties after 9/11 (source - he has since changed his mind

it?s hard to argue that Dean is less "Bush-lite? than Clark (and this is even before you compare their positions--see #14).

If anything, Clark's prior nonpartisanship makes it that much easier for him to be "a uniter, not a divider" against Bush. He has made it clear that if people want someone who wants to put a political party before the good of the country, he's not your candidate - bold words for someone in a Democratic primary where angry rhetoric and Republican-bashing seem to be all the rage. Meanwhile, Dean claims to be "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" when his record suggests otherwise.

Myth #10: Is Clark a DNC Pawn so the Democrats can lose and Hillary can run in 2008?

This is a good one--when Clark's not called a Republican in Democrats clothing, he's suddenly a Clinton stooge. Hopefully the Al Gore endorsement will quiet all the rumors that Clark is an insider stooge and force people to see him for who he is: someone concerned about the direction of the country, who answered the grassroots movement of thousands of citizens and served his country by running to fix America's problems in Iraq, and to get health insurance, medical aid, equal rights, and all other domestic concerns to citizens in need.

Here's Clark accepting a Draft Clark plaque from two of his earliest supporters:


Interesting Times has another perspective.

*#11: Will Clark go negative against Dean?

?As long as Clark stays positive, and doesn't attack Dean, I've got no problem with him. But lord help him, if he decides to go negative. I'll be mad as hell, ready to fight against lies and half truths.? ?comment on BFA

I wonder if that person feels the same way about Dean going negative on other candidates. Regardless of that, the answer is "he's said he won't, and he hasn't yet." Before he entered the race he expressed a deep concern for the lack of dialogue and civil discourse in our democracy (see the Bill Maher "Real Time" interview). The most he's done so far is crack a joke when asked by a radio interviewer who would win in a skiing competiton between the nominees. Clark's answer: "Well, I think Howard Dean got more practice than I did. He was skiing while I was in Vietnam." Clark's response was a joke, but it was construed as an attack by the Dean campaign.

Unfortunately, spin and distortion are commonly relied on to attack opponents in political races. This one is no exception. In the case of the Trippi campaign, the following attacks have been leveled at Clark:

The VP Spot. Before Clark announced, he was meeting with all of the candidates and getting their perspectives on the race. He and Dean met several times, and Dean said glowing things about the General, and according to the Washington Post, offered him his Vice-Presidential spot. At the time, the idea of a Dean/Clark ticket was floated repeatedly, and wasn't denied by Dean's campaign. Now that Clark is rapidly becoming the strongest challenger to Dean however, Dean's campaign manager Joe Trippi has come forward to say that the offer never happened, inferring Clark was lying.

"Clark was a Republican until 25 days ago". Debunked in Myth #1 and the facts were clear on this before Clark even announced. Dean ignored them and continued to call Clark "a Republican" as often as he could. Check out Howard Dean TV the week Clark announced, and you'll see he rarely fails to bring up this smear.

"(Clark) supported the war." As if the Republican meme wasn't enough, Dean repeatedly said Clark "supported the war" when asked about Wes by newscasters. Strange, isn't it, that before Clark announced his candidacy, Dean praised Clark's ideas and judgment on this very issue, saying "I think it's great--now I've got a four star general up here saying the same thing I've been saying." There's just one little difference--Clark wouldn't have supported a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein (see above, Myth #2).

Additionally, Dean has been accused of negative campaigning in Iowa in his ads of Dick Gephardt, and has had to apologize for making false statements like he was "the only candidate who talks about race in front of all-white audiences" (Edwards rose a stink about that one). Meanwhile, the only harsh criticism Clark has made is directed at the White House, and he has repeatedly refused to "attack a fellow Democrat," even when repeatedly baited by newscasters looking for a fight. Recently, Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean and asked the other Democrats running not to "speak ill" of Dean or others - quite an odd request considering Howard Dean became the frontrunner by calling Washington politicians "cockroaches" and called any Democrat but him "not a real Democrat" or even "Bush-lite."

The facts:

  • Clark joked that Dean would beat him in a skiing contest, because Dean spent ten months living in Aspen while he was fighting in Vietnam.
  • Clark said Dean offered him the Vice-Presidential spot early on, but Clark declined and ran. When he was asked about a VP spot, he gave his account of the story, saying Dean did in fact give him the spot (as reported in the Washington Post)


  • Dean repeatedly said Clark was a Republican who supported the war right after Clark announced
  • When asked if he offered the Vice-Presidential spot to Clark, the Dean campaign said Clark wasn't telling the truth, (TPM suggests Joe Trippi started this - source)
  • Dean repeatedly claims he is the only candidate who opposed the war on Iraq, in TV ads, interviews, and even campaign literature as recently as December 2003, the only candidate to talk about race in front of all-white crowds

Who's really running a smear campaign?

This is certainly a part of politics (and we can certainly expect it from the Republicans), but lies should be unacceptable at all times--especially if used against members of the same party. If you dislike smear tactics, it's time to look at the campaign strategies of Clark and Dean for what they are.

*#12: How's Clark's fundraising?

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article

Raising enough money this late in the race was (and still is) a big concern for a Clark candidacy, so be sure to keep checking back for updates as Clark continues to outpace his rivals.

One month before he announced, Clark said this:

?I don?t know if it?s too late or not, but I do know this: When people get up and they speak the truth and they speak their mind and they talk about the issues that are of concern to ordinary Americans? I can?t believe that?should I do this?that the money?s the issue. That?s not the issue?The issue really is the issues: what does America stand for? How do we want to behave in the world? What does it take to fulfill America?s dreams at home?? ?Wesley Clark on ?Late Edition? (August 17, 2003)

The Fifteen day Splash. In the third quarter, Clark raised roughly one million dollars in pledge money and another two and a half million in the tail end of the third quarter, putting him behind Howard Dean by a good amount. Despite being a candidate for only fifteen days, and despite being a relative unknown who had never run for office, Clark's first quarter of fundraising was neck and neck with all the other nominees after Howard Dean. (Click here for a good comparison chart on each candidate's 3Q debt, cash on hand, and total amount spent)

Here is a chart for the third quarter individual donors (Q3 only, of which Clark was a candidate for for fifteen days):


Matching the Big Dog. In the fourth quarter (the campaign's first full quarter), the Clark campaign raised over $10 million (we're waiting on the final numbers). He was also the candidate who earned the most public matching funds: $3.7 million. Not too shabby for three and a half months of campaign practice, and especially when the Dean campaign almost a year to raise that much money in a quarter.

Clark's fundraising (at a rate of over $800,000 a week) was helped by Hollywood celebrities like Spielberg and Madonna, benefit shows by groups like The Eagles and John Cougar Mellencamp, and of course a steady rise in individual contributors than any major candidate but Howard Dean. Clark continues to have the least debt out of the leading candidates, a high percentage of cash on hand, and has spend the least amount of money on ads so far--but has announced media blitzes in all the mini-Tuesday states.

The Clark campaign has accepted public financing funds, and is limited in how much it can spend in each primary state. If Clark wins the nomination, he will have the help of outside fundraisers like George Soros, the DNC, and MoveOn.org to propel his race against Bush in the general election, as any other person would if nominated. And we must never forget that no amount of money can buy the experience of someone like Clark, and his list of accomplishments beats that of any other candidate by far on the crucial issue of foreign policy. For information on public financing, visit these sites:

FEC.gov: Federal Election Commission (home page)

FEC.gov: Fundraising

#13: Clark took a while to enter--does he really want to be president? (Is he trying to jump into this because of hidden intentions like expanding the military's control over the government?)

?If I choose to go into this, it won?t be because of any particular view about any of the candidates, it will be because people have asked me to do it, and I consider it an obligation. But you know I?ve weighed that against my loyalty to the military profession?when you?re?in the military and wearing the military uniform you cannot be partisan. But after all, Colin Powell declared he was a Republican, and it does happen?you just need to make it clear.?

Clark?s delay in announcing, combined with quotes like the one above, combined with his lack of longtime Democratic credentials have been taken out of context to make it seem as though Clark was always against the idea of running for President. However, the above quote specifically he doesn?t use the word ?obligation? as if he were taking out the trash, but instead it means he considers the idea yet another way he can answer the call of duty and serve his country, as he did in the military. On one Crossfire appearance, Clark explained how switching to civilian life after so many years in the military complicated the matter:

?I?ve been very happy in the business community. I?ve had a high government job?I?ve had great responsibilities, I was able to deal with the heads of the militaries in Europe, Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs, and occasionally was able to see Heads of State?it was a full life. And so, I really enjoyed being a civilian?and for me, when a group of people come forward and ask you to present yourself for public service, you have to pay attention to that.?

When you combine today?s story-a-day media, the shortening of attention spans from the spreading influence of the Internet, and the nature of politics, the impression of strength has seemingly come to mean someone who makes up their mind immediately, and is very vocal and blunt about their views. But is this really the sign of wisdom, or simple ambition? Again, Clark?s own words will do more justice to defend his prolonged announcement than mine:

?It?s not a matter of being coy, it?s a manner of making a complete career transition. It?s a matter of asking: is this the right thing for my family, is this the best way to make a contribution, is this a serious effort or?is this just an effort to have sort of a beauty contest, and what?s it going to be like and what?s the impact on the Armed Forces, and what?s the impact on the people I work with?in my business community?and so forth. So there are a lot of considerations here. This is not like, I would think, already being in an elective position and saying ?I?ll just take a stab at moving one more step up the career ladder,? this is an entirely different matter. So it?s taken a lot of soul-searching and a lot of praying.?
(Face the Nation ? August 24, 2003)

Hardly the words of some power-hungry general eager to exploit the recent inflated role of the military since the ?war on terror.?

The bigger the decision, the more it reveals your true character, and the careful, educated measures Clark has taken to answer this monumental decision indicates he will be a thoughtful leader who will consider all the facts before making any stand. Most who oppose Bush feel this is exactly what has failed in the current President?s leadership. And regardless of his drawn-out announcement, Clark is solidly in the race, proud to be a Democrat, and eager to take on George W. Bush, as he proudly proclaimed in his announcement speech back in October:

?My name is Wes Clark. I am from Little Rock, Arkansas! And I am running for President of these United States!?

#14: Is Clark too liberal to win?

Along with "is our children learning," this question is rarely asked, it's true that Clark?s platform is very progressive. This is especially surprising for a former General who used to vote for Republican presidents. His domestic platform is as follows:

  • Pro-Choice
  • Pro-Affirmative Action
  • Pro- Health Care (anti-privatization, universal for children up to 22)
  • Pro-Gay Rights/Civil Unions (anti-marriage amendment)
  • Pro-Gun Control (pro-hunting, but anti-assault weapons)
  • Pro-Environmental Standards
  • Pro-Renewable Energy
  • Pro-Education (anti-vouchers, wants large increases in funding)
  • Supports a Progressive Income Tax (by only repealing the top 2% of Bush?s tax cuts, unlike Dean or Gephardt)
  • Opposes the arrests and raids of medical marijuana users

Compare these stances to Howard Dean, the candidate repeatedly described as "too liberal" by the media and his critics, despite an ?A? rating by the NRA (who didn't always oppose the ban on assault weapons), support for the death penalty, and cutting funding for education and the disabled to balance his state?s budget (not all of these are necessarily bad, they're simply not overly liberal). Of course, part of why Dean?s labeled a liberal is because he repeatedly uses the phrase ?I?m from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party? from the late liberal Senator Paul Wellstone (Again, Dean's done some great things, but we make no illusions about his moderate record in Vermont).

As a comment on DU said: ?Clark?s a liberal who sounds like a moderate. Dean?s a moderate who sounds like a liberal.?

So the question is: who will appeal more to voters? Despite the phenomenal success of liberal authors like Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Hillary Clinton, the term ?liberal? has been thoroughly dragged through the mud by conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Is the average voter as repulsed by the term as Coulter? Obviously not, but the Republicans are sure to smear whoever the nominee is with everything they've got. As stated before, much of Clark?s appeal comes from those who define themselves as Independents and moderate Republicans, but this hasn?t seemed to be an obstacle to their support of the general (they could just as easily support the more moderate Dean). Like Dean, Clark frames progressive issues like supporting civil unions and repealing the wealthy tax cuts in a very appealing manner: by enforcing social justice through fair and responsible fiscal principles. With Clark being able to use the military as an example of progressive programs like health care and affirmative action working effectively, he has the unique ability to use the military (a widely-respected institution, and one George W. Bush is sure to exploit) to advocate and explain the value of these issues, which is something no other Democrat can do.

We do know this about Clark, though: he's a fighter, and he doesn't take any challenge lying down. He knows this country is in trouble and he knows he's the only person who can knock down Republican attacks on the patriotism of dissenters and protect the flag and working-class values against the right wing in this next election. But he can't do it without your help.

Clark's main site: http://www.clark04.com On the issues: http://www.clark04.com/issues Meet his supporters: http://www.forclark.com See him speak: http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html Answers to accusations (Read this BEFORE you criticize Clark)

Facts from Liar Wesley Clark? 03.Feb.2004 10:25

more militarism is not the solution

Sorry, not buying it. His record speaks louder than his whitewash.

Wesley Clark: A Republican In Democrat's Clothing, Part 4 05.Feb.2004 10:26

Wall Street Journal Editorial

GOP General Clark
Two years ago, this Democrat sounded like a Republican.

Friday, September 26, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

If you're an active Republican, there's a good chance you've attended a Lincoln Day dinner, a staple on GOP community calendars. So it is in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Pulaski County Republican Party invited hometown hero Wesley Clark to address its members on May 11, 2001. Anyone wondering where the Democratic candidate for President stands on a range of issues is sure to find the speech illuminating.

Lincoln Day dinners are partisan political events, and it was entirely in keeping with the spirit of the evening for the keynote speaker to voice his admiration of Republican leaders. In Mr. Clark's words, Ronald Reagan was "truly a great American leader," who "helped our country win the Cold War." His successor, George Bush, demonstrated "courage" and "vision" in postwar Europe, exercising "tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

The general also sang the praises of the current GOP leadership in Washington: "I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

The speech also provides a look at the general's thinking on the foreign-policy and national-security challenges facing the country. Mr. Clark offered "a small prediction" that by the time his book came out "it may be World War III." He expressed the view that "we're going to be active; we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done."

Mr. Clark was asked about those remarks at yesterday's Democratic debate, and he replied that the country had made "an incredible journey" since September 2001 and that Mr. Bush had "recklessly cut taxes" and "recklessly took us into Iraq." We'd say the retired general has made a rather astonishing journey himself, and the public will have to judge the sincerity of his conversion.

Wesley Clark Speech At A REPUBLICAN Fundraiser 05.Feb.2004 10:30

A. Pellicano

If he acts like a Republican, speaks like a Republican, fundraises for Republicans, chances are prettyt damn good he is a stealth Republican. Follow the link to suffer through his Republican speechifying.