Gen. Wesley Clark: War Criminal for President?

Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Posted: 1:32 PM EDT (1732 GMT)

(CNN) -- Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark will announce his presidential candidacy Wednesday, becoming the 10th Democrat to seek to unseat President Bush in 2004, sources close to the retired general told CNN.

Clark told reporters Tuesday to expect "a marked change" in the Democratic field but would not confirm his decision to run.

However, he said the country is "hungry for dialogue and looking for leadership."

He is expected to launch his candidacy in Little Rock with an announcement at noon (1 p.m. ET) Wednesday, and has assembled a team of campaign operatives that include veterans of the campaigns of former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

An outspoken critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Clark said the country "is in significant difficulty, both at home and abroad."

"I think it needs strong leadership and visionary leadership to take it forward," Clark said after meeting with Democratic officials in his hometown of Little Rock. "So that's what's drawn me to this prospective point right here."

Though other Democratic candidates have had a months-long head start in terms of organization and fund-raising, Clark dismissed concerns that it was too late for him to enter the presidential race.

The 58-year-old Clark is a West Point graduate, Rhodes Scholar and former CNN military analyst who led U.S. and allied forces in the 1999 air war in Kosovo.

He retired from the Army in 2000 after a 34-year career that included combat in Vietnam and leading the military negotiations in the peace talks that ended the war in Bosnia in 1995.

"I've got a broad background of leadership experience -- executive leadership, diplomatic leadership and political leadership -- and I think that's what the American people are looking for at this time," he said.

Clark became NATO's supreme commander in 1997, but reportedly clashed with Pentagon officials during the Kosovo campaign and was relieved of command after the war. Clinton, a fellow Arkansan, said last week that Clark would "serve our country well."

Clark convened a meeting of his political advisers and friends Tuesday in Little Rock to discuss his decision. Among those in attendance were George Bruno, a former Democratic Party chairman in the early primary state of New Hampshire, and former Clinton White House spokesman Mark Fabiani.

In previous interviews, he has said he considered President Bush's tax cuts inefficient and unwise and would consider suspending or rescinding them if elected president.

He said years in the Army had persuaded him to support affirmative action "in principle," although he suggested its benefits could be cut at a certain income level. And he said he would reconsider the Clinton administration's "don't-ask, don't-tell" policy on gays in the armed services, saying he considered it ineffective.

See the comments for Portland Indymedia coverage of WAR CRIMINAL Wesley Clark:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271764.shtml

Michael Moore opens his gushing letter to Wesley Clark by stating,

"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."

Life at the academy awards can indeed be tough, but luckily for our swashbuckling hero he has found a soul mate. Moore goes on, "I sat in Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me". Moore's infatuation for the GENERAL became intensified, " Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out." What did Moore discover? Well, "You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth." OK, let us continue. One reason Moore would have the peace movement support Clark is because he "opposes war".

Let us examine this claim. Clark in "Waging Modern War", writes "in military terms compellence seemed to translate into a certain implicit or explicit bargaining through the graduated use of force, inflicting ever increasing punishment to convince an opponent to change his behaviour. It was to be applicable against the smaller non nuclear states". Clark continues, "many of us in the United States and the Armed Forces had seen early on the fallacies of gradualism. It was clear that the US effort to halt North Vietnamese support of the fighting in South Vietnam (of course, the US mass slaughter in South Vietnam was a non issue for what the besotted one calls "a man of integrity") by 'signalling' US resolve through carefully constrained, politically designed bombing, which avoided decisive military impact, had been a failure" (p5).

For Clark, who Moore informs us "opposes war", this lead to a number of conclusions. "I realized, the force applied must be much greater than we had been willing to commit at the time, must be intensified more rapidly, and must be directed at achieving significant military ends" (p6). Hence for this "man of integrity" who "opposes war" the destruction in Indochina, which led to some 3 million deaths, was not enough. The "force applied" needed to be "much greater" and "intensified more rapidly". Where have we heard that before? Of course, this has been a regular staple of neo-conservative and reactionary thought going way back to the '70s. It goes a long way to explaining the permissive attitude towards the use of military force that the neo-cons have, an attitude shared by our intrepid hero.

However, Clark does not end there. This attitude towards the use of military force has a problem, as Clark notes. "But apparently this was quite difficult, as I reflected on such operations, because modern democracies, the political leaders were usually too hesitant, imposing tough constraints on military actions, and military leaders were not bold enough in pushing for the real military muscle required to achieve significant military objectives. The results, I thought, were extended campaigns that could leave democratic governments vulnerable to the their own public opinion...once fighting had begun, you had to escalate rapidly and achieve "escalation dominance" over an adversary, if you were to succeed".

Interesting thoughts from the "man of integrity" that "opposes war". Notice that for Clark a key reason for the very permissive use of overwhelming military force is the nefarious masses at home, that is the peace movement, which in a democracy may have the tendency to oppose war. Heard this before? Well, this is precisely the line adopted by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz when they ran Bush the Elder's Pentagon. They argued that the US needs to use rapid, decisive military force because it was understood that support for war at home was thin. This naturally lead to what the neo-conservatives call "rapid dominance" or "shock and awe", the military thinking that lied behind the invasion of Iraq.

Like Moore's hero the authors of "shock and awe", observe "the Vietnam War is a grim reminder of the political nature of conflict and how our power was once outflanked." This is their, and Clark's, starting point. They write that, "the key objective of Rapid Dominance is to impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on. In crude terms, Rapid Dominance would seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at tactical and strategic levels." See the difference between "rapid dominance" and Clark's "escalation dominance"? Of course you don't, because the difference is zero.

Indeed one of the reasons that the US must pursue "rapid" or "escalation" dominance the authors of "shock and awe" informs us is, "in assessing the future utility and applicability of Rapid Dominance, it is crucial to consider the political context in which force is likely to be employed. As we enter the next century, the probability is low that an overriding, massive, direct threat posed by a peer-competitor to the U.S. will emerge in the near term. Without compelling reasons, public tolerance toward American sacrifice abroad will remain low and may even decrease. This reluctance on the part of Americans to tolerate pain is directly correlated to perceptions of threat to U.S. interests. Without a clear and present danger, the definition of national interest may remain narrow." The problem is the masses at home, the dastardly peace movement. Furthermore, the authors of "shock and awe" informs us, "Americans have always appreciated rapid and decisive military solutions. But, many challenges or crises in the future are likely to be marginal to U.S. interests and therefore may not be resolvable before American political staying power is exhausted. In this period, political micro-management and fine tuning are likely to be even more prevalent as administrations respond to public sentiments for minimizing casualties and, without a threat or compelling reason, U.S. involvement." The difference with General Clark? Again, zero.

What about the occupation of Iraq? First of all Clark offers an interesting take on the reasons for the invasion. Stating to "Newsmax", "'it was never was WMD or regime change... his theory for the invasion: 'to get American troops on the ground' and illustrate that we as a nation had the fortitutude to hang tough and were willing to do more than fire missiles or drop bombs". In other words to furnish "credibility" behind Clark's own doctrine of "compellence" which rejects "gradualism", such as firing some missiles and dropping some bombs. The invasion is now being justified by the "norm" of "humanitarian intervention", the very "norm" which Clark ushered in through the use of aggressive, illegal, and unjust military force whose main strategic objective was civilian infastructures.

Let us turn to the occupation, the matter that lies before the peace movement. The peace movement has adopted the just position of working to end the occupation of Iraq. What does Michael Moore's hero have to say about that? Well, he has been on the record calling for the sending of more troops to Iraq. In other words Clark's position is that the occupation and aggression against Iraq must be escalated. Hence Michael Moore would have the peace movement, dedicated to ending the unjust occupation of Iraq, with a man who, recall "opposes war" , seeks to escalate the occupation. Clark's comments to "Newsmax" on this score are revealing. He believes there are "three levels" to the occupation, two of which are of direct relevance. "Level one is the guerrilla warfare that continues. We still have a 'fighting chance' to win at this level, he (Clark) opines". "The third level, however, represents the biggest rub. Clark describes the formidable Shia Muslim million-man army, which festers in the wings, 'waiting to see if we can handle the guerrilla war'. Adding to the monumental problem, he (Clark) concludes, are the Kurds in the North who 'haven't given up their ambitions'".

What do these comments from the man of integrity indicate? They show us that for Wesley Clark the people of Iraq are the enemy who "haven't given up their ambitions" and whose resistance to the unjust occupation of Iraq is to be meet by an escalation of the US presence, perhaps through "escalation" and "rapid" dominance which would led to how many horrors nobody can know. Even Rumsfeld opposes the escalation of the occupation.

Now, Clark's comments on the Kurds and their unacceptable ambitions are interesting, given his record. As NATO commander during the Clinton administration, Clark was also the commanding officer of European Command, whose responbilities covered the regular bombing of Northern Iraq. A part of this operation, under Clark's command in this sector, were what was called "TSM inbounds", that is "Turkish Special Missions". US pilots would report the results of these TSM inbounds, targeted against Kurdish villages. The pilots, as 'The Washington Post" informed us, would see "burning villages, lots of smoke and fire". Of course, these Turkish aircraft were NATO aircraft. This is the man, a "man of integrity", who informs us that the Kurds "haven't given up their ambitions". But how can we fault Clark for this, afterall Moore informs us, "You (Clark) respect the views of our allies and want to work with them". True enough in this case.

But this is another issue worth exploring. Moore informs us, "You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community". The "Newsmax" interview with Clark is again revealing. "Clark's swan-song war, was of course, Kosovo...instead he (Clark) says, allies came away from that conflict with the feeling that they were 'never going to let America dictate to us again'. In the end, 'both sides pulled away - setting the scene' for the frustrations to follow in Iraq".

Furthermore, NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia was bitterly condemned by the G77, a group of third world states whose membership exceeds 100. It also did not have the approval of the United Nations. Yet Moore would have us believe that Clark wants to work with the "international community". This statement is true, for him at any rate, only because Moore is accepting a key assumption, to his utter shame; the wogs of the world are not a part of the "international community".

According to Wesley Clark it was an "entirely predictable" consequence of his war that there would be very sharp and severe increase in ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. A remarkable admission, worthy of Rumsfeld. Furthermore, Clark has stated on the BBC "Hard Talk" program that the NATO bombing had "nothing to do with the Albanians", contrary to lies and propaganda worthy of Rumsfeld and the neo-cons, but was "all about NATO". Now this war included acts which even human rights groups consider to be war crimes, such as the bombing of television stations, a feat copied by team Bush. So, Clark engaged in a war which would lead to massive ethnic cleansing, this was "entirely predictable", and what's more had "nothing to do" with the people whose suffering he knew his actions would help cause. This was stated well after the war ended, furthermore at the war's conclusion Clark sought a confrontation with Russian troops, refused by his subordinate British GENERAL on the grounds that he did not want to start World War Three for Wesley Clark. This is Michael Moore's "man of integrity" that "opposes war".

The Moore argument then becomes this; only Wesley Clark, because he is a "GENERAL", can (supposedly) beat Bush therefore he must be supported. In other words the peace movement must vote for a Bush clone because only the Bush clone can beat Bush. People don't realise that he does have a potentially very big Achilles heel, namely the Republicans may start digging into the possible relationship between the Clinton administration and radical Islamist groups in Bosnia and Kosovo, including Al Qaida. So, even the pragmatic argument has no legs.

It will be very interesting to see which sectors of the peace movement will fall behind this shameful policy. For instance Michael Albert of Znet has already called for the support of whoever is the Democratic candidate in marginal areas. If it is the objective of the peace movement to oppose and end the unjust occupation of Iraq, then how can it support a candidate that seeks to escalate the occupation?

As for Michael Moore, sadly infatuation is indeed blind.

The Democrats are looking for the best man or woman to take Bush out. Many think Clark is the person who can best do it. No matter whether it is Kucinich, Clark, Dean, or Kerry they will be answerable to Blacks, unions, teachers, and millions of stirred up Democrats. And yes, none of them will be perfect and they will be influenced by corporations to some extent but those who say there is no difference between what Bush wants and what mainstream Blacks, or union workers or teachers want are smoking some serious shit.

We're not going to stop marching and I know that neither are you. But there comes a time when you have to take direct action. I know you guys have made a fetish of the words, "direct action." However, voting Bush out of office is the only "direct action" likely to end the Bush nightmare. It won't solve the world's problems, but it will give activists a chance to get on the offensive instead of just fighting to stop the latest Bush insanity. It may also be the difference between struggling in the streets and struggling from a jail cell. The next time Al-Qaida strikes in the US, Bush is likely to declare martial law.

Looking for a General that doesn't have some blood on his hands is like looking for a virgin in a whore house.

All the candidates the elite let us choose from.

Or, Vote Green!

Whoever the Democrats put up I will vote for.

I'd rather have Charlie Manson than Bush.

Wesley Clark - will he outflank the field?
Expected entry of former NATO general could challenge Dean, shake up Democrats
By Liz Marlantes | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - The dynamics of the Democratic presidential contest - for months dominated by the surge of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean - may soon take a dramatic twist, with the possible addition of a new candidate.

The expected announcement Wednesday by former Gen. Wesley Clark that he will seek the Democratic nomination would almost certainly scramble the race, at least in the short run.

With just four months to go before Democrats begin heading to the polls, Clark's decision to jump in reflects a growing sense among Democrats that President Bush may indeed be vulnerable in 2004. But it also points to an ongoing concern about the weaknesses of the current Democratic field - a concern that has grown in some Democratic circles as Governor Dean, whose antiwar stance some believe could hurt the party's chances in the general election, has taken the lead.

Certainly, as the 10th candidate in an already crowded field, and a sudden fresh face, General Clark would likely attract an initial burst of energy and attention, stealing the spotlight. Indeed, already, press leaks surrounding Clark's plans overshadowed Sen. John Edwards's official announcement of his candidacy Tuesday.

Still, analysts point out that Clark remains a political novice - and while he may attract media attention, he could have a much harder time building the kind of political organization needed to raise money and perform well in early primary states.

"He will suck a lot of oxygen and [generate] media attention that will be almost Arnold-ian," says independent pollster John Zogby. "The caveat though is ... can he put an organization together in four months? Media attention is wonderful, but those who had lots of media attention in the past, like Jimmy Carter and John McCain, also had organizations in every blue highway in the state."

In some ways, Clark's entry represents a potential threat to almost every candidate in the field. As another Washington outsider who has generated a sizable Internet following, he could block Dean's momentum. Clark also spoke out against the Iraq war, but unlike Dean, the former NATO commander would be hard to attack as weak on defense.

Clark could also hurt Sen. John Kerry, since Kerry would no longer be the sole Vietnam veteran in the field. And as a Southerner, he could draw some support away from Senator Edwards and Florida Sen. Bob Graham.

Significantly, Clark's entry would come at a time when President Bush seems increasingly vulnerable on national security. Polls show the public is growing less comfortable with his handling of Iraq.

Still, it was only a few weeks ago that Clark revealed his party affiliation - and many observers point out that his positions on a range of issues from tax cuts to healthcare are almost completely unknown.

"We don't know enough about him," says GOP strategist Charlie Black. "We know his biography, but we don't know his positions, where he'll be in the spectrum of the Democratic field."

While a Clark candidacy might draw some comparisons to that of Dwight Eisenhower, observers point out that Ike was far more of a national hero - and that the Kosovo campaign, which Clark led, was not exactly World War II.

"Clark has the "general" in front of his name, but he's not a military hero, exactly," says Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Although one recent national poll showed Clark with a relatively strong 10 percent support among Democrats - ahead of several other candidates already in the race - analysts point out that his support in key early primary states remains almost nonexistent.

Still, because of his late entry, Clark may benefit from lower expectations, and may be able to write off a weak performance in Iowa and New Hampshire better than other candidates. If Dean winds up winning in both of those states (he currently leads in New Hampshire and leads or is tied for first in Iowa), Clark may be one of the contenders least damaged by those results, and best able to challenge Dean in the remaining contests.

"This is going to come down to a two-man race, Dean and the anti-Dean," says political analyst Charlie Cook. "Someone has to be the anti-Dean.... [and] Clark because of his late start would at least have an excuse why he might not do well in Iowa and New Hampshire."

• Linda Feldmann and Gail Russell Chaddock contributed.
 http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0917/p02s01-uspo.html

Yup, when even Michael Moore has been bitten by the "We must beat Bush, nothing else matters" bug, it's clearer to me than ever that it's an virulent epidemic, and it's got to be stopped...

Sheesh... about this time Bush, is already beating himself... and even the lap-doggie media polls are saying so...

Maybe it'd be smarter to just kick back and watch his karma catch up with some more, than trying to find an ever larger and blurrier selection of Dems to lob at him in sheer blind desperation?

"leftists, we're taking Bush out, with you or without you"

Yeah, you Demorats are "taking Bush out." That is why you bastards have supported and helped to cover up this Regime's war crimes against Iraq. Notice how the Democrats have dropped the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the lies used by the Cheney /Bush Regime to justify the war?

So much for "taking Bush out."

It ain't Bush that is the enemy. It is the American Reich itself. All the Dems want is to put themselves in power and have control of the Reich all to themselves.

I have searched all over the internet for anything that would support your allegations that Wesley Clark was somehow involved with either of these camps. There is absolutely NOTHING to support it. Why would Clark, an Army man, be in charge of a US Navy camp?

You are correct that some Haitians passing through Krome came down with gyneacomastia, but you should also point out that it spontaneously resolved within weeks.

Where is your evidence that the delousing chemicals used were illegal or unethical in any way? I'm amazed that anyone would publish such an unsubstantiated article and expect to be taken seriously. Perhaps you should provide ways for people to check and verify your sources.

I find it really disgusting to see the types of smears that both the left and right have been making against Gen. Wesley Clark. There is not even a shred of truth in the things being said and those Greens and people of the left who keep posting this garbage do nothing but cause the left to lost credibility.

I will definitely vote for Wesley Clark and have no reservations doing.

I will not under any circumstances vote the Green Party candidate for POTUS in 2004
and if the Green Party helps Bush get elected again I will never give another penny to
any Green Party effort.

I consider myself very liberal and agree with many of the things the Green Party advocates but I will not again waste my vote and help Fuehrer Bush get another 4 years in office.