สูตรเล่นเกมยิงปลา_918Kiss_พนันออนไลน์ เครดิตฟรี_Fishing Master เกมยิงปลาบนมือถือ_สล็อตฟาโร gclub

war crimes and drug money
a Republican pretending to be a Democrat

"he has the perfect resume to continue the job that the Bush gang began, and then botched."
- Beyond Bush II, by Michael Ruppert www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm
The Awful Truth About Wesley Clark

http://prorev.com/clark.htm
The Progressive Review - Wesley Clark archives

Belgrade, 1999
General Wesley Clark's work
www.emperors-clothes.com/1/rem.htm

 

www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

September 18, 2003
Wesley Clark for President?
Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons
By WAYNE MADSEN

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."

 

One of Soros' most influential institutions is the International Crisis Group, founded in 1986. ICG is headed by individuals from the very center of political and corporate power. Its board includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, Morton Abramowitz, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State; Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; and Richard Allen, former U.S. National Security Adviser, Allen is noteworthy for quitting Nixon's National Security Council out of disgust with the liberal tendencies of Henry Kissinger; recruiting Oliver North to Reagan's National Security Council, and negotiating missiles for hostages in the Iran-Contra scandal. For these individuals, "containing conflict" boils down to U.S. control over the people and resources of the world.'
George Soros: Imperial Wizard/Double Agent
by Heather Cottin
December 9, 2003
www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/SorosImperialWizardDoubleAgentByHeatherCottin.htm

 

 

www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/GeorgeSzamuelyOnSorosWorld.htm 
As the following 8/22/00 New York Press article by George Szamuely indicates, General Wesley Clark has apparently also sat on Billionaire Global Speculator George Soros's International Crisis Group think-tank in recent years — Bob Feldman
Soros' World
by George Szamuely
New York Press
8/22/00

Last week 900 NATO troops, under UN auspices, stormed into a smelting
factory at Zvecan in Kosovo and closed the place down. According to the UN
Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) chief, Bernard Kouchner, pollution
from the plant - part of the vast Trepca mining complex that produces gold,
silver, lead, zinc and cadmium - was raising lead levels in the environment
to 200 times World Health Organization norms. "I would be a debauched person
if I let this threat to the health of children and pregnant women continue
operating any longer," he announced.
One wonders if the Frenchman managed to keep a straight face as he said
this. Kouchner is running the province on behalf of a NATO that littered the
place with cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells, that presided over the
expulsion of some 200,000 Serbs, that sent bridges crashing into the Danube,
that happily released clouds of toxic fumes from bombed-out petrochemical
factories into the atmosphere. The residents of this town - particularly the
women - showed their usual ingratitude to their benefactors by throwing
stones at them. Trepca is the leading employer of Serbs in Kosovo and is
Yugoslavia's chief exporter. The protesters got the Los Angeles treatment:
tear gas and rubber bullets.
The Yugoslav government disputes Kouchner's claims. Yugoslavia's record for
telling the truth is considerably better than NATO's. Seizure of Zvecan
gives UNMIK control of the Trepca mines. Already an agreement has been
signed with a group of major mining companies, ITT Kosovo Consortium, to
begin rehabilitation of the complex. Some $16 million is forthcoming from
the EU, the United States, France, Italy, Holland and Sweden.
UNMIK, needless to say, does not have the right to take over property that
belongs to others. The agency was set up by UN Security Council Resolution
1244; strangely enough, it remained silent on the matter of stealing.
However, as is the way with NATO, Kouchner simply issued a decree last year:
" UNMIK shall administer movable or immovable property, including monies,
bank accounts, and other property of, or registered in the name of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Republic of Serbia or any of its
organs, which is in the territory of Kosovo."
Interestingly enough, the seizure of Trepca had been urged on him as long
ago as last November by the International Crisis Group (ICG). The ICG,
invariably described in the media as an "independent" and "private" think
tank, is largely financed and run by the billionaire financier George Soros.
Its "independence" can be gauged by the fact that on its board sits Louise
Arbour, former chief prosecutor at that travesty of justice, the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; as well as Wesley
Clark, loony chief bomber from last year. Financial support also comes from
the governments of France, the UK and the U.S.
The ICG is a fascinating case study of the way human rights organizations,
governments and international corporations work hand in glove these days.
" Independent" figures like Soros identify a "crisis" demanding urgent
government attention. Governments act on them and then parcel out the
lucrative contracts to Soros and his pals. The Trepca report begins with the
usual tendentious boilerplate: "The future of Trepca cuts to the heart of
the Kosovars' identity. Its great mineral wealth is the basis of the economy
of Kosovo, but the complex is badly run-down as a result of under-investment
and over-exploitation by governments in Belgrade. Trepca.is Kosovo's Berlin
Wall. It has long stood for Kosovar Albanians as the symbol of Serbian
oppression and of their own resistance." Therefore, "UNMIK.should implement
a rapid and categorical takeover of Trepca complex, including the immediate,
total shutdown of the environmentally hazardous facilities at Zvecan."
There is no question of turning the mines over to the Kosovar Albanians. And
forget about there being lots of jobs for the locals. Trepca is to be
rehabilitated and then divided up among foreign investors.
The report notes, with pleasure, that the KLA appears to be thoroughly
up-to-date on the issue of turning Kosovo over to international financiers.
George Soros has littered the world with innumerable think tanks and
foundations, all dedicated to promoting his nebulous notions of the "open
society." Cut away the pompous verbiage and what his pronouncements amount
to is that enlightened businessmen like himself and enlightened governments
with the appropriate globalist outlook should help each other out. To hell
with national sovereignty.
It is an outlook that has been happily in conformity with that of the
Clinton administration. And it has gone out of its way to be very helpful to
Soros. Last month, Soros Private Funds Management announced that it will
invest $50 million of its own equity in the Balkans. The U.S. Overseas
Private Investment Corp. will provide a loan guarantee for another $100
million of investments. The Soros investment was chosen over 16 other
proposals.
Last December the Clinton administration ordered the U.S. Export-Import Bank
to delay approval of $500 million in credit guarantees to a Russian company,
Tyumen Oil, following complaints by Western investors, including Soros, that
they had been swindled. The U.S. Export-Import Bank argued that the loan met
all its financial criteria. After talking to Soros, however, it was
announced that it was not in the "national interest" to go ahead with the
loan "for the time being." Now comes the seizure of Trepca. There is little
mystery as to what it is our society is "open" to. 
This page was last updated on 9.25.03

 

Wesley Clark: The Guy Who Almost Started World War III
by Stella Jatras
Antiwar.com, 23 August 2003

 

Oct 28, 8:06 PM EST
Clark Rips Bush for 9-11 Intel Failures
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
Clark praised Bush and his administration for their handling of these foreign policy issues in 2001 and 2002.
If elected, Clark said he would repair relations with other nations and use force as a last resort. He said he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against threats to the United States, and promised to seek a legal definition of terrorism from the United Nations to bring offenders to justice under international law.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLARK_TERRORISM?SITE=CODEN&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/clarkatwaco.html
June 14, 1999
*** Special Brasscheck Report ***
- Did the tactics of NATO's commander Wesley Clark
in the war against Yugoslavia seem oddly familiar?
There's a good reason for that -
From Waco To Belgrade: Wesley K. Clark and America's
"Army of the Future"

www.counterpunch.org/waco.html
Was Clark at Waco?

www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/5310533.htm
Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark has left his job at the Arkansas investment banking firm of Stephens Inc., but any possible political campaign may have to wait. Clark is expected to be a full-time military analyst for CNN if there is a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
The retired general, is thinking about a run for president, has been working as a military analyst for CNN and would probably be sent to Kuwait for Persian Gulf coverage, said CNN spokeswoman Ali Zelenko.
Frank Thomas, a spokesman for Stephens, said Clark has worked for Stephens since summer 2000. He was managing director of a division of the bank, working with military clients.
Some Democrats have been encouraging the 58-year-old Clark to make a decision soon on a presidential candidacy. Clark has said he has no timetable for a campaign. He eventually plans to open his own business services firm in Little Rock.

note: Stephens is the notorious investment firm owned by Jackson Stephens, one of the main financial powers behind Bill Clinton. For more about Stephens, read "Barry and the Boys" by Daniel Hopsicker (about drug smuggler / CIA agent Barry Seal who brought in countless plane loads of drugs to help fund the Contra war for then Vice President George Bush)
Stephens also financed the "Waste Technologies, Inc." hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio (and attorney Hillary Rodham Clinton helped file paperwork for it). In 1992, Clinton and Gore promised that this facility - built in the Ohio River floodplain, next to an elementary school, would not be opened if they won the election. It started up two months after they were sworn in. For more on this broken promise, see www.greenpeaceusa.org/wti/

 

 

WESLEY CLARK, THE PERFUMED PRINCE
JOHN CHUCKMAN YELLOW TIMES - The Perfumed Prince declared himself a
Democrat. Many Americans may not recognize the nickname bestowed upon
Wesley Clark 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.
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1559
NY POST PAGE SIX - The last thing the Clintons want is for a Democrat
from Arkansas to defeat Bush next year," says our spy about the
ex-general who is expected to announce his candidacy next month. . . Our
source adds, "The Clinton master plan is for a Hillary candidacy in 2008
and they will subtly sabotage the Democratic candidate in 2004.That's
why they insist on keeping their personal operative, Terry McAuliffe, in
charge of the Democratic committee."
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/40011.htm
THE END OF LIBERALISM
WASHINGTON MONTHLY RUNS PRO-CLARK PIECE
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.sullivan.html
[Joining the military fetishists at the American Prospect is the
Washington Monthly. Sad to report, however, that once you get past the
fact that Clark's a four star general, there isn't all that much more to
say on his behalf]
WESLEY CLARK ARCHIVES
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.
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - 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.
FULL BRASSCHECK ARTICLE
http://www.brasscheck.com/clarkatwaco.html
WESLEY CLARK'S CAREER:
http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html
ROBERT NOVAK, 1999: 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.
RULING BY GREEK COURT, MAY 1999 - Greece's Council of State, the
country's highest administrative court has an extraordinary ruling on
the war against Yugoslavia:
1. NATO's offensive against a sovereign European state, unprecedented in
the post-war years, is an affront not only to the ethical principles of
Greek and European civilization, but also to the fundamental precepts of
international law. . .
2. This inexcusable attack is taking place in flagrant violation of
articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, which expressly
prohibits the use of violence in international relations, and designates
the Security Council exclusively competent in international crises. . .
3. But this attack even violates the NATO Charter, the exclusive purpose
of which is collective defense of the area defined therein that
coincides with the boundaries of its member states, and which has
expressly committed itself in its international relations to refrain
from the threat or use of violence in any way whatsoever that is
incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN. . .
4. In addition, both the United Nations Charter and all generally
recognized precepts of international law safeguard the equality and
sovereignty of all peoples, irrespective of their numbers and power, and
do not recognize any jurisdiction on the part of powerful nations to
intervene in the internal affairs of weaker nations or to dictate
solutions to their own liking. Consequently, however serious the crisis
in Kosovo may be, it remains an internal Yugoslav affair and belongs to
the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign Yugoslav state. Any
humanitarian or other interest on the part of the UN, other
international organizations or third countries may be manifested only in
a peaceful way and by diplomatic means within the context of the UN
Charter.

http://prorev.com/balkan1.htm
COUNTERPUNCH, 2000: 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.
COUNTERPUNCH http://www.counterpunch.org
WILLIAM BLUM, ROGUE STATE: 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
"willfully killing, willfully 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 willful 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.

 

 

14.Sep.2003 13:42
economic justice | government | imperialism & war
Michael Moore to Wesley Clark: Run! (for Pres.)
author: vote
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."
Yours,
Michael Moore
Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972
Conscientious Objector applicant
 mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com
add a comment on this article
From Waco To Belgrade: Wesley K. Clark and America's "Army of the Future"
14.Sep.2003 15:04
BrasscheckAccording 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. http://www.brasscheck.com/clarkatwaco.html


The perfumed prince and other political tales
14.Sep.2003 15:05
John ChuckmanBy 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."] http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1559


Progressive Review On Wesley Clark
14.Sep.2003 15:07
PROGRESSIVE REVIEWPROGRESSIVE 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. http://prorev.com/indexa.htm


A Vain, Pompous, Brown-noser: Meet the Real General Clark
14.Sep.2003 15:09
CounterpunchAnyone 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." http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html


More On General Clark
14.Sep.2003 15:10
ROBERT NOVAK, 1999Members 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 StateThe 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:
«Unfortunately, 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.»{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:
«I 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.»{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:
«If 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?"»{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:
«Over 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.»{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.
NOTES
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
 http://members.aol.com/superogue/ http://www.ptb.be/international/article.phtml?section=A3AAABBN&object_id=5494


Waco Update: The Delta Force Was There
14.Sep.2003 15:20
CounterpunchAmid 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. http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html


Wesley Clark Almost Triggers World War 3
14.Sep.2003 15:31
The GuardianRobertson'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. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208123,00.html


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
media.
[Note: Original article has been nuked from the Daily Camera op-ed section. Archive taken from
 http://mailman.efn.org/pipermail/local_activists/2003-February/001861.html]

http://www.thedailycamera.com/bdc/guest_opinions/article/0,1713,BDC_2493_1697256,00.html


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. http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/kosovo-crimes.html


Clark a Sr. Advisor to right wing military think tank CSIS
14.Sep.2003 15:59
CSIS Press Release
GEN. WESLEY CLARK JOINS CSIS
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.

http://www.csis.org/press/pr00_42.html


Clark Worked With Terrorist Organazation KLA
14.Sep.2003 16:10
Excerpt from ZpubFor 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.) http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html
Clark (right) shakes hands with KLA terrorist Hashim Thaci (left)

Tony Blair (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
CounterpunchGen. 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. http://www.counterpunch.org/genclark.htm


Clark Dodges Most of Service In Vietnam War
14.Sep.2003 16:21
David H. Hackworth
DEFENDING AMERICA
April 20, 1999
CLARK AND VIETNAM.
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. http://www.hackworth.com/20Apr99.html


Clark Employed by Stephens Group (Clinton crime family)
14.Sep.2003 16:28
diggerClark 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." http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=wesley+clark&as_sitesearch=stephens.com

 

 

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.]
SACEUR
General WESLEY K. CLARK (US ARMY)
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) http://web.archive.org/web/19980630165303/http://www.shape.nato.int/Biographies/gen_CLARK/GEN_CLAR.htm


...Or...
14.Sep.2003 16:47
alternative theoryMichael 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. Iklé (Distinguished Scholar in Residence)

 

 

hooray for hollywood
15.Sep.2003 00:32
gafferMM'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
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.
 http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec143.html
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.

 

 

16.Sep.2003 16:45
fair.org http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
MEDIA ADVISORY:
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
fact."
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:
 http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec143.html

Clark & Colombia war / School of the Americas
17.Sep.2003 09:30
Rick RozoffFrom: 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.
 http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm 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.
 http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/ihr/display_details.cfm?ID=120&document_type=commentary 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.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/overseas/overseas2b.htm 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.
 http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/columbia_history.htm GENERAL WESLEY K. CLARK
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND
Given at the 1996 Command & General Staff Officer
Course graduation ceremony, United States Army School
of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia -- 16 December
1996
 http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/SPEECH/cgscspch.htm

Terrorism and Wesley Clark
17.Sep.2003 12:04
nessieWhat 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. http://www.sfbg.com/nessie/28.html


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.
 http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html
 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/KLA-drugs.html
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. http://www.counterpunch.org/lodge09172003.html


Wesley Clark: A Republican In Democrat's Clothing
17.Sep.2003 17:02
PoliticsUSJUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY?
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. http://www.politicsus.com/


Wesley Clark Cozy with Republicans
17.Sep.2003 17:04
APEx-NATO commander Clark talks of wars at GOP dinner
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
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.


http://www.politicsus.com/campaign%20documents/091703APClark051201.htm


Clinton Crime Family Likely Behind Clark's Pres. Bid
17.Sep.2003 17:07
LOWELL POINTEHe 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." http://prorev.com/indexa.htm


Wesley Clark, a Democrat in Democrat's Clothing
17.Sep.2003 17:24
wrongWesley 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 solutionHere'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. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm


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 MadsenWesley 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." http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html


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 NowAMY 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! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/1757243


Wesley Clark: A Republican In Dems Clothing, Part 2
23.Sep.2003 10:55
David Rennie, UK TelegraphClark '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". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/23/wclark23.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/23/ixworld.html


CLARK PRAISED BUSH TEAM JUST TWO YEARS AGO
02.Oct.2003 10:39
DRUDGE REPORTDemocratic 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." http://drudgereport.com/clark.htm


Wesley Clark Lies About NATO Air Campaign
02.Oct.2003 10:41
JOHN BARRY AND EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEKMAY 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
ROBERT O'HARROW JR, WASHINGTON POSTRetired 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. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7380-2003Sep26.html


Wesley Clark: A Republican In Dems Clothing, Part 3
02.Oct.2003 18:34
NICK ANDERSON, LA TIMESOctober 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. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-clark2oct02%2C1%2C1539898.story?coll=la-news-politics-national


CLARK WAS BIG ADVOCATE OF BOMBING VIEQUES
23.Oct.2003 11:45
DEBORAH ORIN & VINCENT MORRIS, NY POSTWesley 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." http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/8777.htm


The Awful Truth About General Wesley Clark
02.Dec.2003 12:00
Fake Democrats for Fake ElectionsAnother compilation on the two-faced Clintonite:
 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm


Wesley Clark Supports Terrorist "School of the Americas"
19.Dec.2003 10:44
VINCENT MORRIS, NY PostDecember 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. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13799.htm
add a comment on this article

 

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1646236_comment.php

JUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY?
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.
www.politicsus.com/

casino ฟรี เครดิตhttp://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

MEDIA ADVISORY:
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 fact."
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.

 

casino ฟรี เครดิตhttp://publish.portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271966.shtml

I believe that General Wesley Clark is Bill Clinton's wrecking ball to destroy the work of the progressives in the Democratic Party in this primary election season and in this field of candidates so that Bush can have his second term and the DLC can put up their candidate in 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton.

 

 


Antiwar.com September 18, 2003
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m091803.html
Citizen Clark?
Or, Why Electing a Mass Murderer Is a Really Bad Idea
by Nebojsa Malic
It is normally not within the bounds of this column to offer
commentary on internal American issues, with the notable exception of
consistent advocating of non-intervention in foreign quarrels and
stepping back from the assumed role of World Empire. Such policies,
harmful as they are to the very fabric of American society,
nonetheless do far more damage in target countries, where any "help"
that is proffered soon proves to be but another form of grievous
injury.
Many a harsh word has been expended here upbraiding the misguided and
malicious politicians of the Balkans for a veritable train of abuses
against the lives, liberty and property of their own people and
others. In the process, similar harshness has been employed against
the agents of Empire, who have set to remake the fractious and
complex peninsular tapestry by brute force and power of prejudice.
Now one such agent seeks to apply his Balkans experiences at home,
here in the United States, seeking the office of President - but in
truth, coveting the laurels of Emperor.
Candidate Number Ten
Wesley Clark, former US Army general and Supreme NATO Commander in
Europe, announced Wednesday that he will run for President of the
United States in 2004 as a Democrat, joining nine other Democratic
candidates vying for the opportunity to challenge George W. Bush.
Incongruously, Clark supporters and mainstream media seem to purport
that he is running on an "antiwar" ticket. Only a few, including the
Christian Science Monitor, believe that Clark could outflank Bush in
his belligerence.
It's as if everyone has forgotten Wesley Clark was the Bomber of
Belgrade, the highest-ranking military official in a cabal that
systematically violated international law, the NATO Charter (and with
it the US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2) and committed the
greatest crime under the Nuremburg principles: that against peace.
Even Michael Moore, the gut-punch filmmaker who challenged the NATO
attack (after a fashion) in his Oscar-winning feature "Bowling for
Columbine," recently gushed over Clark. What has possessed all these
people to believe that the answer to George W. Bush's policy of
Global Balkanization lies in a man whose hands are drenched in
Balkans blood?
War Criminal
Clark's BBC profile notes the general's words at the beginning of
NATO's 1999 aerial aggression:
"We're going to systematically and progressively attack, disrupt,
degrade, devastate and ultimately, unless President Milosevic
complies with the demands of the international community, we're going
to destroy his forces and their facilities and support," he said.
Systematically, he said. Destroy, he said. Facilities and support, he
said. The bombing was indeed systematic - bridges, schools,
hospitals, passenger trains, buses, refugee columns, marketplaces,
anything that could be hit except the Yugoslav military, which
successfully camouflaged its systems and avoided most attacks.
Apparently, for Clark and his coterie, the "facilities and support"
of the Yugoslav military were the people and infrastructure of Serbia
itself, from the roads and bridges to the power grid and TV networks.
One of the Nuremberg prosecutors warned in vain that war crimes laws
applied to Americans also. Comfortable in their knowledge that no
court in the world would ever touch them - proven later on by their
ICTY pawns' abject refusal to even consider an investigation - Clark
and Co. committed war crimes freely and often.
Unlike Slobodan Milosevic, who was accused of "command
responsibility" for alleged genocide and crimes against humanity in
the Balkan Wars without a shred of reliable evidence, there is plenty
of proof in Clark's case. That is, if there were an honest war crimes
court in the world.
Starting World War III
Despite the barrage of propaganda, and a tailor-made "indictment" of
Milosevic by NATO allies at the Hague Inquisition, the campaign of
terror was failing. Only the intercession of a Russian government
envoy and the "neutral" Finn Martti Ahtisaari (later amply rewarded
by NATO supporters) convinced the Serbian authorities to make a truce
with their attackers. No one knows whether Chernomyrdin or Ahtisaari
knew that the Alliance had no intention of honoring the agreement, or
the UN resolution that codified it.
Russia tried to ensure NATO lived up to the bargain by sending troops
to Kosovo. When the invading British troops encountered the Russians
at the Pristina airport, Clark hysterically ordered British commander
General Sir Michael Jackson to dislodge them by force. Jackson
refused, reportedly saying, "I'm not going to start the Third World
War for you."
Events have vindicated Jackson's judgment; earlier this year,
Russians completely withdrew from Kosovo, having failed to do
anything but legitimize the illegitimate occupation of the province.
For NATO's - and Clark's - "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo has
only ever been a crudely manufactured lie based on most despicable
deception.
What Victorious Soldier?
BBC's profile of Clark's candidacy also claims that his "credentials
for running against President George Bush in 2004 rest squarely on
his military reputation." If so, that is great news, for Clark hardly
has any.
There is little respect for Clark among his colleagues in the
military. An investigative report by CounterPunch magazine in 1999
reveals a man of gargantuan vanity, arrogant to subordinates and
subservient to superiors, obsessed with micro-management, and
politically savvy at the expense of military expertise.
One officer who served with Clark termed him "The poster child for
everything that is wrong with the [general officer] corps," and said
that under Clark's command, the 1st [Armored] Cavalry Division at
Fort Hood was "easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years
of doing this stuff."
One of America's most decorated soldiers, Col. David H. Hackworth
(Ret.), speaks of Clark thus:
"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."
Wesley Clark boasts about "Waging Modern War," but he is hardly a
Maximus Decimus Meridius. One would be tempted to compare him to
Lucius Cornelius Sulla, but for the Roman tyrant's record of actual
military competence.
Some might protest that Clark was, after all, knighted by the British
for his "boundless energy" in the terror-bombing of Yugoslavia;
awarded the French Legion d'Honneur; and the U.S. Presidential Medal
of Freedom. That these governments profaned their highest decorations
in support of their criminal endeavor speaks more about their
(dis)honor than about Clarks' alleged "accomplishments."
Was He at Waco?
It has long been known that US Army tanks took part in the tragic and
lethal 1993 storming of a religious commune in Waco, Texas. But was
one of the officers involved Wesley Clark? Records indicate his
second-in-command advised federal officials in preparation for the
assault. One official Congressional report mentions the involvement
of two high-ranking officers. In the spring of 1999, Alexander
Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair of CounterPunch speculated the mystery
officer may have been no other than Clark:
"Certainly the Waco onslaught bears characteristics typical of Gen.
Wesley Clark: the eagerness to take out the leader (viz., the
Clark-ordered bombing of Milosevich's private residence); the utter
disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children; the
arrogant miscalculations about the effects of force; disregard for
law, whether of the Posse Comitatus Act governing military actions
within the United States or, abroad, the purview of the Nuremberg
laws on war crimes and attacks on civilians." (CounterPunch)
Soon thereafter, they unearthed the names of the two officers, and it
turned out Clark was not involved. So, Clark's defenders can say with
pride that their champion did not rain death and destruction at
demonized Americans, but only demonized foreigners. Let voters'
conscience be the judge of such an ethical distinction.
Blood Sacrifices
It is one thing to worship the fallen and false god of democracy by
pretending elections actually mean something. But is the American
public ready to take the next step, and start endorsing blood
sacrifices? Wesley Clark has sacrificed many lives at the altar of
power, and he will do so again.
By now it is obvious that a vote for Bush/Cheney will be a vote for
Empire. It should be equally obvious that a vote for Clark would have
the same effect. The very fact that Clark walks free, that he is
proud of what he has done, that he is running for President, is proof
of the ethical abyss which seems to have engulfed the world.
Clark's methods of "waging war" - approved by his superiors at the
time, be it noted - hardly differ from those espoused by Osama Bin
Laden: cowardly attack civilians with missiles and bombs, hoping
their spirit breaks and they capitulate to your demands. Yet this man
would be President.
Surely, Americans know better.