Chi Sun-Times on Clark's "history of misinformation"

[JackRiddler]

Here's an article that reviews a bunch of Kosovo war disinfo, including a major lie presented at a press conference by Gen. Clark personally. (In the years since, I had forgotten about the doctored footage of the bullet train bombing.)

I'll save us all some time by relieving the pro-Clark flamers of a few of their strawmen: Am I saying Clark is a Republican trojan horse? Heck no, I think he's a willing, think-tanking tool of the same guns-oil-drugs elites who strive to control both parties!

If you don't like the following article, please try to stay factual. If you're serious, you won't waste our time telling us how the Chicago Sun Times or the author are conservatives, pedophiles, or philatelists; you'll try to answer the specific allegations raised in the article. Okay?

Unfortunately I do expect a bunch of people to now claim "Rove" wrote the following article (not to mention my own script).

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-clark06.html

History of misinformation tarnishes Clark's military record

October 6, 2003

BY THOMAS H. LIPSCOMB



But in one astonishing statement three days before Clark announced his candidacy, Clark's former boss, Gen. H. Hugh Shelton, raised the most serious questions about Clark's military record, which is, of course, all he really has to run on. Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, said: "I've known Wes a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character, issues that are very near and dear to my heart."

According to military historian Thomas Fleming, "This is the most critical statement by one senior military officer on the record on the conduct of another in the history of the United States armed forces."

<...>

There are clues to Shelton's indictment from Clark's Kosovo campaign. The war began after a chorus of charges that the Serbians were unleashing genocidal holocaust upon Kosovars, Albanians and other largely Muslim minorities. And the NATO commander's headquarters rapidly became an echo of the "five o'clock follies" of press misinformation at Army headquarters in Saigon two decades earlier.

Here are a few examples: There were supposed to be 100,000 prisoners detained by the Serbs in a soccer stadium in Pristina. An Agence France Presse reporter dropped by the stadium a few days later and admired its green grass and empty seats with the single caretaker on the site.



NATO headquarters passed along Albanian allegations that Serbian victims were being incinerated at a Trpca mine smelter. But when interviewed by reporter Ben Works, NATO officers admitted they had monitored the site during the entire war and the smelter had never been fired up.



MORE HERE
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-clark06.html

[ablbodyed]

1. Philatelists?.....

I'm a stamp collector (SC) and I'm very liberal. However, most SCs are conservative old men. When the breast cancer 'semi-postal' came out the hue-and-cry was phenominal. Absolute frothing anger that they would have to pay the EXTRA 7c's to buy the stamp. Letter after letter by people accusing Hillary of heinous acts in bringing out the stamp. (She had NOTHING to do with it.)
Anyway, I know that you didn't mean to disparage philatelists, just that the word has a nice sound.
As to Clark, I have reservations about him: I want him to be the knight-in-shining-armor, but, in my advanced age, I have come to believe that if it's too good to be true, it is. I am PERFECTLY willing to be dis-abused of this, however.

[papau]

2. Interesting fellow - to the right - globalist - but not always biased.

Thomas H. Lipscomb was H. R. Haldeman's editor on "The Ends of Power." In Jewish World Review published " Does Saddam already have the bomb?" and " Abandoning Miss Liberty for Ms. Reno"

A grain of salt might be required.

[SahaleArm]

65. Law of the Jungle

Why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

[wyldwolf]

3. #1, old information. #2. That General Shelton quote was sour grapes...

I don't know the author, or the source, but this does take a inflammatory rightwing tone.

By putting so much credence on Shelton's remarks, then saying one of the reasons Shelton made those remarks was because the war started after a "chorus of charges that the Serbians were unleashing genocidal holocaust," the author is insinuating that the genocidal actions didn't take place. That is intellectual dishonesty.

As for the story of the train, I would be interested in more information on it. I've never heard the story. I do find it interesting that only one person claimed the photo was doctored.

I really don't want to get into the Clark-Waco thing again. It has already been discredited here several times. There was even a thread where the poster was actually at Fort Hood and debunked the notion.

It really ammounts to nothing more than rightwing talking points and conspiratorial rubbish from the far left.

Here is a good source/explanation outside of DU for the Clark/Waco myth:

http://theclarksphere.com/archives/000214.html

As for Clark being widely disliked in the Army, I'm glad for it.

We've all heard the story by now. A few weeks back, Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was at a forum in California where he was asked, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?"

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote." Shelton replied.

There are two problems with that statment. The first is unless Shelton reveals what those "integrity and character issues" are, the charges are meaningless and they show a lack of integrity unto themselves. Afterall, how can Wesley Clark possibly rebutt them if he doesn't know what the issues are? This is like someone telling you on your wedding day, "I wouldn't marry him/her if I were you... I'm not going to say why... just trust me..." Huh? How does one respond to that?

The second problem is the assertion that Clark came out of Europe early based on the mysterious and vague charges of "integrity and character" issues. In all actuality, Clark was relieved of duty based on personal vendettas carried by General Hugh Shelton and Admiral Leighton (Snuffy) Smith. It was Shelton who called Clark to inform him that his nato assignment would end early. (According to Waging Modern War, Shelton would not even show Clark the courtesy of extending the phone call a few minutes to work out a face-saving exit.) President Clinton privately told Clark, "I had nothing to do with it." http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.html

So what drove General Shelton to the decision to recall a very successful General from the field after executing a very successful war?

He directly crossed Admiral Leighton Smith, the four-star commander of Mediterranean nato forces. Although nato demanded a full Serb withdrawal from the besieged city of Sarajevo, Smith urged that a brief bombing pause in early September be extended indefinitely, since, as he explained to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, he thought the United States had no business intervening. But Clark, then still a three-star, insisted in a heated telephone call that the bombing should continue as planned. As Holbrooke writes in To End A War, "I could tell from the noises emanating from Clark's cell phone that he was being scolded by a very angry, very senior American naval commander." Smith--who quickly alerted his superiors to Clark's insolence--had the inclinations of nato policymakers on his side; after all, heads of state had neglected Bosnia as long as was politically tolerable. But Clark was right, and he won: The bombing resumed and caused the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from Sarajevo within two weeks of Clark's clash with Smith. That November, the warring parties met at Dayton to negotiate a peace accord. Clark was soon afterward awarded his fourth star--despite ferocious resistance from the Army, which would have preferred his retirement. http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.html

During the above-mention events, President Clinton seethed, privately calling Smith insubordinate, and eventually forcing the admiral to resume action. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0109.thompson.html

So, we see, Clark defied Admiral Smith, won Clinton's backing, and resumed the campaign. The intervention ended less than two weeks later.

So here's the setup. Clark defied Admiral Smith. Smith alerted his superiors to Clark's "insolence" (but apparantly not Bill Clinton, who agreed with Clark and disagreed with Smith.) Those superiors were most likely Richard Cohen and General Shelton.

Shelton, Smith, and Cohen were angry. Not only had they been defied, but they were proven wrong and were not backed by their Commander in Chief.

They fought Clark being awared his Fourth star - wanting him retired instead. They had been out manuervered by Wesley Clark and Clark won the Kosovo intervention. Embarassing to be sure.

I don't know how thick Admiral Leighton W. Smith and General Shelton were during the Kosovo conflict, before it, or after it, but they have both been guest speakers at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce.

http://www.uky.edu/RGS/Patterson/faculty.htm

I would suspect their association goes back a bit further.

As for Clark and his "character issues," he "risked his career to confront the uniformed reluctance to use force in defense of human rights."

Clark was disliked (even hated?) by the upper Pentagon brass because...

1. Such liberal/progressive views like humanitarian missions and nation building for the military made the Pentagon uneasy...

Despite his credentials as a warrior - 34 years in the Army, including a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart earned in Vietnam - {Clark} argues that the U.S. military must learn how to perform such nontraditional functions as peacekeeping and even nation-building, because that's what it will be doing in the 21st century, like it or not. And, since it's no small task to turn gung-ho soldiers into order-keeping policers, it's all the more urgent that the entire military start rethinking its doctrine immediately.

Paradigm-shifting views such as these did not make Clark popular with his superiors at the Pentagon, including former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=528

2. Wesley Clark welcomes homosexuals in the military

I'm not sure that I'd be in favor of policy. I supported that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don't think it works. It works better in some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially we've got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve. - MSNBC

Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark says it is time for the ban on gays in the military to be lifted. - gayPASG


3. Clark was/is too intelligent for the military "culture."

...General Barry McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1044318,00.html

I would say these sound like integrity and character issues I admire.

More...

After prosecuting NATO's first war by uniting its 19 countries and defeating the Yugoslav Army with no alliance casualties, the four-star general had ruffled enough feathers at the Pentagon that his career abruptly ended.

"Wes could not possibly be a better leader," Taylor said. "I really respect Wes in a very special way for his brilliance. But he's also a man of real character and high personal values."

Any problem Clark had with higher-ups in the Pentagon was due to "professional jealousy" by officials who had trouble with a highly intelligent man who made his case with solid evidence and debated vigorously, Taylor said.

"The guy, when he starts doing something, is exhaustively focused on achieving the mission," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who has known Clark since the two taught at West Point decades ago. He preceded Clark as commander of U.S. Southern Command.

The tension with Washington stemmed partly from the failure of bureaucrats to give Clark resources he needed as the commander on the scene, Grange said.

During and after the conflict there was friction between Clark and his superiors, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton and Defense Secretary William Cohen, apparently over Clark's high-profile persona and his willingness to challenge them.

At the root of this conflict, Taylor said, was jealousy of a "superstar" by Clark's superiors at the Pentagon. "Shelton and Cohen didn't like Wes being direct with them, arguing his case," Taylor said. "They wanted someone they could tell what to do."

more...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Nation/AB925B9C76D6B82686256DBC00375519?OpenDocument&Headline=Clark\'s+rise+in+military+impressed+and+rankled+observers

and more...

U.S. News Online
Outlook 8/9/99
the real reason for Clark's ouster may be that the famously political general was impolitic. Pentagon insiders say Clark's frequent and public complaint that politicians had tied his hands during the Kosovo war irked his boss, Defense Secretary William Cohen. Cohen reportedly also was none too pleased that Clark's aides called him "Senator Cohen," a mocking reference to his past as an elected official. The bottom line, says one Pentagon official: "You don't piss off your boss and get away with it-

1999 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
No wonder these generals and admirals in what once was called the War Department got rid of the one genuine military thinker and hero we have, Gen. Wesley K. Clark. What did he think he was doing, insisting upon winning?

The simple truth right now is that nobody says that Clark was wrong. In fact, the respected German Gen. Klaus Naumann, just-retired head of the NATO military committee, told a group of us here recently, in his review of the still-unresolved conflict, that "the reluctance to use overwhelming force allowed Slobodan Milosevic to calculate his risks. ... I would press harder for visible preparations and visible planning."

But it was the "go-slow" guys, the "they'll give in with a just little more punishment" chaps (in fact, the very same mentality that gave us Vietnam!), the ones who would rewrite all of the dictums of von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu about the need to strike hard, fast and unrelentingly, who were unquestionably and provably wrong -- and whose political caution cost tens of thousands of lives and came close to losing the war for NATO.

So who goes? Wesley Clark!


Levin Statement on Departure of General Wesley Clark
July 28, 1999
WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., issued the following statement today following the announcement that General Wesley Clark would step down as NATO supreme commander in April, 2000:

"I have known and worked with General Wes Clark for many years. He is an outstanding military officer. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his tremendous leadership of NATO's military forces during the recent Kosovo conflict. I look forward to working closely with General Clark through the end of his term as SACEUR."


By: EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Published in the LA Times August 6, 1999
Edward N. Luttwak is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington

Defeated generals are sent home in disgrace, but it is most unusual to dismiss victorious ones. Whatever the future may hold for Kosovo--and it looks rather grim at present--there is no doubt that NATO's war against Serbia ended in victory. Nor is it in doubt that its military commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, was very much the victorious general of that war.

NewsWeek
By John Barry and Christopher Dickey,
Aug. 9, 1999

Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme Allied Commander in Europe, waged and won NATO's campaign for Kosovo without losing a single soldier in action. For the U.S. military, the victory was uniquely—historically—bloodless. Last week Clark learned it was also thankless.

In a midnight call from Washington, Clark was told he'd be relieved of his command at NATO next April, a few months earlier than he'd anticipated. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, presented the decision as a simple matter of giving the post to another deserving officer. Clark, who got the call in the middle of a quick trip to the Baltic republics, was caught off balance. He'd seen Shelton in the United States just the week before. Not a word had been breathed of his replacement. According to one source privy to the conversation, Clark told Shelton the move would be read as a vote of no-confidence in his leadership.

Shelton, brisk and businesslike, said there was no way around it. His replacement—Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—would be forced by law to retire if he weren't given a new slot by April. Clark wasn't buying it. In two conversations that night and again the next day, sources say, he argued that his replacement would be a blow to U.S. efforts to reshape NATO. Shelton wasn't moved. Clark, the 54-year-old warrior, was going to have to step aside for Ralston, the 55-year-old Washington insider.

there's more articles from Wash Post/Dana Priestly, Seattle times, etc...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. Did you read the article?

By putting so much credence on Shelton's remarks, then saying one of the reasons Shelton made those remarks was because the war started after a "chorus of charges that the Serbians were unleashing genocidal holocaust," the author is insinuating that the genocidal actions didn't take place. That is intellectual dishonesty.

From the article:

Even the NATO bomb-damage assessment team Clark sent in after the truce found that instead of the several hundred Serbian tanks Clark had claimed were destroyed by his air war, there were only 12 and about as many personnel carriers. As for atrocities, according to Works, Clark's team found "no credible indications of large scale atrocities or any other pattern of smaller scale crimes against humanity."

The author is not "insinuating" anything, he is flat out saying (supported by Clark's own investigatory team's findings) that genocide did not take place.

So did you read the article, or are you participating in a little "intellectual dishonesty" yourself?

[wyldwolf]

16. Of course I read the article, and I won't take the author at his word...

...on what he says of Clark's team because I have the benefit of other sources that clearly document the atrocities.

http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/atrocities.htm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/29/refugees.04/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/107267.stm

http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/jul/kos0726.htm

etc., etc., etc.,

So, again, the author is guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

Those who believe the author are guilty of intellectual naivity.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

37. Thanks for the link that proves my case!

If you look at the so called "atrocities" that the Serbs alledgedly commited, you will see one common factor they either involve civillians fleeing from fighting, or civillians killed during fighting with the KLA.

Take for example this supposed atrocity:

MUP operation in Rogovo, between Djakovica and Prizren; 1 MUP member, 24 Albanians killed (some UCK members, some probably civilians).

The UCK is the KLA (in their own language that is). Here we see 1 Serbian soldier was killed in fighting with the KLA, and some of the dead are proclaimed (probably by the KLA) to be civillians. How many? There is no mention. Who were they killed by? Once again, no mention. It is clear fighting was taking place, so they had to fudge this information. But supposedly this is one of the many "atrocities"?

Here is another "atrocitiy":

Serb and Albanian sources reported twelve ethnic Albanians killed and three Serb police officers injured in separate clashes between the UCK and Serb forces near Prizren, Kosovska Mitrovica, Vucitrn and Podujevo.

Once again we see admitted combat between KLA and Serb forces, yet this is supposedly an "atrocitiy"?

3 explosives devices detonated in Mitrovice and Podujevo markets. At least 6 killed and dozens injured. Serb Radio B92 reported that at least 5 people had been killed and 60 wounded in three bomb blasts in the centre of Podujevo and Kosovska Mitrovica (north Kosovo).

Who planted the bombs? The KLA would claim the Serbs did it, the Serbs woudl claim the KLA did it. The KLA were supposedly fighting for independance, and were terrorists. Such bombings are the acts of terrorists. Why would the Serbs plant bombs like this if they supposedly could just have shelled the city like they had supposedly done before hand? Why the sudden change in modus operandi?

But, this is listed as a Serb "atrocitiy"?

FRY news agency Tanjug reported the discovery of the bodies of three ethnic Albanian brothers showing signs of torture. Serb police said that the brothers had reported that the UCK had threatened to kill them if they associated with Serbs.

Of course, we all know that KLA terrorists don't lie, so the Serbs MUST be lying. Of course Terrorists would NEVER kill "collaborators" would they? Yet another Serb "atrocity"?

Here is an interesting couple of entries:

18 March (Kosovo Albanian delegation signs Rambouillet Accords after talks reconvened in Paris).
20 March (KVM monitors complete their withdrawal from Kosovo). Bosnian Serb news agency SRNA reported that the UCK killed a Serb policeman near Luzani (near Pristina).

That's right, the KLA signs a peace deal, and then two days later kills a policeman. Must be a Serb "atrocity" right?

I could go on and on. But the reality is that there was no genocidal campaign. Did some Serb soldiers (like the eight US soldiers currently under investigation in Iraq) commit war crimes? I am pretty sure they did. Did some KLA commit war crimes? Of course.

But ask yourself this: If there was a systematic effort to murder civillians, why does each case of supposed mass murders involve only a portion of the populace involved being murdered while the rest were released unharmed?

Editted to add: By the way, did you know it is a war crime to NOT evacuate civillians or allow civillians to leave a war zone? So all those entries of civillians fleeing fighting are in fact clear evidence that the Serbs were trying to stick to the rules of war.

[wyldwolf]

42. Perhaps you missed these then...

If you look at the so called "atrocities" that the Serbs alledgedly commited, you will see one common factor they either involve civillians fleeing from fighting, or civillians killed during fighting with the KLA.

Really? What about these:

Security forces operation around Racak, near Stimlje; 45 civilians, mainly male, found massacred. Human Rights Watch report that at least 23 were apparently executed and 18 others, including a twelve-year-old boy and 2 women, were also killed.

Five Albanian civilians (2 men, a woman and 2 children) killed near Rakovina, Djakovica area. According to an eye witness their tractor was ambushed by the MUP.

Council for Human Rights reports 20 Albanians kidnapped over the previous 2 months in Pec were found executed

Refugees reported that more than 60 ethnic Albanian men were executed in Bela Crkva near Orahovac (SW Kosovo), including 20 members of the Popaj family and 25 members of the Zhuniqi family. (Human Rights Watch) Refugees arriving in Albania from the villages of Goden and Zylfaj, near Dobrune on the Kosovo-Albanian border report that their villages had been razed by artillery fire and 20 teachers massacred in front of 96 school children. Refugees reported that the VJ had rounded up 20,000 ethnic Albanian civilians in Qirez.

Prominent Human Rights lawyer, Bayram Kelmendi, and his two sons, found shot dead after being taken away by police in Pristina on the first night of NATO air strikes. US officials produced an aerial photograph showing signs of a mass grave in Velika Krusa. Human rights workers previously alleged that 40 Kosovar males had been killed by Serb forces. Aftermath of alleged massacre in the village of Velika Krusa near Prizren (SW), captured on video tape by survivor Milaim Bellanica. The tape showed the bodies of l5 men lying amid burnt out houses, some shot in the back of the head, others charred beyond recognition. Albanian radio reported that Serb forces had set the entire Podujevo neighbourhood alight and were carrying out massacres of civilian ethnic Albanians. OSCE monitors reported that Serb forces had attacked and burned the villages of Rahovec and Babaj Boks near the Kosovo-Albanian border.

Serbian army deserter said that he was ordered to shoot 25 Kosovar women, children and pensioners.

There are more in the link I provided and here:

http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/kcc-news/1999-July/000095.html

and here:

http://www.mediaclub.cg.yu/eng/articles/2000/april/18-1.htm



Interesting how you picked and choosed which events to mention.

Even funnier is were having a discussion about whether these actually took place when Amnesty and human rights groups are reporting them. :eyes:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

49. Ah yes... Racak..

Security forces operation around Racak, near Stimlje; 45 civilians, mainly male, found massacred. Human Rights Watch report that at least 23 were apparently executed and 18 others, including a twelve-year-old boy and 2 women, were also killed.

Yet another case of fighting in a built up area between Serb and KLA forces. After the fighting ended (in fact many hours after) a group of bodies were found. None of the bodies was lying in a pool of blood, and it was clear that the bodies had been moved.

Also note, that there was no evidence as to WHO had shot these men. Were they shot by Serbs or by KLA? We do know the KLA tried to use them for propaganda purposes. Also notice that there was one young boy and two women among the dead. This could suggest a campaign against the males, or it could suggest that the males were involved in the KLA and had been part of the fighting. Of course, the fact that there is no conclusive evidence either way PROVES that the Serbs did it, right?

Five Albanian civilians (2 men, a woman and 2 children) killed near Rakovina, Djakovica area. According to an eye witness their tractor was ambushed by the MUP.

Yes and the US military never kills civillians at checkpoints in Iraq? Note, I did say that Serb troops were very probably involved in isolated cases of war crimes. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that there was a campaign of genocide being carried out by Serb forces.

Of course, the MUP must have been trying to exterminate all Kosovo Albanians, that is why they let the eyewitness go, huh?

Council for Human Rights reports 20 Albanians kidnapped over the previous 2 months in Pec were found executed.

Kidnapped by who? No mention. Of course the KLA, a terrorist organisation, would never kidnap people. Also, if the Serbs were trying to kill all Albanians, why kidnap them in the first place? Why not just execute them like they supposedly did elsewhere?

Refugees reported that more than 60 ethnic Albanian men were executed in Bela Crkva near Orahovac (SW Kosovo), including 20 members of the Popaj family and 25 members of the Zhuniqi family. (Human Rights Watch) Refugees arriving in Albania from the villages of Goden and Zylfaj, near Dobrune on the Kosovo-Albanian border report that their villages had been razed by artillery fire and 20 teachers massacred in front of 96 school children. Refugees reported that the VJ had rounded up 20,000 ethnic Albanian civilians in Qirez.

Refugees? You mean Kosovo Albanian refugees? You mean people likely to have amongst their number supporters or members of the KLA? Of course we should just assume they are telling the truth. Were the bodies ever found? Also why were these Kosovo Albanians allowed to leave, rather than being killed too?

"Rounded up" or evacuated from a war zone? Depends what side you are on I suppose.

Prominent Human Rights lawyer, Bayram Kelmendi, and his two sons, found shot dead after being taken away by police in Pristina on the first night of NATO air strikes.

Well, colour me surprised that people who have been under attack by terrorists, and now being bombed by the worlds most powerful nation for daring to stand up to those terrorists might be maddened enough to murder people perceived as traitors. Once again, is this evidence of a systematic campaign of genocide? It sure doesn't seem that way to me.

US officials produced an aerial photograph showing signs of a mass grave in Velika Krusa.

But was the mass grave ever found? Well, no. Does the US ever show faked satellite photos in order to justify their wars? I seem to remember a satellite photo supposedly showing Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border. Then a reporter got a copy of a satellite photo of the same area on the same day and found it to be completely empty...

Aftermath of alleged massacre in the village of Velika Krusa near Prizren (SW), captured on video tape by survivor Milaim Bellanica. The tape showed the bodies of l5 men lying amid burnt out houses, some shot in the back of the head, others charred beyond recognition. Albanian radio reported that Serb forces had set the entire Podujevo neighbourhood alight and were carrying out massacres of civilian ethnic Albanians. OSCE monitors reported that Serb forces had attacked and burned the villages of Rahovec and Babaj Boks near the Kosovo-Albanian border

Well, considering the varying states of the bodies, is it possible that they were actually KLA fighters, some of whom were murdered by Serb forces after a battle? Of course it is. Do such things happen in war? Of course they do. By themselves are they evidence of a campaign of genocide. Not at all. Why it is that there are always witnesses standing around after the massacre, even ones with video cameras?

If the Serbs were truly on a genocidal campaign, they did a really shoddy job.

Interesting how you picked and choosed which events to mention.

I only mentioned the ones where it was CLEAR AS DAY that the stories were being manipulated to present a case against Serbia without any evidence. The fact that you failed to rebut even one of them shows what I mean. Anybody reading those had to know they were highly doubtful, and some clearly wrong, yet all of them were presented as clear "atrocities".

So if the ones I mentioned were that badly spun, why should we believe that the borderline ones are not being spun too?

Even funnier is were having a discussion about whether these actually took place when Amnesty and human rights groups are reporting them.

Yes, and such groups are totally immune to being manipulated by organisations such as the KLA and US government? When Amnesty and the Human Rights groups present the full story of what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan I might be more confident on their abilities to remain totally uncorrupted.

[wyldwolf]

52. A look at your last two posts reveals...

... a lot of hypotheticals and propositions of government manipulation.

A conspiratorial tone no doubt, but I should have expected it. No sources - just your cospiratorial opinion.

Well, considering the varying states of the bodies, is it possible that they were actually KLA fighters, some of whom were murdered by Serb forces after a battle?

Yes, and such groups are totally immune to being manipulated by organisations such as the KLA and US government? When Amnesty and the Human Rights groups present the full story of what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan I might be more confident on their abilities to remain totally uncorrupted.

Kidnapped by who? No mention. Of course the KLA, a terrorist organisation, would never kidnap people.

Refugees? You mean Kosovo Albanian refugees? You mean people likely to have amongst their number supporters or members of the KLA?

Who were they killed by?

Who planted the bombs?

Of course, we all know that KLA terrorists don't lie, so the Serbs MUST be lying. Of course Terrorists would NEVER kill "collaborators" would they?

Fact is, your enire argument is based on "...but what ifs"

But you've shown me the light!

I now know not to trust anything documented as a historical record unless I was their to personally witness it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

71. Huh?

You provided a link that had ZERO evidence, and I commented on the lack of evidence either way, and you are calling ME conspiratorial?

Just saying "we found ten bodies" in a town after KLA and Serb forces battled each other in no way tells you WHO killed them or WHY. The most that can be said is that SOMEONE killed them. But such ambiguous events are invariably blamed on the Serbs in that list.

That shows a bias by the author of the list, and thus the question has to be asked, is the author accurately telling us what happened, or is he leaving out inconvenient facts that make the case less cut and dried?

The Racak "massacre" is a good example. There is no mention of the fact that there was fighting between the KLA and the Serbs, only that after the operation was over, a number of bodies were found. Even then the author fails to point out that the bodies had been seemingly moved (lack of blood or expended cartridges suggests the bodies were killed elsewhere) and fails to point out that there was plenty of time for the bodies of KLA fighters to be gathered up and moved to this location to make it seem they had been murdered, rather than killed during the fighting.

This is not conspiratorial talk, it is merely open minded examination of the facts.

[wyldwolf]

74. There is an assumption when you visit the links...

...that everyone one knows who the evidence is about.

If I visited a site on dinosaurs I wouldn't say, "how do we know they existed, we weren't there?"

If a ketchup label says, "made with tomatoes" I wouldn't say "how do we KNOW that... it could have been made with anything."

How do we know the Germans committed the holocaust? It coulda' been anybody!

How do we know we put a man on the moon? WE weren't there! How do we KNOW?

Your position is such that in the presense of the evidence contrary to what you want to believe, you would still have see it first hand to believe it.

It is your last defense. A red herring.

And I stand by my opinion that you are conspiratorial. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you still deal in shadowy "what ifs"

[Devils Advocate NZ]

79. What? Jesus, I hope you never end up on a jury!

Because to you, an accusation is evidence enough of a crime to convict.

We know the Germans commited atrocities because they were documented in the form of photographs of them occuring, official documents describing the process, and independant witnesses to the events.

Soldiers found the ovens. Photos show the mass grave being filled.

There is all sorts of evidence beyond the claims made by the Jewish survivors.

Yet in the case of the supposed genocidal campaign carried out by Serbs, there is a distinct lack of evidence. In fact as Tinoire shows below in the thread, there have only been 2,000 bodies found, and not one mass grave of over 5 bodies.

The fact is, the 2,000 bodies were people killed during a major war between Serb forces and the KLA over the duration of nearly two years. The US military killed more innocent civillians in Iraq in two months than the Serbs supposedly killed in Kosovo during a genocidal campaign carried out over more than a year.

Are you really trying to tell me that constitutes evidence for such a campaign? The fact is that international forensic scientists that poured into Kosovo to expose all these mass graves ended up complaining that they had been misled, and that not only did they not find evidence of a genocidal campaign, the evidence they found suggests nothing more than "collateral damage" as the US likes to call it.

Not even considered is how many of these bodies were in fact KLA terrorists, nor how many may have been killed by KLA terrorists.

But if you want further circumstantial evidence that the supposed campaign of genocide was a KLA propaganda myth, then loook at what happened in Macedonia AFTER the Serbs surrendered. Once again, the KLA, backed by the US, began a terrorist camapign against a peaceful country. When they were exposed (and the US forced to prevent their actions) the KLA stopped attacking and the supposed genocide failed to materialise.

It was a tactic used by the KLA to accuse their victims of a heinous yet ficticious crime in order to justify their own heinous yet NOT ficticious crimes.

[wyldwolf]

80. In court cases...

Expert witnesses are brought in to testify.

If you're ever on a jury, I hope you don't counter said witnesses with the silly mantra, "but we don't know you're an expert. I haven't seen your degree. You could have faked it. We don't know for sure what you are saying is true..."

And now that I think of it, I don't have evidence for a lot of things. At least, not what YOU would call evidence.

No evidence the Germans committed the holocaust.

No evidence we put a man on the moon.

No evidence Al Gore got the most votes in 2000.

No evidence beyond sources that make those CLAIMS.

I get it now.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

82. Give me a break!

Expert witnesses are called in to testify on what they found when they examined the evidence. Thus, in a court case the evidence is also presented.

You don't just find a witness to come in and say "Although there are no photos, and I can't tell you where it is, I examined a mass grave and found conclusive proof that Serbs killed civillians".

Even an expert witness has to present more than just his word, he has to present the evidence he has been called to testify on.

So where is the evidence? Show me ONE photo of a mass grave in Kosovo.

[wyldwolf]

83. The only evidence you will accept on the Kosovo issue is your eyewitness..

..accounts. This is obvious.

Might I present to the jury the testimony of writers Fred Abrahams, Eric Stover, Gilles Peress, and Human Rights Watch communications director Carroll Bogert, who will testify under the auspices of the Human Rights Center at the University of California at Berkeley and Human Rights Watch.

What you will hear will leave no room for doubt or ambiguity, an account of a Serb massacres in the Kosovar towns of Cuska, Zahac and Pavljan.

You will see pictures showing fresh graves, massive displacement, bullet holes and trauma victims...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520233034/qid=1066706822/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9145761-6020959?v=glance&s=books

Now, keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen of the jury...there will be those who will discount this expert testimony because they can show no proof beyond their own accounts and their photographs...

But we'll also present testimony from the state department...

http://www.usembassy.it/file9906/alia/99060712.htm

We'll hear from British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Italy who saw the aftermath of the atrocities

http://cgi.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/23/kosovo.03/

And finally, we'll present 100 witnesses who saw the atrocities personally...

http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/archives3/feb02/021202/b2.html

However, this will not be good enough for the defense - who insists on the impossible - his own first hand experience before he'll believe anything he doesn't want to believe!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

86. I prefer official ICTY documents...

What you will hear will leave no room for doubt or ambiguity, an account of a Serb massacres in the Kosovar towns of Cuska, Zahac and Pavljan.

So tell me, if there is no doubt about these "atrocities", why dod not one of those three towns appear in the indictment against Milosevic?

Could it be that there is in fact a LOT of doubt about what actually happened at these locations? So much so, in fact, that even the horribly biased ICTY won't attempt to use them as evidence against Milosevic?

Don't take my word for it, check out the indictment yourself:

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-2ai011029e.htm

But we'll also present testimony from the state department...

The state department? Oh yeah, really unbiased. Would this be that same state department that told us Iraq had WMD? In any case here is what is said in that report:

The Kosovo atrocities report is a general account of atrocities committed by Serbian forces against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo between 24 March and 4 June. Most of the incidents are drawn from refugee accounts, supplemented by diplomatic and other reporting.

Refugee accounts? I have already dealt with such accounts, and it is becoming clear that few, if any, claims made by such refugees have been backed up by scientific findings. It is interesting that the vast majority of claims come from such "refugee accounts" yet no one seems to have asked how these refugees happened to be able to see atrocities committed without becoming victims of said atrocities themselves. The Serbs must have been really incompetant to allow so many witnesses of such heinous crimes to just walk and drive away to tell their stories to the world.

Either that, or the refugees had other reasons for making these claims (such as the fear of KLA retaliation for NOT making them).

Still, if they can back up their claims with evidence I am more than willing to accept their accounts. Problem is there have been so many claims, and so FEW bodies.

As for the Robin Cook claims. Firstly, since when is Robin Cook a forensic scientist? So I should believe HIS claims as to what was found? But even if I accept the claims of a massacre, there is one other point that needs to be addressed:

British officials said they believe the alleged massacre at Velika Krusa occurred in late March, just after NATO began its bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. They said eyewitness accounts suggest 105 men and boys were shot and their bodies burned in the village.

Like I have said before, is it so strange that soldiers of a nation subjected to a terrorist campaign for over a year, only to then be bombed by the US for fighting the terrorists, might take it upon themselves to "punish" those they see as responsible for the crimes against their nation?

This massacre happened AFTER the bombing started, and as such could not possibly be in cluded as evidence that a genocidal campaign was underway BEFORE the bombing started. How do Americans react when they are attacked? How many innocent Muslims (and people who looked like Muslims) were attacked after Sept 11? So to assume this case is evidence of a genocidal campaign is not supported by the evidence.

Further down in that article is an incident that shows what kind of problems the Serbs would have defending against charges of atrocities:

U.S. Marines manning a checkpoint near the village of Zegra, in eastern Kosovo, came under fire Wednesday by a group of armed men and returned fire, killing one attacker and wounding two others, U.S. officials said.

None of the Marines was hurt. One gunman was detained.

It was unclear whether the men were Serbs or ethnic Albanians. They were wearing civilian clothes and armed with AK-47 assault rifles.

Sources at the National Security Council said the assailants were apparently drunk.

The farming village of Zegra is also where Marines had a standoff with about 100 armed Kosovo Liberation Army members last week, which ended with the rebels being forcibly disarmed.

Take away the firearms, as all soldiers would do after such a battle, and all you have is a civillian killed by US troops. In fact for all we know, that is exactly what they were (after all we know how US troops at checkpoints can be) yet the exact same kind of incident in Kosovo when the Serb military was operating there is called an atrocitiy.

Notice how the press try to cover up the fact that these were probably KLA? After all, how many armed Serbs would go wandering around drunk after the Serb army pulled out?

[wyldwolf]

90. This is nothing more than the same old "what if's" from you...

for all we know,...

Notice how the press try to cover up ...

might take it upon themselves to "punish" those they see as responsible ...

Either that, or the refugees had "other" reasons...

Could it be that there is in fact a LOT of doubt ...

What if's, conjecture, hypotheticals - from your own mind.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

93. You present conjecture - I present conjecture. The difference is I don't..

try to HIDE my speculation. I make it clear when I am speculating as to what something means by the use of language that shows that I am presenting a hypothetical argument that addresses ambiguous facts.

YOU on the other hand dress up YOUR speculation and the speculation of others as CERTAINTIES, as though you not only KNOW what the facts are, but what they MEAN.

I am pretty sure that a reasonable person reading this thread will see that I have presented arguments based on the evidence available and have NOT pushed it beyond what it can tell us. For example, I have admitted ALL ALONG that SOME atrocities by both sides did take place, but have equally said that there is NO EVIDENCE that they were more than isolated incidents such as My Lai in Viet Nam.

You on the other hand have consistently said, without evidence, that ALL Serbs committeed atrocities as part of a campaign of genocide, while TOTALLY IGNORING the acts perpetrated by the KLA.

You have refused to even CONSIDER that you have been hoodwinked by the press.

To me, you come across as every bit as suckered as a freeper who proclaims that WMD WERE found in Iraq, and that there WAS a proven link between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Just like them, you refuse to accept that there might be a truth other than what you have been told, and when pushed have resorted to attacking me, rather than my arguments. You have called me "conspiratorial" and mocked me by using phony "trial" language.

It doesn't bother me though, because it only shows the weakness of your arguments.

Just go and read the trial transcripts that I provided a link for. Educate yourself as to the truth of the matter, and you might find your mind being changed. Then again, if you truly are like those delusional freepers, maybe nothing could ever change your mind, not even a direct admission from the criminals involved.

[knowledgeispower]

53. Honestly, this looks like standard "collateral damage" of war

By this logic, you could claim that American troops in Iraq are guilty of "atrocities" and thus NATO needs a military campaign to stop them. Isn't it an "atrocity" when the military fires into a group of peaceful protesters, killing more than ten and wounding many others, including children? That has happened on a few separate occasions. I could come up with plenty of other examples, but I think you get the point.

"atrocities", "terrorists", "freedom fighters"...they are all buzzwords whose use depends only on what side you are on. Capische?

[wyldwolf]

54. Look up "atrocities."

and tell me the following, and others, were just "collateral damage" of war:

Council for Human Rights reports 20 Albanians kidnapped over the previous 2 months in Pec were found executed

Serbian army deserter said that he was ordered to shoot 25 Kosovar women, children and pensioners.

Refugees reported that more than 60 ethnic Albanian men were executed in Bela Crkva near Orahovac (SW Kosovo), including 20 members of the Popaj family and 25 members of the Zhuniqi family. (Human Rights Watch) Refugees arriving in Albania from the villages of Goden and Zylfaj, near Dobrune on the Kosovo-Albanian border report that their villages had been razed by artillery fire and 20 teachers massacred in front of 96 school children.

[knowledgeispower]

56. I guess you didn't get my point

We call another military killing civilians an "atrocious" act, but when our military does it, it is "collateral damage."

Much like we call people who serve as a means to an end (such as the KLA...do some research on them and see how bad they are) "freedom fighters" (another example is the Nicaraguan Contras), but when we don't like the people doing the fighting (like in Iraq or Afghanistan) we call them "terrorists." The people that fought in our revolutionary war could have been "terrorists", and very likely would be referred to as such in British history books had the U.S. not won that war.

In other words, it is all a matter of perspective and propaganda.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

72. I adressed these already, but...

Council for Human Rights reports 20 Albanians kidnapped over the previous 2 months in Pec were found executed

But how do we know who they were kidnapped by? Because the KLA tells us so? Perhaps these were people kidnapped by the KLA for assisting Serb forces? Why would the Serbs, who supposedly would just march into a town, round up Albanians and execute them, suddenly decide (just once mind you) to instead kidnap 20 people over 2 months and execute them in secret?

If you were on a genocidal campaign there would be no need for such acts, you would just shoot them as soon as you caught them. So why the sudden change in tactics that only lasted for 2 months?

It is far more logical that the KLA would commit such kidnappings to force local Albanians to cooperate with them, just like the VC did in Viet Nam and the Mujahadeen did in Afghanistan. In fact there is plenty of evidence of such acts from Kosovo Albanians who refused to help the terrorists.

Serbian army deserter said that he was ordered to shoot 25 Kosovar women, children and pensioners.

No mention of whether he was ethnic Albanian though many served in the Serb military. It is possible that he was ordered to kill 25 women children and pensioners, although I would expect there to be evidence other than the word of a deserter. Were the bodies ever found? Doesn't seem so. In fact was there ANY evidence apart from this persons word? Doesn't seem so.

Refugees reported that more than 60 ethnic Albanian men were executed in Bela Crkva near Orahovac (SW Kosovo), including 20 members of the Popaj family and 25 members of the Zhuniqi family. (Human Rights Watch) Refugees arriving in Albania from the villages of Goden and Zylfaj, near Dobrune on the Kosovo-Albanian border report that their villages had been razed by artillery fire and 20 teachers massacred in front of 96 school children.

This one is pretty obvious. First the people making the claims are ethnic Albanian refugees, and as such are likely to have been KLA sympathisers or under the influence of the KLA. Did you know that many such claims by refugees turned out to be false? That when competant investigators tried to gather the evidence for the ICTY they found that most of the "witnesses" had contradictory versions of the alledged events, and that there was never any physical evidence found to back them up? Did you know there were allegations that the KLA was forcing refugees to make these claims or become the "evidence" themselves at the hands of the KLA?

Next have a look at the school teacher story. Why kill the teachers and not the children? I thought the Serbs were commiting genocide? Why let the majority of the supposed victims live to tell the tale?

Like I said, if you approach these claims with an open mind, you will see that many of them are patently ridiculous, and most don't pass the smell test. I also said that I had no doubts that some Serb troops (and the KLA for that matter) commited some isolated war crimes, but there has never been any evidence of an organised campaign of genocide. In fact the events themselves seem to disprove that claim. How come so few were killed, if the idea was to kill them all?

[wyldwolf]

75. And I have countered your take on it.

Your position is such that in the presense of the evidence contrary to what you want to believe, you would still have see it first hand to believe it.

How do we know the Germans committed the holocaust? It coulda' been anybody!

How do we know we put a man on the moon? WE weren't there! How do we KNOW?


It is your last defense. A red herring.

And I stand by my opinion that you are conspiratorial. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you still deal in shadowy "what ifs"

[Devils Advocate NZ]

77. Do you know the difference between a claim and evidence?

Your position is such that in the presense of the evidence contrary to what you want to believe, you would still have see it first hand to believe it.

What evidence? I see no evidence there, only CLAIMS. There is nothing to suggest that any of the claims have been proven to be true because no evidence is presented.

I can claim "the moon is made of green cheese", but unless I present evidence such as independent confirmation in the form of scientific analysis etc then that is ALL it is, A CLAIM.

Show me the evidence and then I will consider it, but a list of unsubtantiated (and in some case already disproven) claims does not constitute evidence.

[wyldwolf]

78. Yet you still insist on this line of reasoning...

... and now that I think of it, I don't have evidence for a lot of things. At least, not what YOU would call evidence.

No evidence the Germans committed the holocaust.

No evidence we put a man on the moon.

No evidence Al Gore got the most votes in 2000.

No evidence beyond sources that make those CLAIMS.

I get it now.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

81. Oh, come on!

There is plenty of evidence of German atrocities, including photographs and physical evidence in the form of gas chambers and cremation ovens.

You seem to not be able to tell the difference between an unfounded allegation and an allegation supported by evidence.

Where are all the bodies? Why did the supposed mass graves fail to materialise? Why were so many people NOT killed during this genocidal campaign?

Show me a photograph of a mass grave in Kosovo. Surely there must be one out there somewhere? Remember the ICTY poured all over Kosovo in order to find evidence for it's charges, so where are the photos of the graves?

[wyldwolf]

84. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...

Might I present to the jury the testimony of writers Fred Abrahams, Eric Stover, Gilles Peress, and Human Rights Watch communications director Carroll Bogert, who will testify under the auspices of the Human Rights Center at the University of California at Berkeley and Human Rights Watch.

What you will hear will leave no room for doubt or ambiguity, an account of a Serb massacres in the Kosovar towns of Cuska, Zahac and Pavljan.

You will see pictures showing fresh graves, massive displacement, bullet holes and trauma victims...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520233034/qid=1066706822/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9145761-6020959?v=glance&s=books

Now, keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen of the jury...there will be those who will discount this expert testimony because they can show no proof beyond their own accounts and their photographs...

But we'll also present testimony from the state department...

http://www.usembassy.it/file9906/alia/99060712.htm

We'll hear from British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Italy who saw the aftermath of the atrocities

http://cgi.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/23/kosovo.03/

And finally, we'll present 100 witnesses who saw the atrocities personally...

http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/archives3/feb02/021202/b2.html

However, this will not be good enough for the defense - who insists on the impossible - his own first hand experience before he'll believe anything he doesn't want to believe!



An eyewitness's video



The State department's images of the area from the eyewitness's video.

More first hand testimony:

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/19/massacre.02/

[Devils Advocate NZ]

87. Thanks for providing proof of the lies the US told...

From the article:

On Wednesday, however, the U.S. State Department held a special briefing, saying the newly released video matches aerial photographs of suspected mass graves that NATO released last month.

"These kind of episodes have taken place. This is not the only example -- but it is the only time we've been able to match actual videotape with overhead imagery," spokesman James Rubin said.

Later in the same article:

Losci said he couldn't sleep more than two hours that night, and returned to the site the next morning. He and a group of other men from Izbica and surrounding areas began organizing the burial of the dead.

Some began to identify the bodies, others to dig graves. Then, Losci says, he decided to film what he had seen. His own camera had been left behind in his burned-out house, but a villager had hidden a video camera in the ground.

Losci used it to tape the macabre scene.

OOPS!!! Turns out that there was NO mass grave, in fact the footage, and the testimony of the man who took it, showed that Albanians buried the men in individual graves.

Now, as for the massacre itself. Why do the Serbs only kill men? Why do they allow witnesses of their atrocities not only to live, but to then leave the area? Or is it possible that the story we are being told is not exactly accurate? Is it possible that these men died in combat with Serb forces as members of KLA terrorist groups (who numbered some 17,000 by the end of the bombing campaign)?

Is it possible that they were murdered? Of course. But an atrocity does not automatically mean that an organised campaign of genocide was occuring. After all, there were many such atrocities in Viet Nam, but not even I would claim the US was intentionally trying to kill all Vietnamese people as part of a genocidal campaign.

As such, did My Lai justify the bombing of US civillians at the time? Would Russia or China have been right to bomb the power plants, TV and Radio stations, bridges and factories because US troops had commited an atrocity in Viet Nam? Why weren't all the presidents involved in that war, plus all the generals and the senators and representatives hauled before the Hague?

Is the US immune to such charges?

In fact, why weren't the KLA forces bombed, after all, they were commiting war crimes too.

[wyldwolf]

89. This is typical of conspiratorial types...

...just scream "lies" in the face of evidence.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

94. Yes, YOUR post IS typical of conspiratorial types!

I did not scream "lies" I presented two counter arguments: 1) that the events may not have happened as they describe it, and that the US used it to bolster phony evidence, even though it directly contradicted that phony evidence, and 2) that even if the event occured EXACTLY as described that it was no different than the My Lai massacre (in fact it was, the American troops didn't allow the women and children of My Lai to survive to tell the tale) and as such did not prove that an organisaed campaign of genocide was under way.

Atrocities happen in war, and as such are war crimes, no military is innocent of such crimes, including the American military, but such crimes do not by themselves constitute a campaign of genocide.

Why do you refuse to address these two arguments? Could it be that you know they are reasonable and supported by the evidence, without overstepping what the evidence can tell us? Could it be that you recognise that you have NO evidence of a genocidal campaign and have to resort to ad hominem attacks to try and "win" this particular argument?

Why do you refuse to address the arguments, instead of making snide comments?

[WilliamPitt]

4. I'll give this a go

But in one astonishing statement three days before Clark announced his candidacy, Clark's former boss, Gen. H. Hugh Shelton, raised the most serious questions about Clark's military record, which is, of course, all he really has to run on. Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, said: "I've known Wes a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character, issues that are very near and dear to my heart."

Here's some analysis of Shelton's accusation that's worth reading:

We don't know that Clark lied. We don't know that the grounds on which Shelton got rid of him were valid. We don't know that when Shelton challenges Clark's integrity, Shelton knows whereof he speaks. We don't know that "more people" at Shelton's level doubted Clark's integrity. All we know is that some military honchos have criticized Clark's style anonymously and that Shelton has challenged Clark's integrity. We don't know whether these two sets of allegations are related, or whether other military leaders who have issues with Clark would characterize them as issues of integrity.

What we do know from widespread reporting is that Shelton resented Clark for going over his head to the Clinton White House, the State Department, and the media. That's the closest thing to a Clark-Shelton "integrity" issue I can find in the public record. If that's Shelton's beef, he ought to say so and let others judge whether it calls into question Clark's integrity.

While he's at it, Shelton ought to explain why, if sneaking around your boss to go to the media is a grave character issue, sneaking around your former subordinate to go to the media with an unfalsifiable insinuation about him isn't. Clark says Shelton never came to him directly: "I have never heard anything about these integrity and character issues." Clark also says he has "no idea" what they are. Until Shelton clarifies the charge, Clark can't rebut it. He's presumed guilty of something serious. That's why Gibson's complaint is upside-down. If somebody is covering up what Shelton is talking about, that somebody is Shelton. And the cover-up isn't helping Clark; it's hurting him.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089014

"Now Shelton has revealed that the reason Clark was relieved involved issues of "integrity and character." Within the military code there could be no more damning statement."

That statement has been refuted in several places, most notably in Blumenthal's new book, and in Halberstam's book 'Clinton and the Generals.' Clark was going to have to retire in 60 days regardless. No one pushed him out, and it had nothing to do with Shelton's integrity issue.

"If Clark was singularly unsuccessful in his high-altitude air war on the Serb forces, which he had predicted would bring victory in a few days, it caused a lot of civilian casualties."

Which is why he lobbied for ground troops, which got him into trouble with the Pentagon.

"Looking at the film the train does appear to suddenly jump into the frame. There was only one problem: According to the Ottawa Citizen's Scott Taylor, the film had been doctored. The F-15s had made two passes and hit the bridge the first time, knocking out the train's electrical power. On the second pass, they hit the train. The two segments were spliced together so it looked like the stationary train was moving."

I'd like to see further proof of this beyond the word of Scott Taylor (?).

...and the giveaway...

"Perhaps for Wesley Clark, like Bill Clinton, another brilliant Rhodes Scholar Arkansan who served as Clark's commander in chief, it may depend on what the word "mislead" means."

Yup. Tie Clinton to Clark. Major newspapers never have ideological axes to grind. That never happens. Never. Not once.

Anyone care to take it from here?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

10. I'll have a go at your go...

That statement has been refuted in several places, most notably in Blumenthal's new book, and in Halberstam's book 'Clinton and the Generals.' Clark was going to have to retire in 60 days regardless. No one pushed him out, and it had nothing to do with Shelton's integrity issue.

I agree, Shelton's statements seem to have more to do with personal grievances with Shelton than anything else.

"If Clark was singularly unsuccessful in his high-altitude air war on the Serb forces, which he had predicted would bring victory in a few days, it caused a lot of civilian casualties."

Which is why he lobbied for ground troops, which got him into trouble with the Pentagon.

Nice of you to overlook the fact that the air campaign singularly failed to accomplish any real military goals, but through large amounts of civillian deaths forced the Serbs to allow the Muslim fundamentalist terrorists (supported by Al Qaeda and the US) to seize control of a portion of Serbia. These are the same Muslim fundamentalist terrorists that are now demanding the withdrawl of US forces from Kosovo.

"Looking at the film the train does appear to suddenly jump into the frame. There was only one problem: According to the Ottawa Citizen's Scott Taylor, the film had been doctored. The F-15s had made two passes and hit the bridge the first time, knocking out the train's electrical power. On the second pass, they hit the train. The two segments were spliced together so it looked like the stationary train was moving."

I'd like to see further proof of this beyond the word of Scott Taylor (?).

Below is an excerpt from a report commissioned by the the NATO controlled, NATO funded, prosecutor of the ICTY:

It is the opinion of the committee that the bridge was a legitimate military objective. The passenger train was not deliberately targeted. The person controlling the bombs, pilot or WSO, targeted the bridge and, over a very short period of time, failed to recognize the arrival of the train while the first bomb was in flight. The train was on the bridge when the bridge was targeted a second time and the bridge length has been estimated at 50 meters (Wenz study para 6 g above at p.25). It is the opinion of the committee that the information in relation to the attack with the first bomb does not provide a sufficient basis to initiate an investigation. The committee has divided views concerning the attack with the second bomb in relation to whether there was an element of recklessness in the conduct of the pilot or WSO. Despite this, the committee is in agreement that, based on the criteria for initiating an investigation (see para. 5 above), this incident should not be investigated. In relation to whether there is information warranting consideration of command responsibility, the committee is of the view that there is no information from which to conclude that an investigation is necessary into the criminal responsibility of persons higher in the chain of command. Based on the information available to it, it is the opinion of the committee that the attack on the train at Grdelica Gorge should not be investigated by the OTP.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#IVB1

The fact is, the prosecutor refused to even investigate this or any of the other claims of war crimes by NATO in Kosovo, which is hardly surprising since NATO both funded and controlled the prosecutor's office.

There was distinct evidence of manipulation of the footage used at the press briefing, and even Clark's own statements make it clear that the train was hit not once but twice, even though it's presence was known up to 8 seconds before the first bomb struck. After that first bomb hit, the aircraft circled around and hit it a SECOND time, and even the biased ICTY prosecutor's office had concerns with that.

As you will notice however, the reports authors in this case decided to take NATO's word for it (just like in all the other cases) and refused to investigate.

Perhaps for Wesley Clark, like Bill Clinton, another brilliant Rhodes Scholar Arkansan who served as Clark's commander in chief, it may depend on what the word "mislead" means."

Yup. Tie Clinton to Clark. Major newspapers never have ideological axes to grind. That never happens. Never. Not once.

Yes, how dare a reporter tie Clark to Clinton, after all it's not like "Shelton resented Clark for going over his head to the Clinton White House" (your post) or that Clark "won Clinton's backing" (wyldwolf's post).

Clark supporters are never hypocritical. That never happens. Never. Not once.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Reply to your reply

"Nice of you to overlook the fact that the air campaign singularly failed to accomplish any real military goals, but through large amounts of civillian deaths forced the Serbs to allow the Muslim fundamentalist terrorists (supported by Al Qaeda and the US) to seize control of a portion of Serbia. These are the same Muslim fundamentalist terrorists that are now demanding the withdrawl of US forces from Kosovo."

I will take your word for this, but ask: Was the war Clark's idea? Was the sole reliance on the ground war Clark's idea? I'd say no, no more than going into Iraq without enough troops was the idea of our present commanders over there. People clobber Clark for Kosovo. They should be clobbering Clinton. Don't blame the sword but the hand that weilds it.

"There was distinct evidence of manipulation of the footage used at the press briefing, and even Clark's own statements make it clear that the train was hit not once but twice, even though it's presence was known up to 8 seconds before the first bomb struck. After that first bomb hit, the aircraft circled around and hit it a SECOND time, and even the biased ICTY prosecutor's office had concerns with that."

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Clark was involved in this alleged doctoring? Again, bad aim.

As for the Clinton thing, come on NZ. You're a student of American politics. This is a big red flag.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

18. My reply to your reply to my reply...

I will take your word for this, but ask: Was the war Clark's idea? Was the sole reliance on the ground war Clark's idea? I'd say no, no more than going into Iraq without enough troops was the idea of our present commanders over there. People clobber Clark for Kosovo. They should be clobbering Clinton. Don't blame the sword but the hand that weilds it.

The KLA is a Muslim terrorist organisation. After successfully taking over Kosovo, they tried to do the same thing to Macedonia, only they were exposed after US supplied maps were found in the possesion of supposedly Macedonian Muslim militants. It turns out that the US had given KLA forces maps of Macedonia, and the KLA had then used them to begin an insurgency in Macedonia based on accusations of ethnic cleansing there. Sound familiar?

It is interesting to note that once the US was forced to prevent the KLA from carrying out the cross border attacks from Kosovo, the supposed acts of genocide by the Macedonian military failed to appear.

And yes, you are right that Clark doesn't deserve the blame for starting the war, but just like in Iraq, and Germany circa 1945, he can't claim he was only following orders and expect not to be punished for it.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Clark was involved in this alleged doctoring? Again, bad aim.

It is not so much a claim of doctoring, as claim of presenting the video in a misleading manner. It was shown as if it was one contiguous event that occured over a few seconds, when in fact it was two seperate events that occured over a minute or more.

There were two seperate strikes on the bridge, the first could conceivably have been unstoppable, but the second was easily stoppable because the pilots KNEW they had hit a train before circling back around to hit the train again.

I am not saying that Clark ORDERED an attack on the train, I am saying that Clark COVERED-UP the attack on the train, as the US military always does when it is caught having commited a war crime.

As for the Clinton thing, come on NZ. You're a student of American politics. This is a big red flag.

Yes, I do realise what it means to right wingers, but what I was trying to point out is that one of the defences of Clark has been to tie him to Clinton and say that he had Clinton's support and this pissed off people like Shelton. It just seems a little hypocritical to turn around and point fingers at the author of this article for using a Clinton analogy (the whole "what the meaning of 'mislead' means" stuff).

I have no doubt that this criticism is coming from a right wing author, but that does not automatically make it untrue. Neither does the fact that Clinton supported Clark make the accusations against Clark untrue. Clinton is no more god than Bush is, and he could have been mislead by Clark too.

[WilliamPitt]

19. But at the end of it

at least from your responses, there is alot more gray in the accusations than the straight black and white provided in the original article.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

31. Yes there is a whole lot of gray.

But that is my problem. There is so much gray, that I feel that Clark should prove himself BEFORE being given the most powerful job in the world.

If he was running for Governor or the Senate, I would wholeheartedly agree that he is a good candidate, because in neither role would he be capable of single handedly bringing misfortune to the entire globe.

But right now, there is so much gray around him that to let him become the president would be to take an almighty chance that he is NOT a PNAC style fascist (only smarter).

[WilliamPitt]

32. Fair enough

[gully]

40. My thoughts exactly.

"But that is my problem. There is so much gray, that I feel that Clark should prove himself BEFORE being given the most powerful job in the world."

:shrug:

[AP]

21. The US was schizophrenic in Yugoslavia thanks to a US public who

USED TO measure America foreign policy by how many US lives the policy cost.

There is no doubt that people were dying and that Milosevic was a fascist and a criminal. (Have you noticed that all his henchmen are pleading guilty to war crimes charges, and that Milosevic's own trial isn't going very well for him?)

Clark wanted to risk US lives with ground troops, and he was right. But even that policy couldn't be carried out effectively because the US would get into a situation, and at the first sign of trouble, pull back on Clinton's instructions. Clark (and Clinton, to a degree) weren't the causes of bad strategy, so much as they were the victims of a narcissistic American public who never would have foregiven Clinton and the Democrats if we lost any lives. (Why Bush feels that he doesn't have to play by these same rules is baffling and amazing, and is probably due to the fact that they do control the media, and the media will be on their side beginning next summer).

So, of course, placing such a premium on the lives of US soldiers ended up making it really hard to fulfill Clark's intentions, but Clark. unlike most of the Pentagon, wanted to see a solution, and measured success by bringing an end to Milosevic's fascist aggressions, which was not an attitued shared by Colin Powell or General Shelton.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

30. Ain't propaganda grand?

There is no doubt that people were dying and that Milosevic was a fascist and a criminal. (Have you noticed that all his henchmen are pleading guilty to war crimes charges, and that Milosevic's own trial isn't going very well for him?)

Actually, there is plenty of doubt that people were dying as part of a genocidal campaign. What started out as accusations of over a hundred thousand murders were whittled down to close to six thousand, and of those, there is plenty of doubt as to whether they were intentionally murdered or whether they were 1) KLA members killed in combat, 2) civillians caught in the crossfire, just like those ten thousand Iraqi civillians caught in the crossfire in Iraq.

Second, Milosevic was a socialist who refused to bend to the will of the fascist corporations that demanded that he privatise state owned assets.

Third, I don't know where you heard about the Milosevic trial, but I have been reading the transcripts, and I get the totally OPPOSITE impression. In a just court, he would be found innocent, and charges would be laid against the prosecutors for presenting perjured evidence.

The fact is, he is not being tried in a just court. He is being tried in a NATO funded, NATO controlled Kangaroo court, so it is likely he will be found guilty no matter what evidence is presented, including admissions from prosecution witnesses that they were mistreated and bribed into commiting perjury and lying about Milosevic's involvement in war crimes. You don't have to believe me, read the transcripts for yourself.

By the way, do you even realise that Kosovo was a province of Serbia? It wasn't a sovereign nation, although it had been granted some autonomy. When Kosovo Albanians started to commit terrorist acts in the name of independance, Serbia began an anti-terror war against the KLA. What many people fail to notice is that Kosovo Albanians could easily have gone to Albania if they had not wanted to be a part of Serbia, but for some reason (corporate takeover of Serbia's assets) the US decided to support these Muslim terrorists (just like in Afghanistan in the 80's).

[AP]

33. Milosevic's people are pleading guilty to war crimes charges today.

Can you cite anything from the transcripts that supports what you're saying.

I'm not reading the transcripts, but I have been trying to follow what's going on there. So I am open to the possibility that I'm missing something.

Furthermore, I think there's no reason to believe this trial isn't fair. The rules of the court are incredibly fair and the entire proceeding is on the record, and Milosevic has a lot of resources to put forward in his defense.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

44. Wouldn't you plead guilty if you knew...

1) that pleading guilty would result in a lesser sentence

and

2) that the court was totally biased and likely to find you guilty no matter what?

Can you cite anything from the transcripts that supports what you're saying.

Here is probably the best example, both of the lies being told (and why), and the bias of the court:

25 Q. Is it true that they offered on that occasion to you certain

Page 8765

1 protective measures? They told you you would be in prison for six months
2 and would be tried if you don't agree to charge me falsely, to level false
3 allegations against me? Is that true or not?

4 A. They spoke to me about the difficult position I was in. They
5 warned me against the possible consequences and offered me an option in
6 the form of accusing Milosevic, as the person who issued orders for those
7 criminal offences, which would relieve me of liability before a criminal
8 court.

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. Do you know that in 1998 -- sorry. 1988, the General Assembly of
14 the United Nations adopted by consensus a declaration against torture, and
15 that such treatment that you were subjected to is explicitly forbidden by
16 this declaration, as well as forcing --

17 MR. NICE: Your Honour --

18 MR. MILOSEVIC:

19 Q. -- statements from detainees, extortion and such things?

20 JUDGE MAY: This doesn't appear to have any relevance to the
21 evidence the witness has given here, none at all. He's been agreeing with
22 you, he's been agreeing to the matters you've put to him, and we're not
23 certainly going to litigate here what happened in Yugoslavia when he was
24 arrested. What we're concerned with, as you know, is events in Kosovo.

25 THE ACCUSED: Mr. May, the conduct of a puppet

Page 8766

1 regime in Belgrade is completely identical to the false indictment --

2 JUDGE MAY: Precisely the sort of point which we're not going to
3 consider. Now, have you got any more relevant questions for this witness?
4 Or we'll move on.
5 Mr. Tapuskovic, have you got any questions of this witness?

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: Yes.

7 THE ACCUSED: Of course I have more questions. I
8 have many more questions.

9 JUDGE MAY: How long do you think you'll need, Mr. Tapuskovic?

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: Your Honours, I will try to do
11 what I have to do within 15 minutes.

12 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Move on to some other topic.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC:

15 Q. All right. Is it true that inciting somebody to false testimony
16 and false accusations is a criminal act under our law?

17 JUDGE MAY: That is precisely the point that has been ruled
18 against. Now, you'll have to deal with his evidence. Do you challenge,
19 for instance, the meeting at which it was said you were at and there was
20 talking of the cleaning up of the terrain? If so, you should put that?

21 THE ACCUSED: Mr. May, I am asking precisely that
22 question: Is it true that this statement that has been presented about
23 the mopping up of the terrain was drafted precisely by the same people and
24 under the sponsorship of those people who exerted pressure on you and who
25 have been torturing you for one year and a half now?

Page 8767

1 A. Yes, it's an interview with the same people.

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020726IT.htm

The "Q" is Milosevic on cross-examination. The "A" is prosecution witness Radomir Markovic.

Now, here we see Milosevic ask a prosecution witness whether he was coerced into commiting perjury. He agrees that he was. Milosevic then goes on to ask again whether he was coerced into commiting perjury, and the witness once again agrees that he was.

At this point Milosevic seems to be about to ask directly whether he was tortured as per the UN definition, and Judge May cuts him off. May says that there is no relevence to the claims that the witness was coerced to commit perjury, and when Milsoevic complains that it is an example of the falsity of the charges brought against him (and thus relevent), the Judge point blanks say that such accusations are not going to be considered.

He then goes on to cut off Milosevic's cross examination on this subject and thus prevent him from further exploring this major breach of the rules of ANY just court.

Now tell me, does that sound like a fair trial to you? And this was not the only such occasion when prosecution witnesses were protected by the Judge when their testimony began to fall apart.

Furthermore, I think there's no reason to believe this trial isn't fair. The rules of the court are incredibly fair and the entire proceeding is on the record, and Milosevic has a lot of resources to put forward in his defense.

Yes, the entire proceeding is on record, but did you hear about the above piece of the trial in the media? No? And so what does it being on record do if the majority of the people think, like you, that Milosevic is getting a fair trial because the media refuses to report the truth?

Now you know why the media stopped following the trial. They stopped because Milosevic started cutting the prosecution to pieces, and it was better to present "editted highlights" in order to cover up this fact.

Did you know that Milosevic is prevented from speaking to legal advisers (except those agreed to by the court). Did you know that he often recieves hundreds of pages of "evidence" the day before he is supposed to cross examine the witnesses presenting it?

Like I said, you don't have to believe me, go read the transcripts for yourself:

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm

[AP]

46. You're aware that the use of Witness Protection Programs

and trading evidence for dropping charges is a feature of every legal system in the world, and that it doesn't undermine convictions any. The defendant is always allowed to cross on this point.

In this case, you have a witness whom Milosevic probably knows did bad things because Milosevic ordered them, and he's asking the obvious question -- why aren't you on trial here too?

This definitely goes to witness credibility. However, read all the rest of his testimony. Are you saying anything in there isn't credible? He answered the question about the immunity deal honestly. Why isn't he answering every other question honestly?

One feature of the pro-Milosevic arguments that I find slightly ingenuous is taking common features of fair trials and trying to spin them into some incrimination of the system. In the opening statements, the prosecution stated the case they intended to improve. This is alwasy going to be an ambtious statement, and you alway know that you'll be relying on different combinations of direct and circumstantial evidence to prove various elements. The pro-Milosvic people tried to pretend that the opening statement was itself an attempt to give evidence, and they went off on how the statements weren't supported by facts.

The whole thing was totally mad and a complete misrepresentation of the trial.

Incidentally, the prosecution didn't object to relevant credibility evidence (the stuff about the deal and the WPP), he objected to the 1988 stuff which wasn't relevant.

Furthermore, a cite for the claim Milosevic doesn't have access to lawyers of his chosing? I've read that he has a big team of well-funded lawyers and that he choses to represent himself for strategic reasons, and that he has complete access to his lawyer and to the evidence. I've never heard that he gets treated the way US treats Moussaui (sp?), for example.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

50. Nope this isn't Witness protection.

The witness was directly asked if he had been coerced into giving false testimony, in fact the words used were "to falsely accuse me", and the witness answered "that is correct".

This isn't a case of a witness being offered protection for testifying, it is a case of a witness being offered bribes in order to testify falsely, or if he refused to be locked up on trumped up charges.

However, read all the rest of his testimony. Are you saying anything in there isn't credible? He answered the question about the immunity deal honestly. Why isn't he answering every other question honestly?

In fact, most of his testimony on direct was contradicted by his testimony of cross, as even Judge May says in the part of the transcript I quoted. But do you suggest that WHY he lied is less important than IF he lied? Do you not think that the fact that one witness directly admitted having been forced to falsely accuse Milosevic (and there have been others) might have a bearing on the case in general?

One feature of the pro-Milosevic arguments that I find slightly ingenuous is taking common features of fair trials and trying to spin them into some incrimination of the system. In the opening statements, the prosecution stated the case they intended to improve. This is alwasy going to be an ambtious statement, and you alway know that you'll be relying on different combinations of direct and circumstantial evidence to prove various elements. The pro-Milosvic people tried to pretend that the opening statement was itself an attempt to give evidence, and they went off on how the statements weren't supported by facts.

Did I make such a claim? Then why mention it here? Are you trying to say that because some other person you supposedly saw was unfairly critical of perfectly standard procedures that I am being unfairly critical of prefectly standard procedures? If so, is it perfectly standar procedure to prevent the defence from questioning a prosecution witness as to whether he was coerced into giving false testimony?

Incidentally, the prosecution didn't object to relevant credibility evidence (the stuff about the deal and the WPP), he objected to the 1988 stuff which wasn't relevant.

Of course it is relevant! The witness admitted he had been coerced, and that coercion included mistreatment and bribery. When Milsovic raised the UN information he was clearly going to ask the witness whether he had been tortured (other wise why eles talk about the UN rules against torture?)

He was cut off before he was able to ask the question by the Prosecutor who was backed up by the Judge. Are you really trying to tell me that possible torture of prosecution witnesses is irrelevant?

Furthermore, a cite for the claim Milosevic doesn't have access to lawyers of his chosing? I've read that he has a big team of well-funded lawyers and that he choses to represent himself for strategic reasons, and that he has complete access to his lawyer and to the evidence. I've never heard that he gets treated the way US treats Moussaui (sp?), for example.

Oh, I agree that Milosevic is being treated better than Moussaoui, but that does not make the treatment of Milosevic right. As for the cites, refer to the transcripts. You will find in there rulings on all sorts of issues, from whether Milosevic is allowed to see anyone he wants, to whether he must be given time to read the hundreds of pages of evidence that should have been presented to him before the trial even started. It's all in there, spread out over the length of the trial. I don't have time to search for them all now, but if you really want to see the truth, then you should look for yourself.

[AP]

51. The witness was asked a compound questiond, or 2 separate q's...

...basically -- did you get a deal and were you asked to lie. He then describes the deal. Nowhere does he admit to lying, and nothing in his answer implies he was lying.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

73. I don't know what transcript you are reading...

but the one I quoted is pretty clear:

9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

That is not a two part question, and the answer is unambiguous. The witness clearly agrees that he was offered money in order to falsely accuse Milosevic.

If this was the only such case, then I might agree that it is some sort of aberation, that the witness misunderstood the question, but it isn't.

On another occasion, Milosevic didn't even get to question the witness before he broke down. During the prosecution's direct examination the witness cracked and said something along the lines of "why are you trying to make me say these things?" He then went on to complain about his treatment and said "stop torturing me" or words to that effect.

Before Milosevic could question the witness he was ordered off the stand, and as far as I know has failed to make a reappearance.

I must go find the transcript of this, because it is very interesting and seems to suggest mental torture (sleep deprivation, threats etc) were being used to force him to lie against Milosevic. Will take some time though, because as you can imagine for a court case that has gone on as long as this, there is a whole lot of reading to do.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

76. That was easier than I thought

Here is a section of the transcript of the Milosevic trial. It deals with a protected witness (given the pseudonym K12):

20 Q. K12, I asked you yesterday about whether you had done national
21 service. Do you remember answering that question? You said you had
22 done.

23 A. Is he asking me something? Is he asking me to confirm something?
24 What is this?

25 Q. Did you do national service in Yugoslavia?

Page 6197

1 A. I did do my military service, and I think I said that yesterday.
2 Please tell him, tell the Judge that I have had enough of this
3 psychological processing for two days now, and I've been confused even
4 more and more. I cannot testify on anyone's behalf today, and leave me
5 alone. I'll go crazy this way. And --

6 JUDGE MAY: Witness -- Witness K12. You must understand your
7 position. You are in front of a court of law which has summoned you to
8 give evidence. You have declined to do so. We have considered our powers
9 in relation to this, and they are these: that we may, in the exercise of
10 our powers, hold in contempt those who knowingly and wilfully interfere
11 with the administration of justice, and that includes any person who,
12 being a witness before a Chamber, perversely refuses or fails to answer a
13 question.
14 Now, you should understand that we have a power to hold you in
15 contempt for refusing to answer the questions which have been properly
16 asked by the Prosecutor.

17 Now, are you going to answer the questions or not?

18 THE WITNESS: If they think I'm guilty of
19 something, then they can put me into prison. If they don't understand why
20 I cannot testify, then I can't explain it any better than this. I've
21 tried to explain this, but if I cannot, I cannot. And if they should
22 think I should go to prison, I'll go to prison, and I'll sit there for as
23 long as it takes. I have more problems now than if I were in prison. So
24 just put me in prison, then.

25 JUDGE MAY: Very well. You are refusing to answer the questions

Page 6198

1 of the Court. We make a finding that you are in contempt of this Tribunal
2 as a result of your refusal to answer questions. We direct the Prosecutor
3 to initiate proceedings against you. We will order the Registrar, if you
4 make an application, to provide counsel for you. You will return to this
5 Tribunal to be dealt, when your explanation or explanations of counsel
6 will be considered, and we will decide what is an appropriate punishment
7 for this contempt.
8 Meanwhile, you will remain on the list of witnesses as a witness
9 who is listed to give evidence. Should you change your mind and decide to
10 give evidence, you should notify the Prosecutor, and you will be called.
11 Meanwhile, you'll be notified of a date for you to appear here again to be
12 dealt with for your contempt.
13 The Court will now rise for five minutes before continuing with
14 the next witness.
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020604ED.htm

Now what exactly is happening here is not totally clear, because much of what occured happened behind the scenes. The day before this happened, the witness appeared in court and refused to answer questions. The Judge allowed the witness to stand down and the prosecution to "speak" with him. This of course is a breach of standard trial rules against "coaching the witness" during his evidence. The next the witness was once again brought before the tribunal and once again refused to answer questions.

My memory of how this went was fuzzy and my claims as to what he said were wrong, but the meaning is essentially the same. He claims above that he was being psychologically processed and that he will "go crazy this way".

The next day, Milosevic tried to raise this issue and accused the prosecutor (in a veiled way) of torturing the witness, and was once again told that this was irrelevent and had nothing to do with him!

20 THE ACCUSED: Then just -- then just one more
21 objection, because I saw that you discussed the punishment of Witness K12
22 because he didn't want to testify. I wish to remind you of the existence
23 of a declaration against torture that was adopted by the United Nations.

24 JUDGE MAY: This is irrelevant to you. Absolutely nothing to do
25 with you. The contempt proceedings -- the contempt proceedings are

Page 7208

1 nothing to do with you and are between the Court and the witness.
2 Mr. Nice, is there any matter you want to raise?
3 No. You have been allowed to go on for a very long time. You are
4 now dealing with irrelevant matter.
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020702ED.htm

Once again, Milosevic is being told that no matter what the prosecution witness says, claims that prosecution witnesses are being tortured to lie are irrelevent. This clearly shows bias by the Judge. If any of Milosevic's defense witnesses were to say something like this, I am sure such accusations would become part of the charges against Milosevic, but the prosecutor can act with impunity because even if a witness claims he is being mistreated the Judge will rule that it is irrelevent, and in this case participate in the mistreatment by punishing the witness for refusing to testify.

By the way, did you notice that May seemed to respond to something Milosevic said but that we do not see what that was (the second to last line above)? This is because the Judge routinely cuts off Milosevic's microphone and thus prevents the interpreters and reporter from recording it.

This happens time and time again when Milosevic is protesting the courts biased treatment of him, and in any just court would not be allowed. Everything said in the court should be recorded, but in this court, if the Judge doesn't like it, it is gone down the memory hole.

[AP]

85. See this is what I'm talking about:

Now what exactly is happening here is not totally clear, because much of what occured happened behind the scenes. The day before this happened, the witness appeared in court and refused to answer questions. The Judge allowed the witness to stand down and the prosecution to "speak" with him. This of course is a breach of standard trial rules against "coaching the witness" during his evidence. The next the witness was once again brought before the tribunal and once again refused to answer questions.



I think you're confused about trial procedure. There's no prohibtion that would prevent a juge from letting a witness stop giving evidence, talk to the lawyer leading that witness, and then resume testifying.



You can't lead a witness when the witness when the witness is on the stand. But you must know that you cao prep your own witness, adn that witnesses always give evidence accross a period of time which might be broken up by lunch or might carry over to the next day. During breaks, lawyer can confer with the witness.



In fact, this looks like it's the opposite of what you think it means. It looks like this judge was going out of his way to prevent the witness from being charged with contempt. The witness seems to be a little crazy (understandable, if, say, he killed a lot of people and it haunts him, like those Tiger Force soldiers making the news today).



And, you knw, the contempt proceedings are a completely separate matter. The guy can claim insanity or claim he was giving evidence under duress. Milosevic calls this "punishment for not testifying" however, it's not punishment. He's being charged, and he'll be tried. The rules of evidence will apply. This is not some crazy thing.



As for Milosevic bringing up the 1988 rule, it's not clear, with so little context, what this is about. The judge is NOT stopping Milosevic from laying the groundwork for a claim of bias or of the witness not being trustworty. He can ask the torture questions. There's obvioulsy something he keeps trying to get in about the 1988 thing which is very likely outside the scope of the trial. Without the full context, I don't know. But I don't see that your batting average is all that good here, so, until I see more, I don't know what to make of it, but I suspect it isn't what you think it is.



There are hundreds of witnesses, and if Milosevic is getting into the record a compound question, the answer to which can somehow be construted as inplying one witness was tortured, then he's probably doing all right. I have a feeling, these witnesses are not going to break the prosecutions case.



You know, I was so glad that Milosevic was going to be tried in a court of law because I thought, yes, the facts will come out. People will know.It will prove that things like Iraq are the wrong way to handled this stuff.



But I read your misinterpretations and your spin and I see that even a trial can be made to look like something it isn't by people really determined to change its meaning.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

88. MY misinterpretations???

Are you reading the same transcript?

In your previous post you tried to turn a direct question asking a witness whether he was being coerced into "falsely accusing" Milosovic into a two part question that dealt with an "immunity deal"!

As for witnesses being allowed to talk with the prosecuter during adjournments in their testimony, can you please explain why they are told by the judge not to discuss the case with ANYONE including the prosecution? In the transcripts there are numerous cases of this.

In fact just to prove that it is YOU who is misinterpreting the rules of the court here is a section of the transcript:

17 JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. Well, that's a convenient moment
18 to adjourn.
19 Mr. Erstic, we must ask you to come back to conclude your evidence
20 tomorrow morning. Could you remember during the adjournment not to speak
21 to anybody about it until it's over, and that does include the members of
22 the Prosecution team. And could you be back, please, at 9.00 tomorrow
23 morning.

24 THE WITNESS: Okay.

25 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. The Court will adjourn.
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/030724IT.htm

So do you care to retract your claims that I am spinning and misinterpreting the trial, and admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

95. I sure hope you are going to reply to my last post AP...

I hope you haven't figured out that discretion is the better part of valour and decided to turn tail and run from this argument.

It was just getting good! :-)

[knowledgeispower]

57. The Milosevic-war crimes link has no real significance

If the United States were not the world's only superpower, don't you think George W. would be charged with war crimes? But I'll bet my bottom dollar he won't be. The point is, everyone who starts a war is guilty of many "war crimes," but only the ones who lose are actually prosecuted for it.

[AP]

17. People, the Pentagon was trying to gift wrap a chaotic Yugoslavia and hand

it to the next Republican administration. Blumenthal's book talks about how recently deposed Tory ex-cabinet ministers were cutting deals with Milosevic making money on arms sales and everything else. The RW LOVED Milosevic. The PNAC'ers wanted him there to get the anti-Muslim sentiments flamed, probably, to destabilize Europe, and because he was one of them at heart.

They were pissed that Clark was successful. They're even more pissed that a court is handling this matter now (rather than the OBL, SH solution, which is let them get away, so that you can use them as hobgobblins of the right for little minds later).

Attacks like these are so transparent (Chicago Sun-Times!).

You all should be ashamed of dragging that shit into DU.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

24. The "court" is "handling" it alright!

They are covering up NATO war crimes, and falsifying evidence against Milosevic in order to "prove" that their version of Iraq was just.

Did you know that one of the prosecution witnesses admitted under cross examination that he had been mistreated, and offered bribes, to agree to lie and say Milosevic had been involved in war crimes?

Did you know that the ICTY judges ruled that whether or not witnesses were being tortured or bribed to commit perjury against Milosevic was irrelevant to the trial?

Yep, DUers should be ashamed all right, but not the ones you suggest. The ones that should be ashamed are the ones that believe the same press that lied about Iraq told the truth about Kosovo.

[AP]

25. I'd like to see some cites to that. I'd think Sylvia Pujoli would have mad

a big deal about it in betwen drooling all over the guys suits and tellings us all how wonderfully he's defending himself.

NPR stopped lauding this guy when his cross of the prosecution witnesses started to go bad.

And I'm not worried about witness tampering, if any. Milosevic is going to get a full year to state his case. If there's anything to this stuff, he'll get to put in on the record.

[Julien Sorel]

5. It's a hyped-up op-ed piece.

The first half of it talks about NATO's alleged errors, not Clark's, while the F-15 stuff is A) unproven; and B) there is nothing presented linking Clark to any doctoring of footage that may have occured -- if it occured. The attempt to link Shelton's statement to this is particularly twisted, as several people who know both of them have suggested the disagreement is and was personal, not over Clark's conduct of specific parts of the war. Similarly, Clark's being relieved early has been analyzed to death, and the most reasonable explanation presented has been that Shelton and Cohen resented Clark's back-door influence with Clinton. If Clark was moved out over doctored footage, why was it done behind Clinton's back, and leaked to the press so Clinton's hands would be tied?

Speaking if 'disinformation,' Lipscomb includes this little gem:

When CNN fired him, Clark blamed the influence of President Bush, which CNN denied.

Clark quit, he wasn't fired, and he said Bush had put pressure on CNN to move him out, because he wasn't rah-rah enough during the war; I believe someone at CNN has agreed that there was pressure. Anyone even remotely familar with this should have caught it, and looked a little more closely at the rest of this smoldering piece of shit, but why bother using your brain, when some hack is saying something you want to hear.

Did you really think this piece was so impressive and powerful that someone would have to use 'strawmen' to cut it up? Amazing.

[WilliamPitt]

6. But but but it was a mainstream newspaper!

Two words:

Judy Miller.

[Kahuna]

7. Whoopty freakin' doo. Who is Thomas Lipscomb? What...

is his agenda? And why should I care what he thinks? It's an op-ed dude. The papers are full of op-eds by individuals trying to push their own agenda.

[WilliamPitt]

8. Posts #3 and #4 pretty much answer everything here

Be curious if the original poster returns to review.

[kodi]

9. yeap, if they're shooting at ya' you must be doing something right

this is a smear campaign, replete with aerial and ground troops attacking.

[tlcandie]

11. I am shaking my head... for ONCE I had hoped to see debate

on matters of points, etc which is how it started. I was pleasantly surprised to see documentation posted, quoted, linked w/o personal finger pointing and stabby little inuendos.

But then it started and it started from the Clark supporters. WHY? Why does it have to be like this? Why can't we be civil to one another and get past the point of taking things/candidates personally?

For once it truly seemed that the Clark threads might be looking, but now this one is doomed to the same fate as ALL of the rest.

I'm not Clark, I'm not Dean...I'm Kucinich, but I refuse to become a part of the cannibalizing of the FEW in this country who MIGHT turn things around if we get our HEADS out of our gdAmned asses!

Okay, I'm pissed .. and I'm sure I will be flamed, but I'm so gdamned f...k...g fed up with this gdamned f....k...g BS!!!!!

GROW UP!!!! GET A LIFE!! See that we are ALL connected and quit pushing people away and thinking you are exclusionary(sp?) or elitist or victimized!!!

:mad: :nuke:

EDIT: I keep trying to truly LOOK at Clark for voting on after primaries if Kucinich doesn't make it, but I can't friggin' get past all this f...k...g BS!!! You are loosing me fast here!!! VERY FAST! In fact, you aren't giving me any reason or hope to even check into him because of all this vicious and maliciousness!!! I do NOT want to be associated in any way, shape or form with these types of people. There's enough in this friggin' admin for the whole world!

[WilliamPitt]

13. Um

Posts 3, 4, 10, 12. Find me the "viciousness" in any post above. I think you haven't had your coffee yet. Oops...was that vicious? :eyes:

I've seen posters pointedly not defending Clark use words above like "intellectual dishonesty" and "hypocrisy."

[JNelson6563]

22. I thought it was a pretty good discussion

Some thought and effort and some decent reasoning from different views. I didn't think it was vicious.

Julie

[tlcandie]

23. No, those are the posts that I said started out correct but then

others came in and started the slinging. I don't drink coffee and please don't do this as I was NOT talking about you or Wyld's posts and I thought you could all figure out who I was talking about w/o pointing fingers ..

EDIT: forget it. I should have known better than to try to say anything. I will just avoid Clark and Dean threads anymore period. Good luck everyone :hi:

[AP]

27. Are you talking about my posts?

Everything in my posts is from The End of the American Era, and The Clinton Wars.

Hope that helps.

(You couldn't be talking about my posts, since I didn't post for a half hour afte you posted your statement.)

[Julien Sorel]

15. This isn't agriculture.

You can't plant shit and grow crops as a result. Sorry.

[Tinoire]

20. The two examples you cited are well known within military circles

but there were many more. Wes Clark was known as somene who would do aything to win, or look as if he were winning, even if that meant exaggerrating battlefield success by chaling up dummy kills as real kills- an absolute no-no!

Let me re-bold your examples because the apologists seem to have missed them

There were supposed to be 100,000 prisoners detained by the Serbs in a soccer stadium in Pristina. An Agence France Presse reporter dropped by the stadium a few days later and admired its green grass and empty seats with the single caretaker on the site.

NATO headquarters passed along Albanian allegations that Serbian victims were being incinerated at a Trpca mine smelter. But when interviewed by reporter Ben Works, NATO officers admitted they had monitored the site during the entire war and the smelter had never been fired up.

Dozens of dummy objectives, including fake bridges and airfields were constructed. Many of the decoy planes were so good that NATO claimed that the Yugoslav air force had been decimated. After the war, it turned out most of its planes had survived unscathed.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021120/wless1120/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

You do not count dummy target kills as real kills! There are tons of photos available on the internet of these dummy kills Clark counted and these were highly publicized in Europe as the people there protested this obscene war the same way Americans protested Iraq later. Having been asleep at the time is NO EXCUSE for dismissing, rationalizing or excusing this!


For those of us who give a rat's ass about the bloated Pentagon budget and the obscene amount of money spent justifying the existence and development of newer and more expensive weapons that don't work, what happened in Yugoslavia is no laughing matter. Our shiny toys did not work and Clark reported that they did. Clark reported that the war was an unqualified success but it wasn't. From a military point of view it was a dismal failure. People were shocked when precision guided missiles failed in Iraq I and missed buildings- well guess what- they failed in Yugoslavia also but Clark was reporting that they worked! Clark justified their existence and future development. Millions, billions of your tax dollars but the Centrists and Moderates among us don't care because they're ok with wasting your tax dollars on these unneccessary toys to keep the Military Industrial Complex all pumped up. FOR SHAME WHEN AMERICANS ARE GOING HUNGRY AND WE HAVE A CANDIDATE OUT THERE WILLING TO FIGHT THIS! .

Let me spell it out- When you complain about the obscene amount of money flushed down the tubes thank Wesley Clark for having lied and said that these expensive toys were working when they weren't. THOSE are some of the integrity and character issues that Shelton was talking about!

<snip>

"Some people at the Pentagon take it very seriously as a means of planning for the future, and others use it loosely to serve their bureaucratic purposes," says Professor Tom Mahnken, a former staffer at the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA) and an RMA expert at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. "It's become fashionable to justify your pet rock by calling it part of the RMA." Pierre Sprey, a former weapons designer who quit consulting for the Pentagon during the Reagan years in disgust over pork-barreling, is more scathing: "The RMA is just an excuse to funnel money to the defense contractors by funding a whole new generation of high-tech weapons."

High-tech weapons associated with the RMA helped NATO carry out "the most accurate bombing campaign in history," according to Gen. Wesley Clark, who headed NATO forces in Kosovo. Except for some unfortunate attacks on refugee convoys and KLA posts, not to mention the precision-guided bomb that leveled the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, these strikes were also praised for limiting civilian deaths. And, because these "brilliant" bombs can be delivered from planes flying at 15,000 feet and from other "platforms" far from the field of combat, they are vital to the new US military strategy of war with impunity and without casualties-American, anyway.

No American was killed in battle in Kosovo. On the receiving end, according to Fred Kaplan of the Boston Globe, the bombs dropped over Yugoslavia, ton for ton, killed more civilians than during the Gulf War and about the same number as during the Vietnam War. (That may have been because military commanders, overly emboldened by the greater accuracy of high-tech weapons, tried to pick off targets surgically, and failed.) NATO inflicted heavy damage on Yugoslavia's civilian infrastructure and economy, but it didn't need gold-plated weaponry for that. Old-fashioned planes, even B-52s, were as deadly as ever. "It was plain old random destruction," one Pentagon hand says of the Kosovo campaign. "The only thing we proved is that we're able to bomb the shit out of a little country."

<snip>

Air power was most effective toward the end of the campaign, but only after the Kosovo Liberation Army had grown to 17,000 and was able to force the Serbs to mass and expose their armor. Nevertheless, Serb gunners were firing Russian surface-to-air missiles on the final day of fighting despite enormous efforts by NATO to destroy Yugoslavia's air defense system. After claiming on June 10 that US-led forces had destroyed 122 tanks, about 250 armored personnel carriers and some 450 artillery pieces, Pentagon officials have now quietly conceded that the true numbers are far lower. When Milosevic's forces pulled out of Kosovo, some 47,000 soldiers-more than NATO had estimated were there in the first place-staged an orderly withdrawal over a road and bridge network that supposedly had been shattered by the bombing campaign. Serb forces had sufficient stocks of fuel and appeared to take with them from Kosovo almost all of the tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery pieces that they had taken in, as well as eleven MIG fighters that they'd successfully hidden from NATO's surveillance systems. NATO troops later reported finding only three damaged tanks in the entire province. Belgrade admits that ten more tanks were hit, but says they were salvageable.

Perhaps more embarrassing were press reports that Yugoslavia had repeatedly duped NATO's high-tech arsenal with simple decoys. Among the "targets" destroyed by NATO pilots were dummy tanks, bridges and roads, some of the latter being no more than plastic tarp stretched across fields. The pilots may have been fooled because, while flying at 15,000 feet guaranteed they were beyond the reach of Yugoslav antiaircraft artillery, it also made it hard to know what they were firing at.

<snip / those who care should read this article in its entirety>
http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/buck.html

An ambitious General who chalked up dummy kills as real kills to justify expensive weapons that didn't work- and some of you see no cause for alarm? Some of you would rather impugn the integrity of officers and politicians who tried to sound a warning bell over this?

Things were so bad with these weapons and the lies coming out of Yugoslavia that the Chiraq and Blair were phoning Clinton and Cohen in the middle of the night asking them what the hell was going on. Both the French and the British DEMANDED that they review each and every target Clark was going to bomb from then on because of the avoidable civilan casualties occurring when Clark deliberately bombed electrical grid, telephone system and downtown buildings and because of the lies in his daily reports- lies which were repeatedly debunked by the journalists and HR observers on the ground.

Britain, France, Germany and Italy insisted on forming a management committee that held a faily five-way conference call with Albright to keep an eye on Clark's war and keep him in line. Despite this the Chinese Embassy was "accidentally bombed" after he had been speifically told not to touch it even IF it was funnelling information and inconveniencing his war, despite this the Pristina incident led up to a dangerous nuclear escalation for which the world would have paid a steep price.

Lgniappe:

mddemo (215 posts) Sat Sep-20-03 03:03 PM
Response to Original message

4. clark for president

This is one guy i will never vote for, I was in the British army contingent that this lunatic ordered to attack the russians at Pristina Airport. If it hadnt of been for General Sir Michael Jackson (a great commander and soldier, who told clark that he wasnt about to start WW3 for him) refusing the order my company would of been the one who started WW3. The Russians now admit they had thousands of airborne troops ready to go to support the unit at the airport, this thing would of escalated beyond belief very quickly. Clark for President no way.

New US citizen, voter and democrat.

jayson23 (13 posts) Sat Sep-20-03 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. democrat? really?

Personal attacks such as calling a four-star general a "lunatic" seem a bit more in keeping with a Fox news hound than a participant in a reasoned debate. What was your job in the British army contingent? What sort of orders did you recieve?
All of the reports I read say that Clark ordered tanks to be used to block the runway. Hardly an order to attack. From what I can see, your "great commander" was disobeying an order from a superior because he thought his judgement was superior. It's easy to engage in hypotheticals after the fact. I see General Clark as a decisive, strong leader, one I'd be proud to call my President.
I don't want to descend into sniping between candidates, and I'll support the Democratic nominee no matter who (besides Lieberman) it is, but I must stand up for General Clark.
This "story" is getting far too much coverage from the right-wing spin

mddemo (215 posts) Sat Sep-20-03 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. clark


My unit was a part of the 6th brigade, we were ordered through command to commit part of our armor to block the runway in order to stop the russians landing any more aircraft, the russian commander informed our colonel that he had orders that no one outwith his command was to enter the airport, we had guns they had guns, they were not for show. Our IC reported through DIV HQ to Sir Jackson what he had been ordered to do and advised that without additional support we couldnt force our way through the russians, at this point the CO went ballistic and realised what was about to happen ordered us to stand down. I was part of the Recce Platoon and we reported and watched as the russians prepared for an assault that they believed was coming and they were getting ready to repulse. Now as to wether Sir jackson should of disobeyed and in fact counter manded the orders, what would be your take on a US general refusing to act on Rumsfelds order to carpet bomb a civilian neighbourhood. The very fact that Clark was replaced as the British command had lost all faith in his abilities speaks volumes.
-------------------
rsammel (997 posts) Sat Sep-20-03 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #4

9. Clark did not order an attack.

He ordered Jackson to send troops towards the airport, offer to help the Russians, and camp out on the runway. Nothing here about firing, returning fire, or anything else.

Javier Solana signed off on the plan.

mddemo (215 posts) Sat Sep-20-03 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. orders to attack

Sorry but as the point of the spear so to speak, we had very definite orders, nothing about assisting the russians, we were ordered to robustly occupy the airport, and to robustly defend ourselves if attacked. Hell we even replened beforehand and took on extra ammo adn POL. To me and everyone in the Brigade these orders signified that we were to use force, they signyfied to our DIVHQ the same thing, and as i said before they were enough for our General to realise what was about to happen and for him to countermand the orders. The great thing about the military is that the orders are pretty clear as is the ROE.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=44490#44518

[Tinoire]

28. And some more

We now know the truth: Forensic teams from more than 15 countries found 187 bodies, not 44,000 as NATO claimed, not even the 10,000 of their revised figure. Even The Hague has resorted to half-truths and outrageous omissions. In their body count of 2,081 victims they fail to reveal that half were killed by NATO bombs or that one-third are Serbian victims. Even the so-called "mass grave in Pristina" promoted by NATO officials to contain 350 bodies contained only 5 bodies. So, it appears that Bernard Kouchner, the UN's chief administrator turns out to be just another liar, too. His ability to disarm the KLA has become a mockery of the peace agreement signed by both sides. Kouchner's repugnant ability to stand in stark silence as the KLA burned 2 million Serbian books reveals the level of duplicity of his mandate.

In the first chapter of Kosovo Crisis, Joksimovich takes his readers through some of the Serbian history in Kosovo that has been deliberately omitted from news accounts and by racist politicians. Chapter 3 is entitled "Milosevic: Master of Opportunism-- Not Nationalism." The thorough research of Chapter 5 reveals the low intensity conflict in 1998 in which the victims were usually unarmed Serbs or Albanians who worked for the Serbian government, or, terrorist attacks against the Serbian police. During this period, he illustrates that the average number of victims killed per day was five, but escalated to a figure of 250 per day during 78 days of bombing. Chapter 9, entitled "Operation Allied Force: 78 Days of Infamy" is a day-by-day accounting of the bombing including numerous pictures. One of those pictures from the Serbian military reveals the cockpit of the downed $45 million Stealth Fighter and the heretofore secret identity of the Stealth pilot.

Chapter 9 proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that NATO targeted civilians in violation of numerous international laws and treaties. Joksimovich reproduces General Michael Short's testimony before the House and Senate that revealed NATO's effort was intended to make Serbs suffer so badly that they would turn on their leader. It also reveals that the destruction of 105 non-military industrial plants were deliberately targeted; that over 300 Serbian schools were deliberately destroyed; that 60 bridges were deliberately destroyed, that 11 Serbian hospitals were deliberate targets; that over 65 cultural landmarks were deliberately targeted including Churches, Synagogues, museums, ancient Byzantine tombs, and historical sites such as the Cele Tower, built in 1809 with the skulls of Serbian victims. Kosovo Crisis shows evidence that even Serbian cemeteries were not spared NATO's wrath -- dozens were bombed numerous times according to Joksimovich who says, the surest way of erasing the history of a people is to bomb the oldest of their accurate cultural records, their tomb stones.

Chapter 9 ends with Joksimovich showing his readers some of the hundreds of fake airplane decoys the Serb built to deceive General Wesley Clark and his NATO "wiz" kids. The general called the Serbs "cunning." Joksimovich takes his best shot at the General, pointing out that "he graduated at the head of his class at West Point then led his computer-raised technocrats into battle dependent on 21st century technology instead of common sense." He reminds the general that the Trojans were deceived by a wooden horse and that Goliath was brought down by a simple slingshot and a stone. How demoralizing it must be for General Clark that this small nation of Serbs proved capable of outsmarting some of the finest military minds in the world.

One of the funniest deceptions revealed in Kosovo Crisis is how the Serbs rigged microwave ovens to work with their doors open. The ensuing heat attracted dozens of HARM missiles. Was it "cunning" or simply brilliant that the Serbs figured out that NATO's arrogant ego would used HARM missiles costing $750,000 each to knock out $75 dollar microwave ovens?

<snip>

http://www.towardfreedom.com/1999/dec99/crisis.htm

[returnable]

29. "the bloated Pentagon budget "

For what it's worth, Clark is one of the few Dem candidates actually calling for a cut in the Pentagon's budget.

And as for the rehasing of the Pristina airport incident, it's been beaten to death. If you want to buy into the hyperbolic claims of a "great commander", Sir Michael Jackson, who played a major role in the Bloody Sunday massacre, that's your choice.

To me, it was nothing more than a pissing contest.

[Tinoire]

34. Give me a break

Clark justified the existence and development of all those shiny toys. Paying a little lip service to cutting the Pentagon's budget simply because Kucinich made it obligatory for each candidate address this, does not suffice!

What happened between March 2003 when Clark had nary a word to say about all of this and now?

Oh yeah right. He registered Dem and is now issuing a few pat phrases... What terminal pig-headed, naivete.

It is no wonder to me that I rarely see Clark supporters on the anti-war or horrors of war threads here (with my apologies to the FEW who are). No wonder it is so easy for you to dismiss this stuff and take yet another politician's word for this.

Let me guess- you think we did a great thing in Yugoslavia, were for Afghanistant (never mind that it's still a blood-bath for our soldiers) and thought Bush was justified to go into Iraq because Sadaam had to be disarmed?

[returnable]

36. Settle down

Do I think NATO did a "great" thing in Kosovo? No, not really. I don't "dismiss" any accounts.

But I do think intervention was warranted in Kosovo. Just because you and I may draw different conclusions about the conflict doesn't mean I'm blind to the facts. You and I will just have to agree to disagree on that, I guess.

And, for the record, I believe 7 of the 9 candidates running for the Dem nominee backed that military action (if I remember correctly, Kucinich and Sharpton voiced dissent).

So if you wanna hang Clark for his role in the war, can you defend any candidate who endorsed the conflict? I mean, if you view the Kosovo action as an illegal and immoral action, how can anyone who supported it be "OK" in your eyes?

[Tinoire]

47. Actually

I am not, in that post, hanging Clark for his role in the war. I am however, hanging him for having filed reports that those multi-million dollar weapons were effective when they weren't. That is an integrity issue dealing with your, my tax dollars that cannot be dismissed lightly.

And yes, you are correct- I do not view anyone who supported that conflict as ok. Clark has plenty of company in my book- if anything, they bear an even greater resposability than he does for the war taking place. The exaggerated and deceitful kill rates however are on Clark.

[knowledgeispower]

60. Can this bit of info be substantiated?

the bombs dropped over Yugoslavia, ton for ton, killed more civilians than during the Gulf War and about the same number as during the Vietnam War.

Does this mean that overall more civilians were killed in Yugoslavia than Vietnam? Or as a ratio to the number of bomb drops, more civilian deaths resulted? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't millions of civilians killed in Vietnam? There is no way that many could have possibly been killed in Yugoslavia.

[Cocoa]

26. Lipscomb's concern about misinformation is disingenuous

When the Bushies were exaggerating how close Iraq was to developing nukes, did Lipscomb call misinfo then?

No, he outdid them with this shameful, totally truth-free scare piece called "Does Saddam already have the bomb?"

In looking for international support the Bush Administration continues to argue that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq may be close to creating a nuclear weapon. But after revelations about the extent of the North Korean atomic weapons program a more likely assumption may be that Iraq already has one or more.

more...


http://oregonmag.com/LipscombSaddam1102.htm

[mmonk]

35. well

JackRiddler, I make no claim. I can only think you make a good dupe for the republican cause to help smear Clark. I'm wondering why Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards never get smeared here for supporting the war in Iraq? There are so many double standards posted sometimes.

[gully]

43. HUH? What board you readin mmonk????

"I'm wondering why Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards never get smeared here for supporting the war in Iraq?"

These men are questioned regularilly for doing just that. Search the threads, you'll see ;)

[gully]

38. This is why the 'Clarks the most electable meme' is bunk.

I don't mind support of Clark for who he is. I just don't like hearing how the RW will have more ammo against the others because as I say, the Clark dirt makes the rest of the dirt seem spotless.

Clark will not appeal to the masses for long IMHO..

[Cocoa]

39. you're drawing conclusions from this article?

Please try to be more discriminating. Read some of this guy's other stuff before you decide how sincere his analysis is, and how much you believe his facts. The whole premise that honesty is a factor for this guy is ludicrous, imo.

[gully]

41. No I'm certainly not. I'm drawing no conclusion from the many articles

I've read about Clark, which is why I'd prefer to see him in a lesser role before becoming President.

This article is one of MANY pieces of frightening information about Wes Clark (that may or may not be true.) :shrug:

But to dismiss it with out noting the impact it can have on the coming election is fool hearty.

My point is ... the RW has an abundance of ammo to go after Clark with, and I think some of his supporters may overlook that when they say he's the MOST electable?

[mmonk]

45. excuse me gully

I guess there's so many threads attacking those candidates I didn't notice.

[TLM]

48. Something I do not undertand....

The serbs are accused of genocide for killing about 2000 civilians... Clark's bombing campaign killed about 1500 civilians.

So, is Clark also guilty of genocide? Does that mean if the serbs had only killed 500 fewer civilians, they'd be war heros like Clark?

The fact, and it is a fact, is that Clark ordered bombing of civilians, civilian targets like schools and hospitals, and journalists. Then he spoke out in defense of bombing journalists.

They dropped 20,000 bombs and only took out 13 tanks. How is that anything but a total failure?

How can anybody support this man for anything?

[dfong63]

55. good question

The serbs are accused of genocide for killing about 2000 civilians... Clark's bombing campaign killed about 1500 civilians.

So, is Clark also guilty of genocide? Does that mean if the serbs had only killed 500 fewer civilians, they'd be war heros like Clark?

imho neither side was guilty of anything near genocide. that charge (made by the NATO side) was pure hype. the killings on that scale could properly be termed "atrocities", but not genocide. and yes, it makes absolutely no sense that people are hailing the "supreme commander" of the Kosovo campaign as a hero, when his "collateral damage" was almost as big an atrocity as the supposed "genocide" he is credited with stopping.

[JohnKleeb]

59. You know also

You dont have to die in war to suffer. I've mentioned my friend before and will do it again because she has told me much about this, she has visited the area since the conflict ended and much is still in ruins. Plus those wounded and etc. Beautiful Yugoslavia in ruins :cry:, its sad. I may sound pacfist here and maybe I am one, I havent decided, I am not sure.

[Cocoa]

62. genocide means something very specific

if you define it solely by the numbers, it loses all meaning.

Collateral damage is something different. One difference is that is not inherently a crime the way genocide is.

And I'm not sure if we were charging the serbs with genocide anyway. Ethnic cleansing is the term that was used.

[LoneStarLiberal]

63. A Comment on Genocide Charges, NB, and Clark

Being accused of genocide in the news media is nothing that special. However, the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic for the crime of genocide spans the width and breadth of Yugoslavia's breakup, is something special. It's proof that we didn't need Bush's version of unilateral action. But it's not very sexy, unfortunately.

I would also humbly suggest that if you want to roast Wes Clark for being NATO commander, then you need to roast the governments of all the NATO countries that contributed to the Kosovo campaign.

Nation building and ending wars are not the same thing. If you visit Bosnia today you will find that nation building does not lend itself to sound bites and planning projections. Many places in Bosnia (I've only been to the Sarajevo area, once in 2000, and have U.N./U.S. Army friends in Mostar and Banja Luka) are still just as divided as during the civil war; without Milosevic to rattle the ethnic saber, though, and with NATO glowering over the ruins of the FRY, no one is going to try to kick things off once more.

The primary reason Milosevic is not there to stir shit up, the primary reason Karadzic is not in power in Pale to incite Bosnian Serbs, and the primary reason Rathko Mladic is not commander of a Bosnian Serb army licking their chops over another safe zone like Srebrenica is because of NATO's decisive actions against Milosevic when he decided to flex his muscles in Kosovo. The Dayton Accords needed teeth, and those teeth were NATO. Treaties without enforcement are simply fancy pieces of paper with bad handwriting on the signatures. Nothing more. NATO's actions upheld Dayton.

Different things are important to different people. I like what Clark brings to the table more than I like others' qualifications. I'll support whomever wins the primaries. I try not to engage in smearing other candidates though I know I sometimes do. But I know for a fact that I don't put myself shoulder to shoulder with Milosevic apologists nor apologists for other dictators in criticizing other candidates.

[Zorra]

58. There is a quote by Clark in this old

BBC article that really bugs me, and I don't know quite what to make of it.

Friday, August 20, 1999 Published at 03:34 GMT 04:34 UK
World: Europe
Nato's inner Kosovo conflict

On 30 March, Mr Solana, Gen Clark and Gen Naumann jointly informed Nato ambassadors that the old phased war plan with its political safeguards was being thrown away.

George Robertson: "We had to delegate quite a degree of authority to military commanders"

In return for a promise that Nato would only hit "strictly military targets", the lukewarm allies were pursuaded to back them.

Gen Clark then hit the Milosevic party HQ, the presidential palace and the TV stations - all targets taken from the Phase Three list that several allies had refused to vote for.

The Supreme Commander then proceeded with his escalation, occasionally phoning the key political leaders to get particularly sensitive targets okayed.

"I didn't always defer to those who wanted targets withheld," Gen Clark now reveals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/425468.stm

I want to be able to get behind any Democratic candidate that is nominated, but this statement by Clark worries me. Maybe he had good reasons for bombing Phase Three targets that were not strictly military, and maybe this has already been discussed at DU. If so, what were Clark's reasons for his decision to bomb these Phase Three targets? Does anyone know?

[TexasPatriot]

67. i dont know

but i'll posit a theory
i advocated US intervention in the balkans from the first minute i heard about the rape camps on NPR. And to listen to the serbian people saying it was all propoganda etc while they just turned away - it was a much more serious version of the pubs in the burbclaves who turn their backs on the inner city crime problem - only this was WAY over the top.

There was a sense at the time that there was a need to make the people of the region feel some sense of discomfort over what was going on. Taking out a TV station, or bombing the presidential palace is a pretty light slap on the wrist in my book - but it would serve the purpose of bringing the war home. It was only when they started taking out civilian infrastructure like the Yugo plant that people said 'ok - killing our neighbors is no longer a profitable exercise'.

War is almost never really about ideology (though it's always couched in it). It's about taking people's stuff. I feel our participation in the balkans was more about stopping that sort of crap than any sort of 'more-for-me-ism'. Iraq really doesn't fit that bill IMO.

We'll see more of this as we move forward - as Clark is really someone flyboy* doesn't want to run against. If the Clark campaign would get more issue statements out there I think there'd be less focus on some of this talk than we're seeing - and we'd have something more substantive to argue about.

[LoneStarLiberal]

61. Beat the Dead Horse; "CLARK BAAAAADDD!!! RRRRRR!!!"

When you put an op-ed piece up for discussion, you can't disallow discussion about the publication offering it nor the author penning it. Given the nature of op-ed pieces, those are just as relevant as what is being said.

I know nothing about the Sun Times. I do know some about Lipscomb, though not from foreign policy critique circles. The article would bear out that he should stick to what he knows best instead of trying his hand at the Smear of the Day.

Unfortunately, this piece is nothing more than another hash of the "General Shelton insinuated bad things so they must all be true" department of opposition to Clark. The main thing that needs to be emphasized here is "...There are clues to Shelton's indictment from Clark's Kosovo campaign..." CLUES, not proof. CLUES, not specifics. Why? Because what General Shelton said was vague. It was not substantiated. It has not been substantiated. And until some specifics are offered up, anyone writing about this is going to generate nothing more than glamorized fiction since that is all that can possibly be written about comments that were vague and unsubstantiated in the first place and remain so today.

Most of this article is just that much more proof that war is hell, no matter who is commanding nor how careful they are. Bad things happen in wars. Given the limited nature of the Kosovo conflict, we can only imagine at the carnage of how our wider war in Iraq has played out. Were civilians harmed? Yes. Was civilian infrastructure damaged? Yes. It's part of the unfortunate course of war, and in my mind is exactly why we need someone who appreciates how grave war is and who views it as only a last resort.

Mr. Lipscomb is also guilty of something a little more shocking, in my opinion. Given his writings for the Jewish World Review, I find Mr. Lipscomb's failure to ground these weak assertions within the foundation of the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians and the nearly two decades' worth of institutionalized ethnic discrimination shocking. I wonder if his peers and editors at JWR realize he skirts the question of ethnic cleansing, our modern-day paen to the eradication of the Holocaust? Ignoring the reasons we were involved in Kosovo makes it a lot easier to demonize Clark. Unfortunately for the thousands of Kosovar Albanians who were made transnational refugees by the Milosevic administration's policies, such rhetorica sleight-of-hand doesn't come as easy.

I understand some people don't like Clark. But articles like this that trivialize ethnic cleansing at the expense of partisan sniping put these opponents, in their quest to demonize Wes Clark, in the same camp as Holocaust apologists, apologists for the Khmer Rouge, and apologists for the Rwandan Hutu administration responsible for the 1994 genocide in that country.

If you are one of these people looking for any way to try and debase Wes Clark, I hope you are proud of the company you keep.

And if you really believe nothing ever happened in Kosovo or that if bad things happened, then they were only minor, I will be happy to provide you with concrete evidence to enlighten your blighted, ignorant, apologist views.

[djbones]

64. Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by the Kosovo operation

That's not my opinion and it's not the Clark campaign talking. It's Samantha Power's conclusion in her book "A Problem from Hell," which I would recommend reading from cover to cover because it provides excellent background not just on the Balkans but on Iraq and Rwanda as well. Power was actually in the Balkans while all this was going on, and then went on to write this award winning book on the genocide.

In it, Clark comes off as a hero. In spades. In fact, she attributes his firing to his being overly concerned with humanitarian causes. For example, one of the reasons Clark was so obsessed with getting ground troops was to minimize civilian casualties. This book and nothing else made me a Clark supporter.

What irony that this story should be spun otherwise.

If you're really interested in as dispassionate an account of hell on earth as you're likely to read, I would recommend this book. If nothing else, it will help you understand some of the real issues surrounding Kosovo and also dispel the misunderstanding many people seem to have that this was somehow a fight Clark picked on his own (af if he could). It will also dispel the notion that "only" a few thousand lives were at stake. At the time she wrote the book, approx. 12,000 bodies had been found in mass graves in Kosovo, and the lesson of Bosnia was to expect that number to climb into the hundreds of thousands.

I would also recommend Clark's book on Waging Modern War, but only after Power's book. Clark is after all presenting the Kosovo story from his point of view, which is to be expected. But it also provides a lot of good background information.

That is, if you're interested. Clark may well be the eventual nominee and if so it's best to be well-armed.

[LoneStarLiberal]

66. Read It In the 2 Weeks After It Was Released

Yes, Power wrote a great book. I don't think we'd be seeing as much of this pseudo-Milosevic apologism regarding Clark from those who oppose him if more people read credible works like "A Problem from Hell" and less of internet-only garbage.

I mean "garbage" to include not just stuff that criticizes my guy, but in general terms of other candidates AND just junk in general. There's a whole lot of shit out here that preys on peoples' lack of understanding of bias, stuff that masquerades as truth that is in fact bunk.

For a very moving first-person account from a great journalist who recently passed away, I also recommend Peter Maas' "Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War" about Bosnia and an older author's fictional work, Ivo Andric's "The Bridge on the River Drina."

Interesting to note that Andric was a Croatian by birth and a Serbian by choice. So terribly sad that his example was lost on the whole FRY during the 1990s.

[djbones]

69. Thanks for the info

I'll check out the Maas book. I didn't really mean to address the message about the Power book as a reply to you but as a general post. I think Power pretty effectively neutralizes the "Wesley Clark: His Initials Are WC So He Must Be a W-ar C-riminal" Counterpunch meme that seems to keep rising from the dead every few days, no matter how many stakes are driven through its dishonest little heart. Power's book seems custom-made for folks who want to get a disinterested viewpoint of the whole rotten mess from someone writing before Clark became a figure of intense media interest adn thus intense media deconstruction, right wing self righteous hate, and left wing self righteous hand wringing.

[1971]

68. You GO, LoneStarLiberal! Great post, thanks.

I understand some people don't like Clark. But articles like this that trivialize ethnic cleansing at the expense of partisan sniping put these opponents, in their quest to demonize Wes Clark, in the same camp as Holocaust apologists, apologists for the Khmer Rouge, and apologists for the Rwandan Hutu administration responsible for the 1994 genocide in that country.

Since Clark entered the campaign fray, I began to have hope that Bush could actually lose the 2004 election. I've watched a few debates and speeches on TV and find him compelling and compassionate. I've read up some on his background, and sought out other opinions online. Nothing so far has dampened my hope for Wes Clark to succeed in '04. I think a Gen. Clark in the White House is just what a doctor would prescribe to cure us of the foreign policy infected pus that the Bush Admin. has given us.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

70. Fantastic Post

:toast:

:yourock:

DTH

[DemExpat]

91. Thanks, LoneStar!

I need to read some of these books you and others have suggested.

I agree that many people here on DU use reams and reams of info from dubious Internet sources and claim it as gospel.

And use sources with negative Clark info that they usually totally reject for being Right Wing.....:eyes:

Great post!

:toast: :toast: :toast:

:kick:

DemEx

[haymaker]

92. I think Clark is an enigma, and ALL the politicos

are afraid of him. I do not think he's anybodies tool either.