Conason:Why is the State Department silencing Clark?

[robbedvoter]

     
Joe Conason's Journal
In a gross abuse of authority for political gain, the State Department has insisted that Clark's scheduled testimony against Milosevic be closed to press.



- - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/12/04/clark/?ref=http://images.salon.com/src/ads/soe/action.asp


Dec. 4, 2003  | 
Among the topics most passionately argued by Democratic presidential candidates and their handlers is who among them would be the nominee most (or least) favored by Karl Rove. Which Democrat does the White House prefer to see win the nomination? And which of the nine is most feared as a potential challenger?

Lately Howard Dean is most often mentioned by Republicans as their favorite Democratic nominee (although they probably daydream about Al Sharpton). Dean's supporters reply that such trash talk is merely Rovian misdirection, designed to dupe primary voters into rejecting the former Vermont governor. Perhaps so, but this month the Bush administration is actually using its power to suppress news coverage of another Democratic rival.


That would be Wesley Clark, whose scheduled testimony against Slobodan Milosevic at the former Serbian dictator's genocide trial will reportedly be closed to the press and public -- at the insistence of the U.S. State Department.

[neuvocat]

1. So what choice do you really have

but to take Clark at his word on what he says happened (assuming he can say anything at all)?

[bryant69]

2. Well that's the whole point

With the proceedings sealed, Clark will be in an untenable situation commenting on what he said at all. So Karl Rove gets who he wants to run against, presumably. (Befoer the flames, let me say that Dean is probably a stronger candidate than Karl Rove gives him credit for being).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[el_gato]

3. now that wouldn't be because something stinks about that war as well?

hmmmm....

[wyldwolf]

5. Empty post...

...just empty. No substance. Shallow inuendo.

[Pastiche423]

6. I echo that

hmmmm....

[SahaleArm]

12. Echoing nothingness tells a lot *nm*

*nm*

[Pastiche423]

13. I was echoing the stinkiness of the war

and his part in it, which, IMHO, reeks of further denial.

[SahaleArm]

15. No you're just parroting old tripe *nm*

[Bread and Circus]

18. Pastiche, does that mean you agree w/ Bush... because the

only pattern I can see to your reasoning is "cap on Clark
at all costs" no matter who it gets you in bed with....
Slobodon...Bush....

Your echo is nothing more than a veiled swipe.

[ajacobson]

7. By that logic

wouldn't the Rove Administration want to play up Clark's connection to the situation? Instead they are doing the opposite.

[LandOLincoln]

8. "now that wouldn't be because something stinks about that war as well?"

You mean stinky as in, Clark won his war and is now a hero to the Kosovars?

Stinky like that? :kick:

[Pastiche423]

9. More stinky like...

his war crimes.

[SahaleArm]

14. And why would Rove want to suppress that?

Moot point anyway: http://www.clarkmyths.com/myth7.html

[Bread and Circus]

19. Exactly, let's thank Rove and Bush for helping Clark cover up...

"his war crimes".

That makes so much sense. :eyes:

I am so on the edge of being convinced Clark is a
War Criminal...NOT!

---

[maddezmom]

4. totally political

<<A spokesman for the State Department refused to answer any of Hundley's specific questions about the strange decision to black out Clark. In the absence of any convincing explanation, this appears to be a matter not only of harmful judicial meddling and unwarranted censorship, but a gross abuse of diplomatic authority for domestic political advantage as well.>>

Thanks for posting.

[AP]

10. Two angles to this. Hurts Clark. But also hurts the idea that courts...

...are the right place to deal with people like Milosevic.

Republicans like to use people like Milosevic to make money. They don't like courts solving disputes like this, and they don't like international law.

If Clark could have testified before the press, it would have been a great opportunity for people to see international WORKING.

[TacticalPeek]

16. A third angle.

On a drunk-with-power binge, they are not comfortable with sobering thoughts about heads of state standing trial for war crimes.

:evilgrin:

[FrenchieCat]

11. Bush just doesn't

want us to see a REAL hero, a rea diplomat, and real intelligent individual in Action. He doesn't want us to make the contrast between his unarticulated dishonest self and articulate and honest Clark. He knows that it would make him look bad, and might help win Clark the nomination. As Clark is their worst fear, censorship seems to be the only power they have......and we know that Bushco uses whatever they can, no matter how transparent.

THE EMPOREUR has no clothes, and Bush doesn't want the masses to get even a tiny glimpse.

Bush "image" is the only thing he's got, and Clark can tarnish that image just by contrast.

[Justice]

17. Honor

The amazing part of this is Wes Clark wants to have Milosevic found accountable for his war crimes and will testify under these very bizarre circumstances because he has his eye on the right objective.


It is a long time between December 2003 and election 2004 -- I have a feeling that the details of the testimony will become known - and even Rove won't be able to shove the genie back into the bottle.

[CivilRightsNow]

20. For the same reason they "fired" him from CNN because of..

"white house pressure". Shaw.

So that the media machine can make him look like more of a tortured democrat.

That's why.

[Bread and Circus]

21. I think he resigned from CNN....

But I think Rove has a think-tank dedicated to slamming
Wes Clark, it's probably a bunch of pimple-faced college
students, but it's out there somewhere.

[OKNancy]

22. I've noticed that you have gone around

and every Clark thread with attacks, even dredging up a day old thread. Do you have an agenda here?