Clark responds to Democracy Now with Integrity and Character

[MariaS]

I just finished listening to Democracy Now reporter Jeremy Scahill's interview with Gen. Clark and it has once again confirmed to me the type of honorable and decent man that Clark is. He could have reacted like Kerry when Kerry was questioned by DN about his statement on Saddam and nuclear weapons and dismissed Amy Goodman so abruptly and rudely but Clark didn't. He wanted to answer the question that he must have know were going to be extremely critical and faced them head on, giving what sounded to me, to be honest responses. He didn't dance around the issue or questions but gave straight forward answers. There were several aspects to the interview that bother me though the main one being that we went into the Bosnian conflict with out the backing of the UN. To my understanding the reason we did is because of Russia and their alliance with Serbia and Milosivic. Any proposal put forth by the coalition nations in the UN would have been vetoed by Russia which is the reason NATO was used. The other issue I have with the DN interview with the General is that afterward it was never acknowledged that he did specifically stop and requested to address Scahill's questions which in itself was the right thing to do. We all here have seen how Chimpy address straight and forward questions about Iraq. Wes Clark has integrity and if thru the course of his military career he was involved in actions called into question it is obvious to me thru this DN interview that he isn't afraid to address those actions.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. One thing I value about Clark

Due to the fact that he is not a seasoned, polished politician, Clark is great at answering a question honestly, even if people aren't going to like the answer necessarily

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. please tell me that Clark's symbol is not a

red train.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. Comment?

If you have something to say, go right ahead...after the past few months here, I think I can handle it ;-)

[cprise]

7. Gaffe?

:eyes:

[gWbush is Mabus]

9. ok

that train looks like it's going 3 times faster than the average train.

[bicentennial_baby]

8. Symbol?

No, it's a fundraising icon, much like Dean's bat. What's the big deal?

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I would trust Clark to tell the Truth to Americans as our President

That's about the highest praise I can give to someone running for that office.

[kstewart33]

4. He is honorable and decent

And would make a fine nominee or VP candidate. I just wish he had more experience on domestic issues. That's the only missing link, and that inexperience has been the source of negative media coverage, I think.

[MariaS]

10. That is one argument

that totally baffles me because in reality Clark actually has more hands on experience in domestic issues than any of the candidates. In his time as a commander he has worked issues more closely and more intimately than any politician I have ever heard about. He and his wife have help set curriculum for base schools, worked to improve preschools, dealt with healthcare issues, family councling, domestic abuse, gay and lesbian issues in the military, and overall everyday issues that we as Americans face on a day to day basis. He has looked into the faces of the people he has dealt with and as such is able to relate on a much more personal level.

[MsUnderstood]

5. I agree

Reading Clark's responses gave me a good feeling. He didn't cover up, he admitted to mistakes, he clarified issues--why he is almost ANTI-Political.

[Red_Storm]

11. Going to listen to the interview tonight............

As expected, it's being spun against Clark by the usual suspects in DU.......

[Voltaire99]

12. Props to Democracy Now, paragon of US journalism

The muscle of US journalism is a puny thing these days -- atrophied from little more meaningful use than polishing boots and arranging the flowers at Pentagon press conferences.

But DN is still pumping iron. Where other news organizations curtsy, this one stands up. Damn good job as always, Amy and Jeremy.

I think Clark's answers were the best, given his culpability, that he could have managed. To his credit, he did not dodge the questions. He is still responsible for flagrant civilian deaths, and I hope the memory haunts his nights. It is never enough to regret or feel remorse; one must simply not bomb civilians.

Coincidentally, if you wish to hear something remarkable, listen to the DN broadcast following Clark's departure. You will hear a 17-year old Clark supporter hold forth on our Iraq invasion. It was, she says, "long overdue," but in the same breath, scores Bush for acting "imperialistic." How can an invasion be overdue yet improperly imperialistic? Oh, you know: the UN wasn't there to rubber stamp it as usual. Sigh...

Such is the moral confusion of our fellow Americans today as they fumble to rationalize the mass murder committed in their name. Clark, if he is to redeem himself for the Kosovo atrocities, might begin by helping our people to think. He could start by committing the US to quit Iraq, apologize, and pay for that nation's rebuilding.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Here is the real story, not the negative spin.

My my, the anti Clark forces are out in numbers tonight. Wonder why?

[bigtree]

14. He got pushed pretty bad

Got asked if he was responsible for the bombing of that train on the bridge and he answered that the bridge was the target. He said that it had been investigated. Fine enough I guess to exonerate the airman. I'm less sure that he's not responsible as the head of that operation. He did express what sounded like sincere remorse for the civilian killings. He seems like an exceedingly decent man. I wondered though as I listened to the report whether he should have also taken the blame for the Chinese Embassy bombing. But again he was remorseful and he said that he went to some lengths to warn the leaders there when civilian areas were under target. I believe that he probably operated in the Balkans with an informed restraint. That is no consolation for the people caught in the middle of the conflict. Yet, from a distance, it is the one military operation where the use of an intervention force (through NATO) seemed to have an agreed and workable purpose. The success of our intervention there, which unseated a dictator and his bloody henchmen, is confused by the carnage of the bombings, and the shifting alliances that we employed to get Milosevic. The success of the trial, and hopefully, the future reconciliation between the people of that region will perhaps help us to reason whether these types of interventions will be practicable for confrontations to come. Wes Clark has some of the answers to these questions. We should hear him out.