Uh oh...A Clark Coverup?

[Scott Lee]

Did Wes Clark skew the results of bombing runs in Kosovo? Looks like he did. Is this what Shelton is talking about when he referrs to Clark's "integrity problem"? From a Newsweek Article:

http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/kutija/nw000515.htm

Gen. Hugh Shelton has this to say about the issue:

"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."

Gen. Tommy Franks has also stated he would not support Clark. Why?

The fact is Clark has been accused of an itegrity problem by the Chairman of the JCOS. Also, Clark has received NO endorsements from high level military people. Why?

That question needs to be examined!


(thank you, sfcep)

[Military Brat]

1. Why Tommy won't support Clark? Because of Midland, Texas

Franks and bush** are friends. Texas loyalty and all that good stuff that keeps the oil running.

Franks is salivating at the mouth at the thought of shredding the Constitution and the prospect of perpetual war. Yee-haw!!

[Scott Lee]

8. I agree that Franks is juntaist to his core...but it's odd

I cannot seem to find a single high level military endoresment of Wesley Clark. Now I doubt that it's because 100% of the military is republican. What do you make of this?

[SahaleArm]

17. Sure you can just watch the video...

You don't make Admiral for nothing: http://www.clark04.com/americanson

Notice that the only two who have attacked Clark did so with baseless charges...

[Progressive420]

57. It's because

the military is not suppose to really support any candidate because they are going to be under the command of whoever wins its really not that hard to figure that out

[kerry-is-my-prez]

84. Yes there is plenty. I'll post it tomorrow.

have to go to bed now...

[Skwmom]

117. Watch American son, the video at Clark04.com

There are plenty of HIGH level military endorsements of Wesley Clark. In addition, one military supporter lost his job because he publicly supported Wes Clark.

[Democrats unite]

2. Surley you can do better than this Scott Lee?

eom

[Scott Lee]

4. Better than a cover up impacting the man's very integrity?

There's little more serious than that in an election year.

Care to speak to the issue?

[Democrats unite]

9. In your famous word of hit & run...

poop.

[Scott Lee]

20. Let me help you define "poop".

POOP - An issue of little consequence, born of nothing anti-candidate hatred and argued back and forth to death so often at DU that it is reduced to a flatuous soundbyte, to be thrown about when one lacks a serious argument or position on the target candidate.

Now, since this is the first it's been brought up on DU, and it is a grave matter that goes to the heart of "integrity", it has not earned the title "poop".

Does that help?

[Democrats unite]

29. Poop is poop no matter how you try to spread it.

eom

[Scott Lee]

30. Oh indeed, as many Clark supporters have showed us.

[Democrats unite]

32. I believe you mean Dean supporters...

I take that back just certain Dean supporters. I happen to like quite a few Dean supporter myself, we just have different views on who should get the nomination.

[glarius]

36. Gen. Clark is so obviously a decent, honourable man IMO

I have watched and listened to Shelton, Cohen (a Republican) and Clark on TV....The only one of the three who comes across as straightforward and honest to me is Clark...There is something so open about him....

[roguevalley]

40. I would have more respect for these two feckless bozos if they

would detail the 'character and integrity issues' for all us panting want-to-knows out here. Frankly, it is the lowest form of scum sucking to state something and not detail it. These two bozos can have the same thing said about their careers -imply without comment-
and it would have the same effect with me. If you can't tell what
you mean beyond cryptic and jealous innuendo, then you're a dork and I don't have to listen to you.

They've had months to detail. They haven't. They're cowards. COWARDS.

There are plenty of officers, general and lower that have spoke up for him and for me, I want to know what the powerless and the don't-have-a-career-stake in Wes Clark have to say. Their opinions count and they are voluminous and numerous.

Two fat assed careerists blowing cryptic smoke? Puh-lease.

[SayitAintSo]

45. Please put Schwartzkopf in the scum sucking coward category too

For repeating the tripe on air that Shelton won't stand behind with facts. Another hit and run tactic...

[robbedvoter]

88. Actually, Norman had the decency to retract hos slander on Capital Gang

The day Milosevic quoted Shelton at Hague. Seems he didn't want to aid and comfort a genocidal dictator. No such scruples around here, I see.

[SayitAintSo]

111. I didn't see the retraction - if sincere I give him points, HOWEVER ...

It Still doesn't excuse his initial commentary designed to smear a man, a fellow military officer, that he admittedly didn't know, by repeating someone elses smear. Yep ... no such scruples when someone engages in that brand of tripe ...

[mikehiggins]

77. Doubtful n/t

[maddezmom]

3. what forum is the link from? n/t

[Scott Lee]

5. it's from a Czech news site.....would you like to address the article?

The article is from Newsweek. I take it that you don't have an issue with the integrity of Newsweek?

[maddezmom]

7. nope, not at all

[KC21304]

21. I will address the article. Did you even read it yourself ?

Clark comes out with his integrity intact. Cohen and Shelton are the ones that inflatted the numbers. And by the way, thanks for the article. I now understand why Shelton and Cohen do not like Clark. Clark would not play their shady game.

[Scott Lee]

24. Did Clark know where the "buck stopped" there?

Or did he not understand the meaning of "Commander"?

[Scoopie]

43. Thank you!

I love Kerry supporters. They're decent, honest human beings.
I was going to say something, but you can pick up my bullhorn anyday on this issue: I defer to you on this one. :)

[oasis]

11. The "ancient history forum" May 2000. This is the umpteenth time I've

read that comment by Hugh "the shill" Shelton.

[Scott Lee]

22. You know, Bush-hole could say the same about Saddam

Is there a Statute of Limitations on these things? Do crimes turn into noncrimes once the shelf life has become exceeded?

[deminflorida]

6. Far, Far from a cover-up......

I was working in an OPCON, Operations Control Center during Kosovo campaign, as a computer engineer. I also was living in Europe and watching European Television during the entire operation. Granted the Newsweek Article points out that our pilots and Air Commands have a habit of over stating the effects of tactical bombing but this has been going on since WWII. Anyone ever associated with operations in the military is aware that this can be expected.

However ask any of our allies and Europe and they will tell you that NATO was more than happy to kiss Wes Clark's ass for not involving NATO forces in a ground war against the Serbs. They had a very colorful history of kicking the shit out the Nazi SS in WWII. Thank God Wes Clark stuck to his guns and stayed with the air-war until the Serbs pulled out.

There was no coverup anywhere here. It's probably the one reason Clinton awarded Clark the Medal of Freedom.

[deminflorida]

10. Also, I have to say that you must be a complete military novice..

to even think that someone could possibly read a cover-up directly related to Wes Clark here.

[Scott Lee]

16. Ask and Ye shall receive

From the same Newsweek article:


"The damage report has been buried by top military officers and Pentagon officials, who in interviews with NEWSWEEK over the last three weeks were still glossing over or denying its significance. Why the evasions and dissembling, with the disturbing echoes of the inflated "body counts" of the Vietnam War? All during the Balkan war, Gen. Wesley Clark, the top NATO commander, was under pressure from Washington to produce positive bombing results from politicians who were desperate not to commit ground troops to combat. The Air Force protested that tanks are hard to hit from 15,000 feet, but Clark insisted. Now that the war is long over, neither the generals nor their civilian masters are eager to delve into what really happened. Asked how many Serb tanks and other vehicles were destroyed in Kosovo, General Clark will only answer, "Enough."

As Commander, wouldn't Clark have known the truth in that case? If so, why did he not ever talk about this issue?

Again, in my neck of the woods - that's a cover up.

[maddezmom]

26. maybe they all knew about the coverup, maybe Clinton knew, too.

[KC21304]

28. The article says Clark made the Air Force go back and

verify the numbers. Where is the coverup ? He did not give a false number. Cohen and Shelton did.

[Progressive420]

60. Just because

he was supreme allied commander didnt mean that he didnt have to report and listen to the Pentagon really he didnt have a whole lot of choice in the if it was covered up it wasnt covered up by Clark but it was covered up by Shelton and his group in the Pentagon

[mikehiggins]

81. What an interesting neck of the woods you must live in

Clark at least tried to determine the truth, which probably was what got Shelton and Cohen down on him in the first place. Bringing up unpleasant facts "in house" is bad enough. If you want to guess what led to Clark's sudden retirement from NATO you should read that article again.

What was it they said? Distrusted by his masters? Would that be for going along with them OR for arguing past the point they wanted to hear it?

[Scott Lee]

12. So lying about military "results" is different from Bushhole - how?

The case is made that Clark oversaw the, shall we say, creatively fictitious "victory" over Serb forces when in fact taking out little of them. Is there a big distance here between that and the daily news-fuck from the Warchimp and the mess in Iraq?

In my neck of the woods, lying is lying.

[deminflorida]

23. Keep your records sealed might not be out and out lying, buy

most people would consider it dishonest. Don't worry, they'll see it that way when the voting starts.

[Scott Lee]

25. they might not like a guy who covers up the truth, like Clark

I'd say he's in a bit of a pickle over this one.

[TLM]

70. Can't defend Clark, so attack Dean.

Dean's records are open... it is his corrispondance and memos that are sealed, as they are fo anybody in public office. Show me where I can view Kerry's corrispondance and memos, or Clark's?


Now the fact is that there is evidence of this dishonest crap form CLark. But hell what would you expect from someone who supports the SOA?

http://www.balkanpeace.org/monitor/yeco/yeco06.shtml

THE LONDON INDEPENDENT, Monday, November 22, 1999
US 'lost count of uranium shells fired in Kosovo'

By Robert Fisk in Pristina

American aircraft used so much depleted uranium ammunition during the Nato bombardment of Serbia that US officials are now claiming - to the disbelief of European bomb disposal officers - that they have no idea how many locations may be contaminated by the radioactive dust left behind by their weapons. British and other ordnance officers ordered to defuse live ammunition in Kosovo have been fobbed off by the US military with "security" objections - and then with statements that no record was kept of depleted uranium (DU) munitions used in the Kosovo war.

A growing number of doctors and scientists suspect that an explosion of cancers in southern Iraq is caused by the US use of depleted uranium tank and aircraft munition warheads during the 1991 Gulf War. British and American doctors have suggested that it may also be a cause of the "Gulf War syndrome", which has caused the death of up to 400 veterans. Despite these fears, Nato this summer refused to assist a UN team investigating the use of depleted uranium munitions in Kosovo.

But information given to The Independent by European military sources in Kosovo demonstrates just why Nato should be so reluctant to tell the truth about the anti-armour ammunition - a waste product of the nuclear industry which burns on impact and releases toxic and radioactive material when it explodes. For it transpires that DU was used by A-10 "tankbuster" aircraft for more than a month in at least 40 locations in Kosovo, many of them "fake" military targets set up by the Serbs to lure pilots away from their tanks and artillery positions.

____________________________________________________


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

[mikehiggins]

85. Apparently replies to the original post aren't read in that neck of the

woods either.

Several posters have already pointed out discrepancies in the interpretation of the original post. That does nothing to stop the repetition.

I would point out that this thread started with an attack on Clark. Those who can't stand the heat shouldn't play with matches.

[Scoopie]

44. You're not listening...

erm... reading.
These people are telling you what happened and you're ignoring it, Mr. Lee.
The problem is that A.) You don't understand combat and B.) You're trying to negate the problems that your candidate has been having every time he's opened his mouth as of late.
READ, please.
No cover-up. No problem.

[wyldwolf]

13. And, of course, why would this have anything to do with Shelton's comments

Why would this have anything to do with Shelton's comments on Clark's character when Shelton himself was involved in the supposed "cover-up?"

[arewethereyet]

93. hardly

this was NATO operation, not a Pentagon one. Who do you suppose was seeking some quantification of the value of the efforts and why ?

He disagreed with the no ground force requirement and was looking for reasons to show this to be a bad requirement. This was done to aid General Clark in the fulfillment of that mission. Then General Clark opts to side with the president and so the rift was made.

Any military person will understand this immediately.

[asjr]

18. Thanks for

your reply. I am a Dean person, but I hate it when slime is poured over any of our candidates. Clark is an honorable man and if Dean is not the nominee I will be more than happy to rah rah for Clark.

[maddezmom]

27. thankyou for your support if Clark wins the nomination. n/t :)

[KC21304]

34. Oh but those are just facts , personal knowledge, that sort of thing.

We wouldn't want anything to get in the way of a good smear.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Here. Enlighten yourself.

You might keep in mind that General Shelton was standing next to Cohen as he PRAISED Wes Clark at his RETIREMENT ceremony. This is a very LOOOOONG article.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
<snip>

Clark has been open about the fact that he was hurt when his command was cut short. He offered clues about why he was treated so badly in his first book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat, published in 2001, and recollections of highly placed civilians in the Clinton administration confirm what he wrote. Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. (Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.)

Clark's view on Kosovo, shared by Tony Blair and other European leaders, was that Clinton, by stating that ground troops would not be used there —a position Clinton took for domestic political reasons—gave the Serbs a military advantage. Similarly, Clark wasn't allowed to use helicopter gunships for fear that they might be shot down, despite the fact that the helicopters didn't need to fly over Kosovo itself and the helicopters' missiles could have been more precise in hitting targets than bombers flying at 15,000 feet. The argument over whether there should be even contingency planning for the use of NATO ground troops in Kosovo (at the time, it appeared that they would have to fight their way in) caused a serious clash between Clinton and Blair, particularly when they met in April 1999 at the White House residence on the eve of a NATO summit. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, argued strongly against contingency planning for ground troops. It would, he said, be controversial domestically and might imply that the air war wasn't working. It was clear that Clinton, who remained largely silent, fully agreed with Berger. A close Clinton associate has told me that "to this day" Clinton regrets that he removed the option of ground troops.

According to three former Clinton aides, when Clinton approved the list of appointments submitted to him by Cohen, including the selection of General Joseph W. Ralston as the new commander of the NATO forces, it wasn't made clear to the President that this would cut Clark's term as the supreme commander by nearly three months. (Of this, Clinton later said at a press conference in Europe, "I had nothing to do with it.") Despite having been treated badly, Clark continued to serve for the following nine months. Clinton was reportedly furious when he realized the mistake that had been made, but he didn't want to go back on it lest he look indecisive, or further alienate military officials, with whom he had been on bad terms since the beginning of his presidency.

To make sure that Clark's dismissal was a fait accompli, the Pentagon immediately leaked the news that he had been fired, thus denying him the dignity of being allowed to announce his own retirement. Several members of the Clinton administration believe that Clark was treated in an extremely unfair, even cruel, manner. This treatment continues. Cohen, who had originally declined to comment, said on CNN on October 15 that "there was friction between General Clark and myself. And, frankly, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on his political aspirations. I made a judgment during the time that he was serving as head of NATO, SACEUR. And I felt that the ax, as such, when it fell, spoke for itself."<snip>

 Collection of Military Testimonials for Clark


Most of these were gathered together by someone who posted them weeks back on the general blog running at the Clark official web site. I added a few more that I had pulled off the open letters written to Clark during the Draft Clark days. Sorry if the formats differ, and I warn you, this is a long post. But all of it involves comments made by people who worked with Clark in the military.

Gerry Smith, West Point Classmate
Gerry SMITH continues to send occasional emails from the Balkans and
recently made some observations that are quite laudatory of Wes
CLARK. " As I travel around Kosovo and visit business owners and
presidents, so many have calendars, posters and photos with Wes
Clark's visage in their offices. While they speak with respect of the
Clintons, Holbrookes, and Walkers, they speak with awe and reverence
for Wes. I am always treated nicely by those I visit. Invariably, in
the small talk that follows, Wes Clark comes up and I mention that we
were in the same West Point class. From that point on, I am treated
like royalty even though I point out that I knew him very little. You
would think I was the hero. I am certain they go home that night to
tell the family they met somebody that knew Wesley Clark."


(http://www.washingtonpost.com, By Vernon Loeb,Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, September 17, 2003; Page A01) “Army Col. Douglas Macgregor .... An author and strategist who has also had his fights with the Army brass, Macgregor said he will forever be indebted to Clark for taking a chance and naming him as director of planning at NATO headquarters in Belgium in 1997:
"There is this aspect of his character -- he is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. General Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."

(http://www.washingtonpost.com, (By Vernon Loeb,Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, September 17, 2003; Page A01)”William J. Perry, who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star general on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a mathematician and legendary Pentagon technologist who later served as secretary of defense under Clinton. Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed head of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.www.veteransforclark.com
(Chuck Smith, Command Sergeant Major – Army, City - Clay Center, Kansas)“I am writing this not only to let General Clark know that he has my support, but to let whom ever reads this understand what makes Wes Clark tick. I have known General Clark professionally since he was a Major in Bamberg Germany and I was a Staff Sergeant. I had the privilege to serve with him two more times at Ft Carson Colorado when he was a Brigade XO and then when he was a Battalion Commander. The man is a brilliant leader! He does not make rash decisions. He checks out every option. He listens to his subordinates but asks them the hard questions and then checks out his options again. He is a true professional. If he was in the White House the American public would feel secure in knowing that the decisions he would make would have their best interests in mind. He is a true patriot! What he does and what he says is how he feels about this country and the future of it. He will think about the little guy just as he used to think about the young soldier in that tank engaging the enemy, and what that soldier would have to deal with because of his decision. Wes Clark is the right man for the job!”

Forrest (Bill) Hilbish, CW04 (Retired), US Navy, Mogadore, Ohio, 1975-1999
Comments - I worked for General Clark while stationed at SCJ6 Current Operations Branch for USSOUTHCOM in Panama. He was an excellent leader and commander. My wife was impressed by the fact that even though there were hundreds of officers working for him, he knew both of our names. He replaced General Barry McCaffrey (Drug Czar for Clinton). I am a Republican but I would vote for the "ONE" Democrat. Good luck General...

Louie Yepez, SPC, ARMY, Long Beach, California. 1997-Present
Comments - I first saw Gen. Clark when I was in Bosnia in 1999 and he spoke to us in a theater. I always felt he had strong leadership qualities, which is why i will support him for 2004! Thnak you.

Sam Closkey, Rank - LTC – Army, City - Palm City, FL, 1966-1986
I worked with General Clark at the National Training Center. I always thought he would be an excellent president. He was the easiest guy to work for, smart, appreciative, confident and he really cared about people. I am a registered republican, but he's got my vote. How can I help?

T. Ryan, Rank – SSgt, USMC, City – Boston, Ma, 80-84 87-2003
Comments - Prior to joining the Marines I was a 17 year old Soldier in the 1st Bn 77th Armor 4th ID. Then LtCol Clark was my Bn Commander. I can honestly say he was top notch, very well respected by Enlisted and Officers a like and lerned a lifetime of respect from myself. A true Soldiers Soldier. Thanks for everything Sir and Semper Fidelis.


"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."http://www.azstarnet.com/vote/31012nClark-Military.html"Look, for 34 years when there was a tough problem the local leadership asked Wes Clark to take on the problem," McCaffrey said. "This guy has been incredibly successful at doing the country's business." http://www.azstarnet.com/vote/31012nClark-Military.html "Two other retired lieutenant generals who worked with Clark, Dan Christman and Don Kerrick, said friction involving Clark was to be expected as he tried to balance the interests of NATO allies and the United States.
"We knew that he was a man of his word and that he would deliver what we expected," said Kerrick, who was deputy national security adviser to President Clinton when Clark was at NATO.

Colonel David Hackworth (www.clarkmyths.com) “At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room...”

Military Support from the Draft days:

FirstName: Tony
LastName: Jones
City: Mandeville
State: LA
Date: 09/13/2003
Time: 09:42 PM
Comments
Dear Sirs, As a former military officer myself and having served under Clark, I can attest to the fact that Mr. Clark is a strong leader and a truly innovative thinker. Not afraid to make decisions but wise in mechanics of diplomacy as well. I applaud his stance and feel that as any American, he has the right to question the current administration and it’s policies. As a member of the military you do not enjoy these rights only the heavy often dangerous burden of protecting them. My hats off to him and any other American who has the courage to be a free thinker and not ignorantly mimic those who choose to use political spin to support a very flawed policy for the US. I fully support Mr. Clark’s ability and his courage to take a stand for what many millions of Americans believe in but are afraid to express – a strong nation with a solid foundation capable of operating with tact and discretion a global society. I am disgusted with the current administrations tactic of wrapping their poor decisions in an American flag and declaring those who challenge them as unpatriotic. How dare them and any other citizen who is a true American to believe that free speech is something to be suppressed. I, like Mr. Clark and millions of others, have spent a large portion of our adult lives defending this great nation and it’s constitution and fully support the right of each and every American to express his or her rights of free speech. Good or bad, pleasant or not, these rights are what make this country great. I and all my friends will be behind Mr. Clark should he decide to make this very important decision, one which I know will be of great benefit to this country and the entire world.

FirstName: Frank
LastName: Adams
City: Spanish Fort
State: AL
Date: 09/12/2003
Time: 09:57 AM
Comments
General Clark was my last boss in the Army. He was the J-5. I never worked harder, but it was clear that what he had us doing was important. He is the smartest, fairest man I have spent time around. If he runs, it will be for the good of the country, not for any type of self aggrandizement. I am prepared to actively work for his election. I am also pledging $500 to his campaign. General, duty is calling you once again. Please answer the call.

FirstName: Angelo Ray (GSE-15 CIV/COL) KFOR
LastName: GALAS
City: New York
State: NY
Date: 09/15/2003
Time: 09:14 PM
Comments
General Clark, America needs you. Please run for president. I served with you in Albania and Kosovo, first as part of TF Hawk, then into KFOR. I'd like to "meet up," with fellow supporters at the New York Athletic Club, which I think would be a great venue, no host. Keep me posted. You're a leader and a true hero, our military, our citizenry, deserve an intelligent, experienced, multilateralist to lead. You and your family will make a great First Family and I'd be honored to serve you again. Very Respectfully, /s/ Ray Galas Commissioner City and County of Honolulu (Now resident of New York City.)

[Scott Lee]

19. Polished Brass dinners result in this sort of thing. However...

I don't see the issue of what really happened from that bombing run that the article addresses. Can you enlighten us on this one? Tell us why Wes Clark fudged over this one to please his superiors.

That doesn't seem to honorable to me.

[lurk_no_more]

116. Asked and Answered

Clark didn't gloss-over/cover-up anything, the official gloss-over/cover-up was Shelton's = No cover-up on Clarks part. But that's not what you wanted to hear is it?


Food for thought from….“JAFO”

[mikehiggins]

87. What is the point? A smear is a smear whether its by Shelton or a DUer n/t

[mike_c]

15. actually, I see those as positive developments....

Endorsements from high-ranking military types are the the last thing I want to see, ESPECIALLY for Clark, should he win the nomination. I don't want a militarist in charge of civilian government, and although I'm a long way from convinced that Clark is anything but a militarist, his former cronies disregard certainly counts on the positive side for me.

[Bucky]

31. You're really gonna have to do better than this, Scott

I dislike the idea of a character debate. But it's part of the vetting process, so your questions are fair game. I also admire you, Scott, for putting aside your political differences with Hugh Shelton and placing such a high value on his word. I'll respect your serious question with a serious response.

Unfortunately, this comment from Shelton is not, as you state, a response to the Newsweek article. The article you cite was from over three years ago and the Shelton comment from mid 2003. Shelton has not made any further comments about this quote of his, as you may remember (I know it was a long time ago). Even when pressed on the matter, Shelton now simply refuses to comment any further.

By the way, Shelton--who is close friends with both Bush and Edwards--gave Clark high recommendations when Clark left the Saceur post at NATO. There was no mention of character issues until after Clark announced he was running for president.

Remember also that at first Norm Schwarzkopf also seemed to play into Shelton's comments. But when he was pressed on the matter, he backed off and made only positive statements about Clark in general and admitted that he didn't know Clark personally.

Shelton was an intraservice rival of Clark's, by the way. He was close to Defense Secretary Cohen, who essentially tricked Clinton into dismissing Clark early. Clinton at the time gave and today continues to give very high praise to Clark for his performance in Kosovo. Cohen told Clinton at the time that the early dismissal was make room for a replacement for Clark so that the replacement wouldn't have to be forced into retirement. Clinton signed off on the changeover without knowing that he was abetting an internal rivalry.

The facts in that three year old Newsweek article have not been contested to my knowledge. But the level of damage inflicted on the Serb forces is pretty unimportant toward explaining why Kosovo was a success. The Serbs to protect their forces, hunkered down and were effectively halted from carrying out their ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. The selection of particular bombing targets was a highly politicized process that Clark had to constantly work thru with the European heads of state.

The maneuver didn't smash the Serb armies and it even caused some collateral damage among Kosovars. But the lives lost that way were a tiny fraction of how many would have been killed had Milosevic not been stopped. Clark remains a hugely popular figure in Kosovo to this day. That's not an accident. Kosovars know what would have happened to them if NATO hadn't bombed. They had seen the same thing happen in Croatia where the killing was far worse.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LouisFC]

33. Shelton said this...

I don't have the vaguest idea of what Shelton's problem is, but the article you posted seems to indicate that Clark tried to find out what happened as opposed to trying to cover anything up. As for Shelton's comments please see the following:

Shelton at Change of Command
http://www.dod.gov/news/May2000/n05032000_20005033.html
“"Your ability to carry out the multitude of day-to-day activities, along with major operations, proves once again that you are equal to any task," the chairman said. "You are responsible for a very vital and dynamic area of the world. … You have never let us down, and I know that you never will.

As to high ranking military people's opinion of Clark, I don't dispute that there is a vocal group of 4 or 5 former colleagues that have lobbed unsubstantiated attacks at Clark, but there are also just as many that have glowing things to say that don't get the same press attention. I have listed some of them here. I also have a rather long list of subordinate quotes if you are interested.

http://www.azstarnet.com/vote/31012nClark-Military.html "Two other retired lieutenant generals who worked with Clark, Dan Christman and Don Kerrick, said friction involving Clark was to be expected as he tried to balance the interests of NATO allies and the United States.

"We knew that he was a man of his word and that he would deliver what we expected," said Kerrick, who was deputy national security adviser to President Clinton when Clark was at NATO.


http://www.azstarnet.com/vote/31012nClark-Military.html"Look, for 34 years when there was a tough problem the local leadership asked Wes Clark to take on the problem," McCaffrey said. "This guy has been incredibly successful at doing the country's business."

Colonel David Hackworth (www.clarkmyths.com) “At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room...”

Forrest (Bill) Hilbish, CW04 (Retired), US Navy, Mogadore, Ohio, 1975-1999
Comments - I worked for General Clark while stationed at SCJ6 Current Operations Branch for USSOUTHCOM in Panama. He was an excellent leader and commander. My wife was impressed by the fact that even though there were hundreds of officers working for him, he knew both of our names. He replaced General Barry McCaffrey (Drug Czar for Clinton). I am a Republican but I would vote for the "ONE" Democrat. Good luck General...(www.veteransforclark.com)

(Chuck Smith, Command Sergeant Major – Army, City - Clay Center, Kansas)“I am writing this not only to let General Clark know that he has my support, but to let whom ever reads this understand what makes Wes Clark tick. I have known General Clark professionally since he was a Major in Bamberg Germany and I was a Staff Sergeant. I had the privilege to serve with him two more times at Ft Carson Colorado when he was a Brigade XO and then when he was a Battalion Commander. The man is a brilliant leader!
He does not make rash decisions. He checks out every option. He listens to his subordinates but asks them the hard questions and then checks out his options again. He is a true professional. If he was in the White House the American public would feel secure in knowing that the decisions he would make would have their best interests in mind. He is a true patriot! What he does and what he says is how he feels about this country and the future of it. He will think about the little guy just as he used to think about the young soldier in that tank engaging the enemy, and what that soldier would have to deal with because of his decision. Wes Clark is the right man for the job!” (www.veteransforclark.com)

If you prefer video, you may view the pancake breakfast from last weekend which was put on by Veterans for Clark and has a number of his former colleagues on stage with him -- they seemed pretty proud to be there to me, but check it out for yourself at www.us4clark.com

[Scott Lee]

37. Ooooo it gets better.....here's more about his cover up....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/449269.stm

"We destroyed, we struck enough. The conflict ended on Nato terms," Gen Clark said.

Lower figures

During the air campaign, Nato said its planes had hit hundreds of Yugoslav tanks and other military vehicles.

General Wesley Clark: "We destroyed enough... we succeeded"
The Yugoslav army said that only 13 tanks were destroyed, a figure that was widely reported in the media at the time.

And when foreign journalists were able to go into Kosovo, they found little evidence of damaged Yugoslav armour...."


Now thats from the BBC...I take it no one has a problem with BBC?

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. That information was in

the first 3 year old article you posted. Milosevic is no longer able to continue his ethnic cleansing. Does that bother you? Do you really wish that man was still in power? :eyes:

[TLM]

72. More Bush tactics... if you disagree with Iraq, you support Saddam

And Clark supporters say if you disagree with tactics in Kosovo you must support Milosevic.


Yet another example why i will not support Clark...

[mikehiggins]

92. Golly, and we all were thinking you were a heart-felt Clark supporter

Imagine our surprise!

Are you kidding?

How many minutes into Clark's campaign did you last before you decided to oppose his candidacy?

[LouisFC]

41. From the same article...

"A section of Gen Clark's report which is to remain classified deals with Nato's own deficiencies in the air campaign and the subsequent deployment of peacekeeping troops to Kosovo - and the lessons which should be drawn from them." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/449269.stm

It would seem to me once again that General Clark told the truth. Ask Cohen/Shelton et al why it's classified.

[wyldwolf]

42. Good catch!

[Scott Lee]

48. He told the truth about the amount of Serb forces actually destroyed?

I think not. That was the issue that started the thread.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donna Zen]

61. Scott do you always trust the Yugoslavian version of events?

As an American Serb, I will tell you right now that they really have a very fickle relationship with the truth. Who know why the "foreign journalist" couldn't find them? It is mountainous terrain, it isn't their country...were you there? Are you a fair wittness in this case?

Finally, I've noticed to make this strange case, you are insisting that by not talking about US Government Classified Documents, Clark is somehow "covering up." Again, try to use some logic, if you knew of information in US Gov Classified Documents, would you tell a journalist? Huh...what's that?

Going to jail for revealing governement documents to a journalist, does not interest me at all.

No, Wesley Clark does not get determine what is or is not a classified document. As you well know, SACEUR also must have bomb target approved by civilian command. Everyone...that is how the command structure works.

Our military is under civilian command, and I'm not sure how you feel, but I support that structure.

Now many people have offered you information on this thread, some of from first hand experience, a very valuable source. You don't seem very interested in what people have to say. You have brushed facts off the table only to clunk down a brew of disjointed garble. So I'm having serious doubts about your willingness to debate, consider and listen to other posters if they do not agree with you. I hope I am wrong, since by definition a "liberal" is a person who considers many sides of an issue.

And further more, if you are shutting down debate, why did you post this thread?

[TLM]

74. Even natos version supports Scotts claims...

20,000 bombs dropped and only 13 fucking tanks taken out?

Those are NATO's numbers.

[mikehiggins]

98. Was it enough, TLM? Did NATO achieve its ends?

Was that what Clark is quoted as saying by the BBC through Scott?

Is this all you guys have to do with the Dean campaign? Throw stuff up against the wall and see if it sticks.

Hey, I'm retired and insomnaic. I have an excuse for reading all this garbage. What's the excuse for starting it?

[mikehiggins]

96. Yes, that was the issue that started the thread

and it was wrong then as well.

It hasn't magically healed through osmosis.

And, the original post, by the way, talked about Shelton's smear of Clark which, on the basis of the article, was an entirely different issue.

And you also talked about how you knew of no high ranking generals who endorsed Clark, and wondered why.

Just in case you forgot what you posted under your name. We sure didn't.

[TLM]

73. Here are a few good pieces about the sloppy job Clark did...

Not only was he killing civilians, but he wasn't stoping the serbs at all.

Took out a whole hell of a lot of microwaves and decoys though.


http://www.balkanpeace.org/monitor/yeco/yeco06.shtml

THE LONDON INDEPENDENT, Monday, November 22, 1999
US 'lost count of uranium shells fired in Kosovo'

By Robert Fisk in Pristina

American aircraft used so much depleted uranium ammunition during the Nato bombardment of Serbia that US officials are now claiming - to the disbelief of European bomb disposal officers - that they have no idea how many locations may be contaminated by the radioactive dust left behind by their weapons. British and other ordnance officers ordered to defuse live ammunition in Kosovo have been fobbed off by the US military with "security" objections - and then with statements that no record was kept of depleted uranium (DU) munitions used in the Kosovo war.

A growing number of doctors and scientists suspect that an explosion of cancers in southern Iraq is caused by the US use of depleted uranium tank and aircraft munition warheads during the 1991 Gulf War. British and American doctors have suggested that it may also be a cause of the "Gulf War syndrome", which has caused the death of up to 400 veterans. Despite these fears, Nato this summer refused to assist a UN team investigating the use of depleted uranium munitions in Kosovo.

But information given to The Independent by European military sources in Kosovo demonstrates just why Nato should be so reluctant to tell the truth about the anti-armour ammunition - a waste product of the nuclear industry which burns on impact and releases toxic and radioactive material when it explodes. For it transpires that DU was used by A-10 "tankbuster" aircraft for more than a month in at least 40 locations in Kosovo, many of them "fake" military targets set up by the Serbs to lure pilots away from their tanks and artillery positions.

____________________________________________________


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

Nato does not dispute the Serb claim that just 13 of its tanks were destroyed in Kosovo - a figure which gives an altogether different meaning to the concept of proportionality. Nato fought a military campaign from the air which failed to achieve its stated objectives.

[mikehiggins]

99. Ah, but TLM, that wasn't what the thread is about, is it?

According to Scott he uncovered amazing news in a three year old Newsweek article that shows Clark covered up VITAL facts of TREMENDOUS importance. Nobody was talking about how well Clark did or didn't do. His claim is that Clark is covering something up that Newsweek somehow managed to uncover three years ago.

Try to keep on track here, okay?

[mikehiggins]

91. Oh boy oh boy oh boy

reading some of the Governor's comments over the last few months I have learned to pay attention to the words used.

What did Clark say? "We destroyed enough...we succeeded."

"We destroyed, we struck enough. The conflict ended on Nato terms," Gen Clark said.

No, I have no problem with what the BBC reported. English is my first language and I have no trouble understanding what is on the page in front of me.

For example, the number of tanks Clark claimed were destroyed: enough.

How hard is THAT to understand, Scott? What number did Clark claim was destroyed?

Don't you guys ever get tired of this nonsense?

[Bad Thoughts]

39. You should be careful about whom you reference

Hugh Shelton played an obstructionist role during the Clinton years. Several times Shelton refused to give Clinton workable plans for military action. He denied Clinton access to the military because he did not want to expose himself politically. Twice Clinton asked for plans to go after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Shelton refused.

[SayitAintSo]

46. Gee... could you apply the same zeal to ferreting out the Dean papers?

Since they have gone into deep freeze ?

[Scott Lee]

47. Are they as important as a guy who may have lied about

something like the progress of a military campaign?

I really think not. And how come no one can answer why no big military brass will endorse Wesley Clark?

Sometimes the most glaring truth is in the silent spaces!

[SayitAintSo]

53. We really don't know unless we see them now, do we ?

As to your other point,, it's really not a great stretch to understand the politics behind Shelton's comments... I also believe he will live to regret his words.

[Scott Lee]

56. wow, was Dean in charge of military ops in Kosovo?

I doubt even looking at all his "papers" will concoct that one!

[SayitAintSo]

59. No silly, don't your remember ... the good doctor avoided the military

with this awful back injury that luckily enabled him to AT LEAST do a little skiiing ....:)

[Scott Lee]

125. POOP

[SayitAintSo]

128. Precisely

:)

[LouisFC]

55. Huh?

First, I see nothing in either of the articles you posted that indicates that General Clark lied about anything. In fact, the first one says "he was caught in the middle" and the second one says he wrote up the problems with air campaign.

Second, there are two posts on high level military people's opinions of General Clark so I am no sure what you mean by this. If you believe me to be misquoting these people, feel free to watch American Son in which there any number of former colleagues talking about how fantastic he is.

:shrug:

[mikehiggins]

100. The silent spaces seem to prevail in your neck of the woods

As someone else mentioned above, general officers mostly do not comment on candidates for office, especially if they want to keep their jobs if a new administration comes into power.

I would imagine most generals, admirals and top Air Force officers are well aware of how hard it will be for the Democrats to win this election (they deal with politicians every day of the week, after all) and don't see any reason to risk their careers by backing anyone.

How many have endorsed Kerry, Gephardt or Dean?

As far as I know, Shelton has yet to endorse Edwards, despite their long time friendship and his serving as an advisor to Edwards' campaign.

[TLM]

75. Dean's papers, his correspondence and memos are being reviewed

by a judge. So what's the problem?

Will Kerry, Clark, and Edwards be making their correspondence and memos available to a judge for review?

Oh silly me, those things must ALREADY be public, right? Otherwise it would be extremely hypocritical to attack Dean for not having his public... if none of the others do.


SO please provide em the link where i can go to get information on where to view Clark's campaign correspondence and office memos... and Kerry congressional memos and correspondence.

[mikehiggins]

101. Oh golly gee whillikers, what a silly thing for you to say

Weren't you the guys who spent months pointing out how Clark had never run a political campaign? How then can he release any documents regarding them?

Unless you mean this CURRENT campaign, in which case I'd bet you Clark would release his as soon as the front runner releases his. I doubt Clark gives a rats ass about Dean's old records anyway.

Of course, you could be talking about classified files connected to Clark's record in the military. Not to worry. If there is anything damageing in them you can be certain Bob Novak will be leaking them at any moment.

Again, don't you folks ever get tired of this?

[Cocoa]

49. this sucks

Shelton's smear sucks. Why repeat the sucky smear.

[mikehiggins]

102. Apparently in some sort of futile hope that something posted on DU

will be picked up and spread around the world, thereby crippling Clark's candidacy and thus hastening the moment when the Anointment Of The One True Candidate can proceed.

Fat chance.

[Lefta Dissenter]

50. Is the Presidential Medal of Freedom

meaningless? Not to mention Clinton's words on December 17th, 2003. That's right, Clark doesn't have to go back 5 or 6 years to find a positive Clinton quote like some people do.

You'll see it in my sig line.

[Tinoire]

51. The Kosovo Cover-Up & Integrity Issues

same beefing up of targets as at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA. This is probably the sort of thing Shelton was talking about.


The Kosovo Cover-Up
NATO said it won a great victory, but the war did very little damage to Serb forces. By not conceding this, the Pentagon may mislead future presidents about the limits of U.S. power. A NEWSWEEK exclusive.

By John Barry And Evan Thomas
Newsweek, May 15, 2000


According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58.

<snip>

The damage report has been buried by top military officers and Pentagon officials, who in interviews with NEWSWEEK over the last three weeks were still glossing over or denying its significance. Why the evasions and dissembling, with the disturbing echoes of the inflated "body counts" of the Vietnam War? All during the Balkan war, Gen. Wesley Clark, the top NATO commander, was under pressure from Washington to produce positive bombing results from politicians who were desperate not to commit ground troops to combat. The Air Force protested that tanks are hard to hit from 15,000 feet, but Clark insisted. Now that the war is long over, neither the generals nor their civilian masters are eager to delve into what really happened. Asked how many Serb tanks and other vehicles were destroyed in Kosovo, General Clark will only answer, "Enough."

<snip>

Instead, the Pentagon essentially declared victory and hushed up any doubts about what the air war exactly had achieved. The story of the cover-up is revealing of the way military bureaucracies can twist the truth—not so much by outright lying, but by "reanalyzing" the problem and winking at inconvenient facts. Caught in the middle was General Clark, who last week relinquished his post in a controversial early retirement. Mistrusted by his masters in Washington, Clark will retire from the Army next month with none of the fanfare that greeted other conquering heroes like Dwight Eisenhower after World War II or Norman Schwarzkopf after Desert Storm. To his credit, Clark was dubious about Air Force claims and tried—at least at first—to gain an accurate picture of the bombing in Kosovo. At the end of the war the Serbs' ground commander, Gen. Nobojsa Pavkovic, claimed to have lost only 13 tanks. "Serb disinformation," scoffed Clark. But quietly, Clark's own staff told him the Serb general might be right. "We need to get to the bottom of this," Clark said. So at the end of June, Clark dispatched a team into Kosovo to do an on-the-ground survey. The 30 experts, some from NATO but most from the U.S. Air Force, were known as the Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team, or MEAT. Later, a few of the officers would refer to themselves as "dead meat."

<snip>

The team found dozens of burnt-out cars, buses and trucks—but very few tanks. When General Clark heard this unwelcome news, he ordered the team out of their helicopters: "Goddammit, drive to each one of those places. Walk the terrain." The team grubbed about in bomb craters, where more than once they were showered with garbage the local villagers were throwing into these impromptu rubbish pits. At the beginning of August, MEAT returned to Air Force headquarters at Ramstein air base in Germany with 2,600 photographs. They briefed Gen. Walter Begert, the Air Force deputy commander in Europe. "What do you mean we didn't hit tanks?" Begert demanded. Clark had the same reaction. "This can't be," he said. "I don't believe it." Clark insisted that the Serbs had hidden their damaged equipment and that the team hadn't looked hard enough. Not so, he was told. A 50-ton tank can't be dragged away without leaving raw gouges in the earth, which the team had not seen.

<snip>

The Air Force was ordered to prepare a new report. In a month, Brig. Gen. John Corley was able to turn around a survey that pleased Clark. It showed that NATO had successfully struck 93 tanks, close to the 120 claimed by General Shelton at the end of the war, and 153 armored personnel carriers, not far off the 220 touted by Shelton. Corley's team did not do any new field research. Rather, they looked for any support for the pilots' claims. "The methodology is rock solid," said Corley, who strongly denied any attempt to obfuscate. "Smoke and mirrors" is more like it, according to a senior officer at NATO headquarters who examined the data. For more than half of the hits declared by Corley to be "validated kills," there was only one piece of evidence—usually, a blurred cockpit video or a flash detected by a spy satellite. But satellites usually can't discern whether a bomb hits anything when it explodes.

<snip

http://dragan.freeservers.com/agresija/KosovoCover-Up.htm

====

<snip>

On September 16, 1999, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley Clark, attempted to 'put to bed' once and for all, the question of how much of the Yugoslav army was destroyed by NATO bombing during the 79 day conflict earlier in the year between the alliance and the Belgrade regime.

In a typically bravura press conference at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, complete with cockpit video and Power-point slides, the General announced new NATO bomb damage assessment (BDA) figures for the campaign. These now included 93 tanks, 155 armored personnel carriers, 339 other military vehicles and 389 artillery pieces and mortars.

Clark said that exhaustive examinations had taken place in Kosovo by NATO Munitions Effectiveness Teams, comparing the aftermath of air strikes on the ground with wartime reconnaissance imagery and cockpit video film. He then told his audience that they were more than welcome to examine the raw data in a series of target folders to prove the veracity of NATO's new BDA figures.

In spite of the General's new-found 'openness', it is clear that many senior NATO officers are skeptical about these revised BOA figures. Senior British military officers closely involved in the Kosovo campaign have so far been unwilling to publicly sign up to Clark's BDA figures. Only recently, the RAF's second most senior officer in the area, Air Vice Marshal 'Jock' Stirrup, declared the UK Ministry of Defence did "not know how many Serb tanks were destroyed in Kosovo and we will never know".


When this author made a request to General Clark's office, in Mons, Belgium, to make an appointment to view the new BDA files, the spirit of openness evaporated. "We are only making available information about individual air strikes on a case-by-case basis," said Clark's press spokesmen. "it is not our intention to make the complete files available." To coin a phrase... this is a story that "will run and run".

<snip>

http://dragan.freeservers.com/agresija/BattleDamage.htm

=====

excerpt from the article by Aleksandar Radic and Vladimir Jovanovic, published in Air Forces Monthly April 2002 issue

Some of the worst misdeed's are:

• destruction of Pristina (capital of Kosovo and Metohija) central area


• destruction of entire block in city Aleksinac (18 dead civilians, 40 wounded)


• bombing of passenger train near Leskovac (~40 dead, 17 missing)


• bombing of Albanian refuge convoy (75 dead, 26 wounded)


• destroying of a heating plant in Belgrade


• bombing of "Usce" business center in Belgrade


• destruction of refuge camp near Kursumlija (10 dead civilians,numerous wounded)


• numeorus bombing runs on Kursumlija


• destruction of refuge camp near Djakovica (5 dead civilians,21 wounded)


• destroying of a tobacco plant in Nis


• bombing of national TV stations headquarters in Belgrade (10 dead, 20 missing, 17
  wounded)


• destruction of entire block in Surdulica (16 dead civilians, numerous wounded)


• bombing of inter-city bus (23 dead civilians, 40 wounded and 47 dead, 16 wounded on
  second occasion)


• bombing of city Nis with cluster bombs in midday (14 dead, numerous wounded)


• bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade(4 dead, more than 10 wounded)


• bombing of Hotel "Jugoslavija" in center of Belgrade (1 guest dead)


• bombing of Albanian refuge convoy in village Kosare (87 dead, ~100 wounded)-
  USAF F-16 responsible


• bombing of "Dr Dragisa Misovic" clinical centar in Belgrade (4 dead patients,
  numerous patient's and medical staff wounded)


• bombing of State Penitentionary in Istok (approximately 100 dead guards and prisoners,
  more than 200 wounde)


• bombing of a news convoy (one driver dead, 2 reporters wounded)


• bombing of a bridge in Varvarin in midday (11 dead, 35 wounded)


• destruction of entire block in  Novi Pazar (23 dead civilians, 20 wounded)


• bombing of a hospital in Surdulica (19 dead patients, 40 wounded)

http://dragan.freeservers.com/agresija/aggression2.htm

============================
from Air Force Association Vol. 84 No. 9, September 2001

<snip>

Clark's urge to champion a ground campaign could not have come at a worse time. He took his plan to Washington during the NATO 50th anniversary summit where there was arrayed against him a formidable lack of interest. The Macedonians refused to let NATO use their territory for offensive operations. The NATO allies, many with long experience of peacekeeping in Bosnia, were not eager to insert ground troops. Throughout Washington, the ground option was a nonstarter. Shelton warned Clark not to lobby for the ground option behind the scenes at the NATO summit. "If that option is going to be sold, it will be sold by the President, not by you," Shelton told Clark. The Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen, ordered Clark to say nothing about ground forces during the NATO meetings. "We have to make this air campaign work, or we'll both be writing our résumés," Cohen added.

In his push for ground war plans and Apache operations, Clark's most formidable opponent was not the civilians in the Pentagon or the White House but rather the United States Army-institutionally and in the person of the Chief of Staff, Gen. Dennis J. Reimer. Clark recounts numerous occasions in which he sought support from Reimer, only to be rebuffed. The context of Clark's book makes plain the fact that virtually everyone in the Army's leadership thought land war in the Balkans was a bad idea. Clark's book also discloses, albeit indirectly, another factor that may have served as a restraint on Clark's ambitions: The institutional Army evidently didn't hold him in high esteem. Clark's last three assignments were as head of strategic plans on the Joint Staff; Commander in Chief of US Southern Command; and the SACEUR post. In none of the three was he the nominee of his own service.

<snip>

Private War

As the NATO summit approached, Clark promised Cohen not to be "the skunk at the picnic," but his push for ground option planning was becoming a major sore point in his deteriorating relationship with Washington. Clark's memoir detailed his many troubles with other military and political leaders-but he employed the tell-all tactic largely at his own expense. In vignette after vignette, his tormentors came off as being more reasonable than he. Shelton tried to deal with the CINCs' requests in a measured way and kept communications open even when he had to relay verbatim reprimands from Cohen telling Clark to get his face off the television. Cohen was on solid ground when in 1998 he reprimanded Clark for the leak of a Bosnian Muslim paper about Kosovo, telling Clark, "And I've told you before, you don't give military advice to Holbrooke." As JCS vice chairman, Ralston made the role of the hatchet man look sympathetic. In one instance, he gently cautioned Clark to consider what would happen if war broke out in Korea or with Iraq and they had 200,000 troops bogged down in Kosovo. Clark ignored Ralston's warning and charged into the Chiefs' "Tank" later that day with a ground option briefing. It fell flat.

<snip>

http://dragan.freeservers.com/agresija/WesleyWar.htm

[LouisFC]

58. I have posted this before

but here it is again...

The article you posted from Newsweek is the same as the one in the original post and does not implicate General Clark in any misdeeds.


ON WAR CRIMES CHARGES:
Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(online at ahttp://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#Vrecommendations)
“in the particular incidents reviewed by the committee with particular care (see paras. 9,
and 48-76) the committee has not assessed any particular incidents as justifying the commencement of an investigation by the OTP. NATO has admitted that mistakes did occur during the bombing campaign; errors of judgment may also have occurred. Selection of certain objectives for attack may be subject to legal debate. On the basis of the information reviewed, however, the committee is of the opinion that neither an in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a whole nor investigations related to specific incidents are justified. In all cases, either the law is not sufficiently clear or investigations are unlikely to result in the acquisition of sufficient evidence to substantiate charges against high level accused or against lower accused for particularly heinous offences.
On the basis of information available, the committee recommends that no investigation be commenced by the OTP in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or incidents occurring during the campaign.


ON THE USE OF GROUND TROOPS:
AFTER ACTION REVIEW FOR KOSOVO, OCTOBER 14, 1999
What was the source of the conflict between General Clark and Secretary Cohen and General Shelton? I don’t pretend to understand either military strategy or Pentagon politics, but the speculation (http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm) at the time centered on his push for ground troops and their reluctance to use them. In The Joint Statement on the Kosovo After Action Review dated October 14, 1999 it appears that both Cohen and Shelton believed
“the buildup of NATO ground combat power in the region (e.g., Task Force Hawk in Albania, allied peace implementation forces in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and visible preparations for the deployment of additional forces), combined with the increasing public discussion of the possibility of and planning for the use of ground forces, undoubtedly contributed to Milosevic's calculations that NATO would prevail at all costs.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct1999/b10141999_bt478-99.html


LIST OF AWARDS RECEIVED BY GENERAL CLARK FOLLOWING THE KOSOVO ENGAGEMENT
1. Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom);
2. Commander of the Legion of Honor (France);
3. Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany;
4. Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands);
5. Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy;
6. Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal);
7. The Commander’s Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland;
8. Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain);
9. The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium);
10. Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic);
11. Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander’s Cross,
12. The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria);
13. Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia);
14. First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania);
15. Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia);

16. The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco;
17. Order of Merit of Argentina;
18. The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia)
19. Military Service Cross of Canada.

[Tinoire]

64. Sorry, that's just a bunch of whitewash n/t

[mikehiggins]

104. Guess so. It doesn't seem to support your argument. Clearly false. n/t

[Tinoire]

131. Well.... if it makes you happy to think so

I think I'll somehow manage to live with it thereso kicking this post up high where more lurkers can read about Clark and the fraud that the people behind him are trying to perpetuate on the Democratic Party. :)

:loveya:

[mmonk]

65. So

where's Milosovic and why do the Kosovars consider Clark a hero? Who's word do you prefer? Ground troops would have limited civilian casualties by the way.

[Tinoire]

71. You obviously haven't read those articles.

Read them in their entirety and then answer the question yourself. Most lurkers have already answered the first one by now. The second one- well it's buried in there so at least look for it.

[mikehiggins]

103. This is probably the kind of thing Shelton was talking about

Possibly.

Or maybe it was the second tin of strawberries.

Apparently we'll never know, will we?

Here, in the tradition of "cutting and pasting things that make OUR candidate look better than YOURS", is one sentence from the really interesting article quoted from the Air Force Association:

"Clark's memoir detailed his many troubles with other military and political leaders-but he employed the tell-all tactic largely at his own expense. In vignette after vignette, his tormentors came off as being more reasonable than he."

Sounds like a real unethical, dishonest, coverup kinda guy to me. Telling the truth about what happened, even if it was unflattering to the author (himself). What a cunning strategy. Can't trust a man like that.

[CivilRightsNow]

141. Well, maybe we can look at his track record...

I like how Clark likes to interject the great things he did in Haiti in his speeches and whatnot.

But what is interesting is that Clark sits on that pesky old board at NED and damn, if they didnt engineer what happened in Haiti.

Clark helped bring Democracy?

http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/haiti.htm
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/ned.htm

You can discount it because it was put together by some guy who is hosting on geocities, or you can read the links and start looking into Wesley Clark yourselves.

This man lives partially in shadows, but even what we can see aint pretty.

[CivilRightsNow]

142. But he said this, two years ago...

And he was involved in lobbying and special interests and voted republican mostly, praising Bush? How can we close our eyes and accept that this man has had a lasting change of heart?

"One of the things I'm most proud of is they asked me to serve on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. I don't know if you all know what the National Endowment for Democracy is, but President Ronald Reagan started it in the early 1980s to promote American values abroad.

And one of the things that we do with a very small amount of
money--which I hope Sen. Hutchinson will keep in mind and help us a little bit with, and maybe his brother will too. This is a $30 million program that could be a $70 million program. We help democracy, we help elections, we help form political parties. There's a National Democratic Institute, an International Republican Institute. And we've got great young men and women out serving our way of life in these other countries. And they're doing a great job of it. And thank God Ronald Reagan had the vision to start that. But I'm really proud to be on that. We've got to do that.

You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe. "

http://www.ascfusa.org/news/wesleyclark.htm

It sure sounds like winning hearts and minds. Read what was said about the various other countries, north korea, etc. This is the same gameplan that people claim PNAC of furthering.

[arewethereyet]

54. about what I thought and the reason Clinton backs his boy up

you always look after those who make you look good. Especially when they use a little dirty work to make it happen.

I wonder what all those OTHER bombs landed on ? Oh yeah, civilians and civilian property.

Yeah that General Clark is quite the military mastermind alright !

For all you waiting for Shelton to elaborate, here you are.

[Donna Zen]

66. What are you talking about?

about what I thought and the reason Clinton backs his boy up

Do you dislike Clinton?

I wonder what all those OTHER bombs landed on ? Oh yeah, civilians and civilian property.

You do understand that while every civilian life that is lost in conflict is to be mourned, the number was very low. In addition it was much lower than the numbers Milosevic managed to slaughter in Bosnia. And certainly much lower than the numbers in Kosovo would have been if Slobo had had his way.

So tell me this, please. If we had stood by and done nothing, and Milosevic had killed maybe not all 1.5 million, because may have escaped and destabilized Macedonia, would you have been glad that our country let 700,000 people get slaughtered. Oh, and please, please, please take the time to read the human rights reports on "rape as a weapon." Or read Chris Hedges account of soldiers getting drunk, raping woman in front of their families, and then slitting the women's throats when after a few days they were through with them.

So, that's who you side with? I am so very sorry for you. Honestly.

And this new best friend, Shelton...the same one that just received a juicey Iraqi contract for his company "Red Cap," well, I personally think that anyone who gave money and endorsement to bush in 2000, is not to be trusted. Especially now that Shelton is watching the troops "used and abused" by bush, and says nada to help those troops.

[arewethereyet]

90. don't dislike Clinton

but his requirement that there be no military loss of life came at the expense of many innocent locals. Trying to do everything from the air prolonged the conflict and that hurt the people.

Milocevic a terrible person ? Absolutely. Can't understand why he still draws breath.

The point is, that Clinton's directive made it difficult to complete this mission and because of this it was necessary to find some way to make the effort seem to be goig well. Clark seems to have invented a way to make this happen (as he and his peers did in VietNam with the death counts).

More to the point about your accusation toward me, Bush has not placed demands on how the military mission had to be conducted. That is the best that a non-military man can do to help the troops. Note that Clark did argue strongly for some ground activity knowing full well that it is necessary.

All I find really interesting and new is the fudging of figures by Clark. I had not fully understood Clinton's adamant support until now.

[mikehiggins]

106. Uh, yeah, what are you talking about?

"For all you waiting for Shelton to elaborate, here you are."

Where? What? What did he say?

I don't see anything from Shelton following his remark earlier this year. I did see a post from another Dean supporter suggesting that the contents of his post was what Shelton was referring to but nothing from Shelton.

Certainly, Shelton had no trouble making the comment. Why is he having so much trouble explaining it?

[arewethereyet]

134. you didn't actually expect Shelton to talk did you ?

One thing to understand about generals (not running for office), they are not accostomed to needing to explain themselves to people not outranking them.

He knew full well that his comment would get good reporters curious and that they would find this stuff out on their own. And so they have.

Surely this is not too difficult to see.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

62. That question needs to be examined!

Much like Dr. Dean's hidden records?

LOL, I know, I know...not the same thing at all. Right?

I love it...there's always a good reason the Dr. shouldn't be questioned on anything he says or does (or in the case of his locked records, doesn't do) and an even better reason no one should bring up any of his inconsistancies...but that only applies to the Dr. I guess.

People amaze me sometimes.

"All during the Balkan war, Gen. Wesley Clark, the top NATO commander, was under pressure from Washington to produce positive bombing results from politicians who were desperate not to commit ground troops to combat...

In January Defense Secretary Cohen and General Shelton put their names to a formal After-Action Report to Congress on the Kosovo war."

Soooooo...who's integrity should be questioned here? :shrug:

[TLM]

79. Dean's records are being examined by a judge...

so why keep claiming they are hidden, when they are not? In fact Dean;s records are more open than Kerry's or Clark's or Gephardt's Or Edwards' or Lieberman's.

Or would you care to show me where I can read the personal correspondence and memos of those folks?

[mikehiggins]

107. Well, this famous judge will have to decide if the sealed records

are personal matters or matters dealing with Vermont state issues, won't he (or she)?

The disingenous statement that the files were not hidden completely and deliberately ignores the fact that they were sealed at Dean's request.

I know from you consistent and omnipresent defense of Doctor Dean that you don't see any reason to be sceptical of his claims, what with him being the Chosen One and all, but some of us are a lot less credulous, or perhaps somewhat more experienced with the way actual real-life professional politicians like Dean operate (no pun) even when they are busy portraying themselves as the new, improved, MTV era saviour of the Democratic Party (or at least this week).

Despite the hype and despite the fevered hopes of his supporters, Dean is a fairly common run of politician and certainly nothing to write home about.

I really only feel comfortable talking like this because this thread is obviously an attack on Clark that is now wandering into the whole litany of anti-Clark sloganeering.

As Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, and so forth...

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

112. Open?

Seems to me I recall Dr. Dean asserting, "I'll open my records when Bush opens his."

What would it take to open those records if he meant what he said? A judge? Or maybe just a simple statement..."here they are, take a look." Sorry I don't buy the hedge...but then it seems the good Dr. is an expert when it comes to "hedges" isn't he?

So why should we exchange a Shrub for a...well, I'll leave it at that...since inserting the intended noun would probably get my message deleted. Mustn't say anything in the least derogatory about the good Dr. on DU.

edited in order to comply with the current PC rules of the board.

[Justice]

118. Judge Examining Issue Of Dean's Records Only Because of Lawsuit

You make it sound like Dean asked a judge to look at the issue of his sealed records. The only reason a judge is looking at the issue is because Judicial Watch sued to get access.

Let's maintain a little honesty here - instead of this dribble on this post that has Dean supporters ganging up to throw mud on Clark - for what the 200 hundredth time.

For people supporting a front runner candidate -- leading the polls in money and support, some of these Dean supporters are awfully worried about a little ole guy named Clark. I chuckle every time I read a post bashing Clark because the same 4 or so people pop up with the same quotes and arguments - like they were new and never before discussed.

[mmonk]

63. Don't you think if there was something to all the open ended

attacks, we would know? None of the attackers will qualify their statements, so you give them credence?

[shivaji]

67. After a Lifetime in Military Clark can't get a SINGLE endorsement

from any equivalent 4-star or 5-star generals?
That is simply pathetic.

Speaks volumes about Clark's likeability.
Speaks volumes about Clark's character.
Speaks volumes about getting along with people.
Speaks volumes about Clark's towering ego.

The first time I heard Dean speak, I knew he would be the
winner and the nominee in 2004.

GO Dr. Dean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mmonk]

68. So

you would be inclined to consider Clark if an active 4 or 5 star general would endorse him (generals do not do political endorsements while active)? You would be more receptive to generals that support current US policy (bush admin) instead of opposing it? You would be more inclined to accept open ended statements from generals that support the current administration? Veterans for Clark don't impress you? I thought you Dean people were against the Iraq war and all.

[Cocoa]

69. means nothing

endorsements from generals, who cares?

Meaningless stuff being spun to make it into something meaningful, like missed votes or sealed records or whatever.

It's like there's a bunch of Frank Luntzes here, or Ed Gillespies, just reaching for any crap they can lay their hands on.

[Donna Zen]

78. McCaffery and Shali

Generals normally don't endorse anyone, just as they usually remain nonpartisan. Shelton is an exception with his endorsement for bush. Oh and Boykin too.

Watch American Son...plenty of military saying nice things.

[Donna Zen]

80. McCafferty called him an American treasure.

Generals normally don't endorse anyone, just as they usually remain nonpartisan. Shelton is an exception with his endorsement for bush. Oh and Boykin too.

Watch American Son...plenty of military saying nice things. Or read his records and work assessments, they have all been opened for the public...they gush for Wes.


Are there any 5 stars at the moment? There are usually only 8 Four Stars at any given time.

[mouse7]

86. Yeah... you know military affairs... no 5 stars since Omar Bradley

Nimitz, McArthur, Marshall, Ike, Hap Arnold, and Omar Bradley were the last group of 5 star Generals

It would be a wee bit difficult for any 5 star military officer to offer endorsement since none has been alive since 1981

On edit: I'm expecting any day now for Dumbya to start handing 5 stars to his lap dogs.

[mikehiggins]

108. How many generals have endorsed any candidate?

The first time I heard Dean speak I went looking for a candidate I thought could win this election.

That's how I found Clark.

[mikehiggins]

109. And what is a "five star" general?

How many of them are there?

I thought Ike was a four-star and he was as high as it went.

Five star is a new one to me.

Guess I just don't get out much.

[mikehiggins]

76. I'm amazed when people post things like this without

reading the very articles that they cite. There is a military in-house controversy regarding the effectiveness of high level bombing against mobile, armored vehicles. The Air Force claimed one thing, Clark, Shelton and Cohen backed them up, allthough Clark "to his credit" did try to determine the truth of the claims. Not much of a "coverup" if it appeared in Newsweek over three years ago. Thanks for the newsflash.

Further, the article cited has no connection to the Shelton quote that follows it. Once again the post ignored the fact that immediately after his comment was made public, Shelton dropped off the face of the map. He has had many opportunities to expand on his remarks but declines to even give an interview, let alone back up his claim. His former boss, now a D.C. lobbyist, also refuses point blank to even discuss the issue.

As for Tommy Franks, it would seem pretty tacky for him to support the man running against HIS commander in chief, at least in the real world where most of us have to live.

All of this just reinforces the belief that some of the frontrunning candidates are fully aware of how serious the threat is that Clark represents. Thank God the Dean supporters don't go in for bashing other candidates.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

82. Many fellow soldiers back Clark up & say Shelton's full of it. Sour grapes

Fellow soldiers who know the whole situation. In addition, a former detractor of Clark' (David Hackwrth) has now turned around and said that after doing an investigation and talking to other people who REALLY knew the situation that he beleives that Clark is a "hero." He actually wrote a glowing article about Clark and apologized.

If there's something to it then why doesn't he come out and say what it is. Shelton has been asked repeatedly and he acts "coy" about it. In addition, he is working on Edwards campaign.

[John_H]

83. "I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat"

Duh. OK Hugh. Lord knows you and Tommy wouldn't suck up to the boss. Not like after he capped off your careers with a couple of plum jobs or anything...

I'm sure Tommy and Hugh are rarin' to take orders from Howard Dean, eh Scott?

[robbedvoter]

97. More endorsements from army brass:

-General Colin Powell: "Wes Clark has been a superb battalion
commander and will be a superb brigade commander. He is an officer of
the rarest potential…He will be one of the Army's leaders in the
1990's."

-Colonel Lester E. Bennett: "Clark exhibits the best balance of
professional ethics of any officer I know. Particularly noteworthy is
his demonstrated selfless dedication to his men, his unit, and the
Army. He exhibits absolute integrity of word, deed... He establishes
and observes scrupulous ethical and moral standards."

-Brigadier General William W. Crouch: "Wes Clark has the character
and depth to be another Marshall or Eisenhower in time of war."

-General Edwin Burba, Jr. said of Clark, "Professional and moral
attributes are impeccable... Best leader-thinker in the Army... a
great leader who takes care of soldiers and families... He has it all
and has done it better than anyone else."

-Brigadier General Clyde W. Spence Jr. called Clark, "the most
outstanding Major I have ever seen. Brilliant, innovative,
hardworking, and extremely enthusiastic, professional in every
respect. I cannot praise him too highly."

-Col. David Hackworth on Clark: "No doubt he's made his share of
enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily... So he should prepare for a
fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during
the past three decades. Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at
Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the
operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did
I discover…that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by
British timidity and (Secretary of Defense) William Cohen..."

-Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey: "Clark is probably the most
intelligent officer I ever served with...He has great integrity,
sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a
public servant of exceptional character and skill."

-And former Commander-In-Chief Bill Clinton on Clark: "He is
brilliant, he is brave, he is good and he has a sack full of guts."
Now, about my challenge about a specific answer to a vague accusation - still waiting for your answer.
"How do you answer vague accusations?
Try this one: I would never read William Arkin's stories. He has credibility issues. I am eagerly awaiting your very specific answer on that."

[robbedvoter]

89. A little item in Wash Post that pertains:

The Object Lessons of History
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35233-2003Dec27.html
It's a good thing for John Edwards that Wesley Clark doesn't still command the NATO arsenal. In remarks broadcast to C-SPAN viewers a week ago, Clark said he would "beat the out of" anybody who criticized his patriotism or military record.

Clark seems to have his scope trained on fellow candidate Edwards, the senator from North Carolina, who said a few months ago that Democrats "need to be really careful that our anger is not directed at each other." Scott Anderson, Clark's South Carolina director, wrote to Edwards earlier this month to complain that Edwards supporter Robert Ford, an S.C. state senator, mailed "a negative attack on General Clark." Clark supporters are also seething over remarks by Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri saying "military leaders he has worked with, and who know him best, seem to have a lot of concern about his ability to lead."

Memo to Ford and Palmieri: Remember Slobodan Milosevic.

[DemDogs]

129. Clark said something about Southerners as stupid

Clark has only himself to blame if some Southerners (whomever they support) take offense to that.
And the Palmieri comment was a response to an attack by Clark's people that Edwards would get military advice from General Shelton (besides being former chairman JCOS and a North Carolinian and fellow NCState graduate) since Shelton had said Clark had integrity issues. Clark attack on Edwards was widely regarded as a monumentally dumb political move and Palmieri was responding to that attack. Get your facts.

[robbedvoter]

94. Praise from high level military they do not endorse no partisan politics

http://www.clark04.com/records/quotes/

[robbedvoter]

95. And here's gen Scales, sticking it to Brit Hume:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html
"HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?
SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that."
****

[floridaguy]

105. It looks like Hugh Shelton's boss saw things a little differently

I guess we’ll have to get used to the GOP making things up, so we might as well get some practice. This is an excerpt from an official transcript of the Department of Defense news briefing regarding General Clark and his contribution in Kosovo. Secretary Cohen called Clark “one of our most brilliant officers” and the Kosovo air campaign “the most successful in the history of warfare”. I guess I’m missing the part about the integrity, etc.

Monday, May 1, 2000
Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

(Also participating in the Joint Press Conference was Gen. Henry H. Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff in Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo)
Q: This is General Clarke's last visit to Kosovo today. Any word on how he has performed his job?
Sec Def.: He has done an extraordinary job. General Clarke is one of our most brilliant officers. He undertook a mission that is perhaps one of the most complicated and complex and carried it out successfully. As I mentioned in my remarks, this air campaign was the most successful in the history of warfare. We had over 38,000 sorties that were flown. We had only two planes that were shot down and no pilots lost. That is a record that is unparalleled in the history of warfare. So, General Clarke and his entire staff and subordinates and all who participated deserve great credit.
Q: Why is he leaving office, then?
Sec Def.: He is leaving because we have General Ralston who will become the new SACEUR. We are now replacing many of our CINCs throughout the world.
Q: It is not a reflection on his performance?
Sec Def: No reflection at all. He has done an outstanding job as the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Southern Command, and he did an outstanding job here as EUCOM Commander and also as SACEUR.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/t05022000_t501koso.html
The truth and nothing but the truth!

[Dianne Maire]

110. Wesley Clark at work in Kosovo

This site will take you back and give you a real view of the General.

Wesley Clark has received plenty of endorsements..read and be enlightened.

As for Tommy Franks he's a Bush man..enough said.

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/index.shtml

[Patriot_Spear]

113. This doesn't surprise me...

I like Clark, but I have no illusions about him being a boyscout. You don't get 4 stars for being a candyass.

I have no doubts that he has some very powerful and resoureceful enemies who are waiting to drop a bomb on the Clark Campaign.

[JNelson6563]

114. My friend, the former Pentagon employee

has some very interesting things to say about Clark. I used to be able to turn a blind eye to the praise of Team Bush and the "I would be Republican if Rove had returned my calls" stuff until I heard from my friend.

I was shocked at what I learned and I hope they get their web-site up soon. I used to hope for a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket and Clark was my #2. No longer.

Julie

[Jerseycoa]

138. Shocked, were you?

If you have a charge, make it - instead of dropping this stink bomb again.

I look forward to when your friend's website goes up, too. Or is it the Pentagon's website? Or both? At least there will be something to answer. :smoke:

[eileen_d]

139. Let me guess... www.shockingpoop.com?

:eyes:

Enough with the scary stories... Halloween is soooo two months ago.

[ozone_man]

115. So, who ordered the Corley report?

It sounds like the order came from Clark after he was disappointed that there weren't more than 14 tanks hit. In any case, he apears to be standing behind the report, which sounds like fabricated evidence.

(snip)
The team found dozens of burnt-out cars, buses and trucks—but very few tanks. When General Clark heard this unwelcome news, he ordered the team out of their helicopters: "Goddammit, drive to each one of those places. Walk the terrain." The team grubbed about in bomb craters, where more than once they were showered with garbage the local villagers were throwing into these impromptu rubbish pits. At the beginning of August, MEAT returned to Air Force headquarters at Ramstein air base in Germany with 2,600 photographs. They briefed Gen. Walter Begert, the Air Force deputy commander in Europe. "What do you mean we didn't hit tanks?" Begert demanded. Clark had the same reaction. "This can't be," he said. "I don't believe it." Clark insisted that the Serbs had hidden their damaged equipment and that the team hadn't looked hard enough. Not so, he was told. A 50-ton tank can't be dragged away without leaving raw gouges in the earth, which the team had not seen.

The Air Force was ordered to prepare a new report. In a month, Brig. Gen. John Corley was able to turn around a survey that pleased Clark. It showed that NATO had successfully struck 93 tanks, close to the 120 claimed by General Shelton at the end of the war, and 153 armored personnel carriers, not far off the 220 touted by Shelton. Corley's team did not do any new field research. Rather, they looked for any support for the pilots' claims. "The methodology is rock solid," said Corley, who strongly denied any attempt to obfuscate. "Smoke and mirrors" is more like it, according to a senior officer at NATO headquarters who examined the data. For more than half of the hits declared by Corley to be "validated kills," there was only one piece of evidence—usually, a blurred cockpit video or a flash detected by a spy satellite. But satellites usually can't discern whether a bomb hits anything when it explodes.

The Corley report was greeted with quiet disbelief outside the Air Force. NATO sources say that Clark's deputy, British Gen. Sir Rupert Smith, and his chief of staff, German Gen. Dieter Stockmann, both privately cautioned Clark not to accept Corley's numbers. The U.S. intelligence community was also doubtful. The CIA puts far more credence in a November get-together of U.S. and British intelligence experts, which determined that the Yugoslav Army after the war was only marginally smaller than it had been before. "Nobody is very keen to talk about this topic," a CIA official told NEWSWEEK.
(snip)

[horsesense]

119. We stoop to the level of Karl Rove

Please read the article before coming to any conclusions. Your post looks like something Karl Rove would put out to glorify the shrub.

I assume the article is genuine, though it is not direct from Newsweek.

The article does not accuse Clark of an integrity lapse, though it clearly indicts Shelton and Abrams.

[shivaji]

120. Clark STILL does not have a single POLITICAL endorsement from generals

You can always find something someone said praising colleagues. Heck one can find tons of material of Clark praising BUSH, CHENEY, RUMMY and CONDI. Does that mean Clark is endorsing BUSH in 2004? Come on get real Clark supporters.

What I was refering to is a FORMAL ENDORSEMENT the likes of Al Gore did for Dean.

I can understand that active military officers will not openly endorse anyone. But why no FORMAL ENDORSEMENT from any retired generals? I would think after spending a lifetime in nothing but the military, general Clark should have scores of colleagues and bosses coming out openly for his candidacy.

[TorchTheWitch]

122. this again?

I can understand that active military officers will not openly endorse anyone. But why no FORMAL ENDORSEMENT from any retired generals? I would think after spending a lifetime in nothing but the military, general Clark should have scores of colleagues and bosses coming out openly for his candidacy.

Retired military just don't formally endorse. For what purpose? Formal endorsements are made by those people who's backing actually means something politically. Many retired top military brass have publically and/or privately backed Clark. If you're looking for something comparable to a formal endorsement like Gore did for Dean, it's not likely as there's little point to it politically.

[Lefty48197]

121. This post is a dupe

I read it in FreeRepublic.com

[Dr Fate]

123. Clark has challenged Shelton to say what he is talking about...

...until Shelton accepts Clark's challenge and say what this mysterious "integrity" issue is- then it is all innuendo.

I saw Clark in an interview and he was asked about these Generals remarks.He said that if they had somthing to say, then they should be more clear with their charges.

These generals need to tell us exactly what their problem with Clark is so that he can defend against the charges...

I agree that these comments are suspiciously vague are just innuendo- another thoughtless & baseless post meant to smear a good candidate...

[arewethereyet]

135. I doubt he gives this any consideration, Clark is an underling.

besides he knew that the facts would come out on their own.

[robbedvoter]

124. That the moderators keep this pathetic thing going in circles is very sad

I think DU was and can be better than that! This begs for locking!

[Scott Lee]

126. On what grounds?

Because it casts a shadow on your guy's campaign?

[Dr Fate]

127. How does it cast a shadow?

None of these Reagan & Bush I supporting Generals that you rely on will come forward with clear accusations- just this vague innuendo.

If their is a charge against Clark- then let it come out in the open so that Clark can answer- he has already challenged these men to do so.

All of this is accusations and innuendo- if there is anything to it, then the voters will decide- if there is not, I'm sure people like you and Karl Rove will act upon it...

As it is, this is just accusations and innuendo...

[SayitAintSo]

130. The only shadow is on your vain attempt to dish dirt on Clark ...

over and over and over and over and over and over ...... again ...

This BEGS for locking .....

[KC21304]

132. Ain't that the truth.

The same M.O. used to go after Kerry. And some of the same usual suspects.

[arewethereyet]

136. so deliberately decieving the American people is OK ?

I think that this surpasses the mundane republican praise thing and even some of the flip flopping.

Sorry if it paints General Clark in an unfavorable light but if the shoe fits... well, you know the rest.

[Torgo4]

133. Hey-Specs with Links!

Blatant LIE!

...about Clark being relieved, misleading half-truth about his time with soldiers, and a big "so what" on the retirement ceremony.

Working backwards, let's talk about the least signficant first. Was Shelton's not being at the retirement ceremony a snub? Sure. But these things are for people you like anyway, and you'll notice that Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was there, sitting right beside him. You remember Shinseki? He's the one Rumsfeld would later fire for telling the truth about troop strength in Iraq? Shelton's pettiness probably tells you more about Shelton than it does Wes Clark. Sort of like making snide remarks about a fellow officer and then refusing to back any of them up with specifics. Or not disclosing that you're working for another candidate, as Shelton is for John Edwards.

As for troop time, I doubt any other 4-star has much more than Wesley Clark--maybe a few months more in Vietnam since Clark was badly wounded and sent home with a Silver Star. But then he commanded a second company at Ft Knox--that didn't happen often back then. Successful officers just don't get to spend that much time with the troops--too many staff tickets to punch--but Clark has done more than most. Two companies, battalion, brigade and division Command. And let's not forget the NTC, equivalent to a Corps, at a time when the Army was preparing for Gulf War deployments. Probably more field time in that last one alone than most generals see in a whole career.

But ultimately, your lie about the character of his SACEUR time is most outrageous. General Clark was NOT relieved for cause, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his performance as SACEUR, and both SecDef Cohen and Gen Shelton were present at his change of command.

Here's an excerpt from the OFFICIAL record of the press conference at the change of command, from a government source.

quote:

Monday, May 1, 2000
Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
(Also participating in the Joint Press Conference was Gen. Henry H. Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff in Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo)

Q: This is General Clarke's last visit to Kosovo today. Any word on how he has performed his job?

Sec Def: He has done an extraordinary job. General Clarke is one of our most brilliant officers. He undertook a mission that is perhaps one the most complicated and complex and carried it out successfully. As I mentioned in my remarks, this air campaign was the most successful in the history of warfare. We had over 38,000 sorties that were flown. We had only two planes that were shot down and no pilots lost. That is a record that is unparalleled in the history of warfare. So, General Clarke and his entire staff and subordinates and all who participated deserve great credit.

Q: Why is he leaving office, then?

Sec Def.: He is leaving because we have General Ralston who will become the new SACEUR. We are now replacing many of our CINCs throughout the world.

Q: It is not a reflection on his performance?

Sec Def: No reflection at all. He has done an outstanding job as the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Southern Command, and he did an outstanding job here as EUCOM Commander and also as SACEUR.

" target=_blankhttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/t05022000_t501koso.html



So if you hear Bill Cohen claim that he did not approve of Gen Clark's performace, you should ask yourself, was he lying then or is he lying now?

Besides, Wes Clark was hardly the only CinC to have problems with Cohen. Here's another OFFICIAL report, from another government source. It is by Dana Priest and describes her discussions at the CinC conference of 2000, as reported to the State Dept on Mar 23, 2001.

quote:

The most surprising thing to me was that the questions that bothered the four of them were pretty much the same. They were not military questions. As General Zinni told me once, "War is the easy part." One of the things that worried them the most -- what is the U.S. strategy for the post-Cold War era? Admiral Blair of the Pacific Command was obsessed with finding a phrase for the post-Cold War era that would capture the present and look forward instead of backward. "If you could name it," he thought, "somehow the concept would become more concrete." All the CINCs wanted Washington to take a more regional approach to solving problems and for Washington to offer greater support to regional coalitions. I wanted to talk about their lives and travels. They wanted to talk about fixing the interagency process so that they would be smarter about what they were doing and more effective. They each told me stories having to creep around the Pentagon to meet with State Department and getting their hands slapped when they were discovered. They all felt like they were at the end of a tether line, out on the edges of an empire, and that too often no one at the Pentagon cared about what they were discovering. They each felt disappointed with their chain of command, especially Secretary Cohen, who seemed to them to want to talk only to coordinate the next upcoming news conference. They believed that the Pentagon had become far too reactive to the day’s news reports.

http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/3719.htm



Wes Clark is drawing the heat now, enduring all sorts of unsubstantiated attacks on his good name, because he's the retired general who dares to challenge, and challenge the loudest, the Bush administration on their misdirected and poorly planned performace since 9/11. All because a whole bunch of us asked him to. I guess you're either "with 'em or against 'em" with President Bush, and Gen Clark is definitely NOT with 'em. He has too much integrity and devotion to this country.



Here are the facts (Clark's ambition and personality are not the issues here) - I typed it out at length in other posts but can't do that again just search the other Clark threads.

Clark was not fired or otherwise relieved - he was prematurely removed so "they" (that old famous "they") could put their own boy Vice JCS Chairman General Ralston into NATO/EUCOM. Ralston would have had to retire if that slot was not opened for him.

Clark had a major spat with the JCS over the use of ground forces and that seemingly got to the personal level, hence his less than honorable treatment on his return stateside.

It's been said that Army Chief of Staff Reimer was for example against deploying that Apache unit and the Army deliberately dragged out the process, as it was thought this might be a precurser to use of ground forces. I can't bet a kidney on it, but so it's been said.

Another myth is Clark was beholden to Clinton in some way, that is patently untrue, as I explained in the other posts, it was JCS Chairman General Shalikashvili who was the prime mover in getting Clark promoted from J-5 of the JCS to 4-stars and CINC Southern Command, then from there to the grand prize of NATO/Eucom.

Criticize for whatever is merited, but he wasn't a political general in the Haig-Powell mold by any means.

[estherc]

137. now we know the issue is too much integrity

Thanks for posting that article. I've wondered what Shelton's beef with Clark is and now we know. Its that Clark had too much character and integrity. He wasn't willing to fudge the numbers for him.

[democratreformed]

140. It's very funny

that this article mentions fudging numbers to prevent bringing in ground troops. It has been noted many times that one of the arguments Clark had with others in this war was his desire for ground troops. There would be no reason for him to exaggerate the effectiveness of air strikes in order to prevent the very thing he most though necessary.

[MariaS]

143. This Quote

from Ret. Col. William J Taylor when speaking on Clark in the American Son Video.

"He will have the welfare of the American people writ large always in his heart and in his mind."

This quote will forever stand out for me as the most moving I have heard in reference to General Clark.