I apologize for calling General Wesley Clark

[Hoppin_Mad]

I apologize for calling General Wesley Clark the "Butcher of the Balkans' in a post last night. Although, in my mind, real questions remain about his role in the Balkans and other American military actions . . .

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm

To use a phrase so loaded with negative connotations was wrong, and I apologize to those offended by it.

on edit . . .

I will support and actively campaign for General Clark should he become the Democratic Nominee.

Hoppin Mad

[sfecap]

1. No apology necessary.

It's an apt description of him.

[Hoppin_Mad]

3. No it's not - It's inflammatory and I shouldn't have used it -eom-

[dkf]

16. I guess these guys aren't happy with an apology either. n/t

[Hoppin_Mad]

26. I think most are -eom-

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. These guys?

What the hell does that mean?

Your apology is accepted. Hoppin Mad.

[Clark Can WIN]

49. I didn't read your offending post

But I certainly appreciate the fact that you apologized. I admire it very much. I would ask you to give fair consideration to some firsthand accounts of Kosavar Albanians

http://johnhlinko.forclark.com/story/2003/12/13/191759/04

I'm sure there are more if you go looking for them. I know that many Albanians show up at his appearances and are often seen bearing flowers and in tears. Consider that they were there, it was their neighbors and brothers and fathers that were being "dissapeared", imprisoned tortured and intimidated.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. Another attack on Wesley Clark by.....

Howard Dean's supporters!

Not all people in the military are bad. We need a strong defense. And stop calling a "butcher"!

[jmaier]

I thought Milosovic

was the 'Butcher of the Balkans'. Once again, I find your comments beyond partisan and wholly unjustified. But, why should today be any different than usual.

[Hoppin_Mad]

19. I'm apologizing for my derogatory characterization of Gen Clark

Please accept this at its face value.

Thank you

[jmaier]

30. Hoppin,

I was replying to sfecap, not to you. I have no reason to doubt your sincerety.

[Hoppin_Mad]

34. Oh - OK - Thanks -eom-

[retyred]

47. Speaking of apt descriptions

did you see where dean flip-flopped again?


" Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."



So I read this book

[xultar]

2. Fine is $10.00 donation to the campaign of your choice...n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. hey xultar, I like your "fines"

but I can't follow them because I'd bankrupt myself! :eyes:

[xultar]

10. Fine: A snickers bar in the mail to my house...

I'll PM my addy to you. ;) j/k
T

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. Snickers? Don't you mean a Clark Bar?

:evilgrin:

[Bucky]

40. Just so long as you don't make 'em eat a Crow bar?

That wouldn't go down too smooth.

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. (ahem) A SNICKERS bar??? *cough*cough*

Don't you mean a CLARK bar? :7

[WillyT]

17. She Came Up With It Here, And It's Absolutely Brilliant !!!

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=73475

:bounce::kick::bounce:

[xultar]

25. Thank you...Fine: You didn't include Beautiful $5.00 to Clark campaign nt

[xultar]

24. I'm was HIGH as a kite on Nyquil last night when the Fine Idea poped up

Now I'm infecting the people here @ work with my flu, cold, sinus infection, strep, bronchitus thing and I'm postin on DU...and makin moolah for the democratic candidates.

Ah...Multitaksing GODDESS I am....

Hold the applause...Thank you, thank you(she bows Jestures as HRH)

Hey...guess what...I'm High on Nyquil right now!

[Clark Can WIN]

51. Hey Sultar...................

Pass it over......... my sinuses are killing me.

[Padraig18]

4. For your penance, my son...

... you should post a positive thread about General Clark.

Io te absolvo. ;)

[Hoppin_Mad]

18. Should he become the nominee

I'll post lots of positive threads about him. in the meantime, I will try to refrain from such inflammatory language.

[Padraig18]

22. OK, fair enough.

but if he wins, I expect a positive thread. *makes note* ;)

[TexasSissy]

5. Where's the moderator for name-calling?

This is a re-post of an name-calling post, complete with a link to back up his name-calling.

Let's see, if I were a Dean supporter, what would I do? Oh,...."waaaahhhhhh, waaaaaaaah. They're pickin' on me, ma!"

[Padraig18]

7. To see what a Dean supporter would do, see post #4. n/t

[wryter2000]

9. LOL

Well done, Padraig.

[Padraig18]

12. Thank you!

:)

[Hoppin_Mad]

8. WHAT are you talking about ?

I am sincerely apologizing for my actions.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. OK can we try to examine this with intellect rather than emotions?

In virtually EVERY war there will be alternating perspectives. Is the whole truth known about the Balkans? Probably not..there are still debates about Gulf War 1 and Viet Nam.

Are his actions and decisions relevant? Yes they are.


Don't count on an emotionless debate with his supporters but if you can FRAME your inquiry properly, you may just arrive at a conclusion.

[xultar]

15. nevermind

don't wanna get busted again...

[HFishbine]

20. As long as we're at it

I apologize for calling Kerry a liar. I was doing it to try to make a point and I don't think too many people saw it, none the less, it wasn't right and it was contrary to the repsect I have for the man.

[Rowdyboy]

21. You show great class

Would that all of us showed such class.

:toast:

[Hoppin_Mad]

23. Thanks - If a Clark supporter would direct me to a nonpartisan site

explaining Clark's role and position vis-a-vis Kosovo, I will read it thoroughly with an open mind.

edit spelling

[xultar]

28. IS this to your liking

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/kosovo/

[Hoppin_Mad]

33. Thank you - Looks comprehensive - I'll check it out -eom-

[democratreformed]

32. Lots of info here:

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. Here's a link to

the DOD. Is that non-partisan enough? They hate him. This is a briefing with Cohen.

DoD News Briefing

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)

SecDef Cohen: We will now take questions. You have heard the Chairman himself indicate that this mission was certainly a very difficult one; that it was successfully completed as far as driving Milosevic's forces out of Kosovo and helping to return a million refugees as well as helping to bring peace and stability. We understand that there are still some flashpoints that we have to contend with. We are strengthening our capability of interrupting the flow of weapons that may be transported illegally. We are looking forward to UNMIK producing more police so that our troops don't have to engage in as many police enforcement activities. But over all we believe that the mission is being successfully carried out.

Q: How concerned are you about the Presevo Valley?

Sec Def: That is something that we are following very closely and we are taking other measures. We have another surveillance company that will join our forces to help make sure that we can look very closely at what is taking place in Presevo Valley.

Q: Are there any chances of the military technical agreement being changed by North Atlantic Council, with regard to Presevo Valley?

Sec Def: I have not heard of any proposals that have been presented that would result in that kind of a change.

Q: What is Mr. Milosevic doing to stir up trouble in Mitrovica; Is he behind of what is going on in Mitrovica?

Sec Def: I think Milosevic certainly will take advantage of any potential conflicts in the region. We have extremism on both sides. That is something that we are trying very hard to discourage as far as the ethnic Albanians, and at the same time not give Milosevic any kind of excuse to respond to that. So, that is the reason why we are working hard as we can to make sure that doesn't take place.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/t05022000_t501koso.html

and this very long, but excellent article.

<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>

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

[NV1962]

53. Also, this one

From the Boston Globe, here

(long one, too - it's the 2nd part of a series on him, 1st one is probably less interesting to you, but it's linked on that page.)

I believe there's also a book out there that comprehensively reviews Clark's own bio-book (which focuses much on the Balcans, not just Kosovo) I have to see if I can dig that one up.

[Kool Kitty]

27. Apology accepted.

:)

[xultar]

29. Heres some stuff...

THE assignment was a simple classroom exercise on immigration, one given to every third grader at P.S. 290, the Manhattan New School. Each child was to trace his or her family's arrival in America.

Some children told their family stories by drawing trees, letting the names of relatives dangle from every branch. Others plastered poster board with family photos.

But no one was prepared for 8-year-old Leonela Rodoncic's picture. On a large white poster board, she drew a diagram with the names and birth dates of her brother, parents and grandparents in rectangles along the top. A second row of rectangles she reserved for her uncle and five distant cousins. Beneath their names, she scrawled: Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead.


http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/kosovo/article6.html

[tishaLA]

31. Kudos, Hoppin!

This is the kind of civility supporters of all candidates should engage in here, IMHO.

[Lefta Dissenter]

35. Hey, thanks, Hop

I'm glad that I didn't see your post last night, after I had had an entirely shitty day and three glasses of wine... :) I probably would have gotten myself booted from DU...

I appreciate your apology, and we're looking forward to your full support and many positive posts after Clark wins the nomination!

:pals:

[Printer70]

36. Why apologize- it's what Rove will call him

There were hundreds of murders in the region before Clark intervened, and his bombing (in addition to killing innocents) accelerated the violence by the Serbian military- resulting in thousands of Albanian deaths.

[maddezmom]

38. hmmm

ya think Rove will go there will all the shit going on in Iraq? I think not.

[Printer70]

50. Yes, it will look hypocritical

Any moral ground we have to objecting to the unjust war in Iraq is nullified by the details of Clark's unilateral war in Kosovo.

[Lefta Dissenter]

43. Oh, is THAT why

the Albanian groups in the US are supporting Clark - showing up at his events with their flag and THANK YOU signs?

The Albanians here in Madison had an enormous party in honor of Clark on the day he finished testifying against Milosevic.

And your point that "Rove will call him" that - well, I always thought that we (Dems) are better than Rove and his band, not rolling around in the gutter with him.

[Printer70]

54. 2 Questions

1. Are the relatives of the people who died from the Kosovo bombings or the ones who were killed as a result of Serbians reacting to the US bombing at any of these events supporting Clark?

2. Are the Serbian American supporting Clark? After all, many of them didn't support Milosivec but 180,000 were driven from their homes when Clark let Albanians run them over in the war's aftermath.

--
Wesley Clark's war history and the travesties involved makes attacking the war on Iraq nearly impossible. And if Clark wants kid glove treatment in the primary, we will be sacrificing a lamb to the lions in the general.

[MoonRiver]

41. Thanks for the apology. We're all in this fight together!

:grouphug:

[NV1962]

42. Thanks, Hoppin

Nothing wrong with having strong feelings over an issue that you believe is important. And appreciate you acknowledging my feelings.

I'll keep my mind open for your ideas.

[retyred]

44. Thank You

retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[Bucky]

45. Hoppin Mad, you're real class. I know you'll come to love Clark...

... whether he's our nominee or not.

Manners and genuine apologies are totally optional on the internet. For far too many people the lack of face-to-face dialog gives them license to be total jerks. Instead you apologize for ratcheting up the invective despite having genuine concerns about Clark's service.

It's a good thing for people to be critical at our use of deadly force in our international affairs. Doing so in 2003 when we didn't have to has cost our country far more than 470 lives and the 2000 wounded. We should always ask tough questions about our military might. I'm confident Clark's experience and service will withstand the tightest scrutiny. When people learn about how the Kosovo war unfolded, they'll find in themselves only admiration and respect with how Clark led Nato into its only war.

His experience with the US ignoring Rwandan genocide early in the decade ate away at Clark. Our half hearted measures at containing Milosevic's aggression against Bosnia nagged him. When Serbian nationalism turned against the Muslim Kosovars, he was in a position to push for using Nato's power to stop more ethnic cleansing. He did what he could to stop it and got more done than anyone had a right to expect.

Was the bombing bad? Hell yes. Innocent civilians died. Clark wanted to insert troops instead. This would have dramatically reduced collateral damage. Nato wasn't willing to go there, but Clark kept his options flexible while continuing to work with our allies (sound unfamiliar? It's been a while since an American official tried that!). As Nato politicians demanded higher and higher bombing altitudes for the bombing runs against Serb forces--changes that Clark resisted and negotiated down sometimes--they dramatically increased the risk to civilians, both Serb and Kosovar. In fact Milosevic's forces weren't totally stopped until they got wind that preparations for an invasion were underway.

This politicizing of the military force compounded the complications and increased the risk to civilians (and Chinese embassies), but in the end it did the job. Today in Kosovo--despite the fact that many of the collaterals damaged were Kosovars--Clark's considered a hero, a liberator. Why, if he killed so many of them? Because they know the story of Bosnia. They know how Croatia was spared Serbia's aggression because the Croatians fought back. They know where the ethnic cleansing was leading--a place so close to genocide that the difference is only one of degrees.

The story is far from perfect. It's not Hollywood. It's not WW2, that Good War in which the bad guys were nothing but bad and the good guys were not stuck with allies like the Kosovar terrorists who gave Slobo Milosevic his excuse to go medieval on entire communities. The bickering among politicians were pettier than the power plays of FDR, Churchill, and Stalin. All of civilization was not at risk. We could have survived ignoring the Kosovars as easily as we survived ignoring the Hutu slaughter of half a million Tutsi (and even some Hutu) Rwandans.

But with much to risk, much to lose, allies to irritate, and nothing to gain, Clark lobbied Europe to finally draw a line in the sand and stop the insanity. The outcome was as sloppy as any war is. There's no good place to roll the credits for this story and the long term pay off for Clark was a bureaucratic snub at the end of his service, earned by a lot of brass-rated rivals who never liked him pushing for purely humanitarian wars.



I'm glad to see you will support and actively campaign for Clark if he gets the Democratic nomination. As always I reciprocate 100%. I will have no qualms at all about voting for Dean or just about any nominee. Bush must go. All else is secondary.

[NV1962]

46. Well put - n/t

[shivaji]

52. My New Year's resolution: No More Name Calling

As much as I want Dr. Dean to win, I will no longer address his opponents in a derogatory fashion. General Clark, Senators Kerry,
Lieberman, Braun and Edwards, Congressman Gephardt and Kucinich and the others are all fine people who have given much to this country.
Not sure what Mr. Sharpton has done in public service but so long
as he is running an honorable campaign, he deserves equal respect.
Sure there are high emotions in the heat of battle for nomination,
but who ever the nominee is, we should unite behind him/her.

I will even refrain from calling Mr. Bush any derogatory names and adjectives. I want to respect the office of president, and once he
is defeated in November, I hope the republicans will show respect
to president Dean.

After watching the horrors of 911, and all the terrorist attacks since then, I now realize, that we are stronger united. As many
wise people have said, let our differances stop at the borders.

[oasis]

55. Actions speak louder than words my friend.

[oasis]

56. kick

[Hoppin_Mad]

57. Sorry that no one's allowed to question your candidates support of SOA

It seems to be a VERY touchy subject.

[oasis]

58. We'll keep this kicked and see if we can get some satisfactory answers.

[Hoppin_Mad]

60. Please do - and point our where I insulted or smeared Clark or

his supporters.

I guess even ASKING about certain aspects of Clarks military carrer is off limits, eh ?

[oasis]

61. Why do you think the posters on this thread are accepting your apology?

I'm sure they had expectations that you would do better in the future. Displaying your outrage at General Clark is one thing, but letting down your DU community is a serious matter that folks will remember.

May I suggest that you don't use butcher or murder in the same headline with a candidate for our nation's highest office?

That's about all I have to point out. Others can explain Gen. Clark's involvement on the SOA etc. I'm a Kerry supporter, but most of all I support the men and women in uniform that protect us while we type at our keyboards.

peace to you.

[Hoppin_Mad]

62. You're saying I can't call the SOA MURDEROUS - Ha ! It's proven fact !

I used NO derogatory language in describing Clark OR his supporters ! I can understand that you would rather not have Clark's VERY RECENT support of THE MURDEROUS School of the Americas brought to light - but that's another issue entirely.

[BootinUp]

59. Well I will answer it

But my suspicion is that you are not open to any suggestion I will make. I just wrote a short bit about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=87625#87660