WP: Clark: "I would have probably voted for the Iraqi Resolution"

[CMT]

I gotta say I'm surprised.

Just checked out the Washington Post page.

Gen. Clark says he "probably" would have voted for the Iraqi Resolution and that his views "resemble" those of Senator Lieberman and Kerry who both voted for the resolution and now question Bush's leadership of the Occupation.

He said while he "probably" would have voted for the resolution he felt there was "no good reason to start it when we did."

So does that mean he would have supported starting this war at a later time?

I thought Clark was opposed to the resolution and the war. These comments of Gen. Clark will be a big help to anti-war candidates and Howard Dean in particular, imo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32450-2003Sep18.html

[ButterflyBlood]

1. that does it

I'm sticking with Dean.

[BurtWorm]

9. Me too.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

73. Good thinking

Personally, I don't think the war should be a big issue in deciding whom to support but I am happy because in light of this comment, I have a feeling a lot of people will make the same choice you did, and that is a relief, because I was worried about losing a lot of Dean supporters to Clark.

[newsguyatl]

2. i feel sick to my

stomach with the news i've read about clark in the last two days...

i don't want dean to taint his name in connection with him...




i've never been more committed to dean than i am now.

[CMT]

4. the last few weeks I've been thinking

and even tonight posted how I think I would want a Dean/Clark ticket but now after reading this--wishy-washy statement on this evil war and his admission of voting for Nixon and Reagan. I don't think I would even want Clark for VP. Much rather have Graham.

[newsguyatl]

10. i agree CMT

i'm not so sure i want him as vp anymor either...


this is all frightening indeed. and it's only been 2 days... god only knows what else will come out.


i also want to know more about his connections to jackson stephens, and how much clinton is playing a role in this... and =what= that role is.


this is getting damned interesting.

[Pastiche423]

20. Wait!

Did clark really say he voted for nixon? I heard aout reagan, but not nixon.

[Bertrand]

22. He said he wasnt a Dem until 1992 when Clinton brought him into

the party.

[roughsatori]

33. Yes he added Nixon to the probably of Reagan

:puke:

[Pastiche423]

43. That does it!

How in the ever lovin hell, can anyone support someone that "probably" voted for nixon???

When I was six years old, I was quoted as saying, that man (nixon) was a bad, bad, bad man and would make bad things happen to the country. lol (Serveral adults verified the quote over the years.)

I have no idea why my young mind thought that, but sure as hell that young mind was 100% right.


And THIS is a man some people here want to support ?

[CMT]

45. I'll say this much for Lieberman

he always has supported and voted Democratic.

[rolodomo]

62. Are you advocating a Dem purity test?

I don't think it is fair or productive to close the door on those who have come in from the cold (i.e., switched from Rep to Dem). Was not Dean also republican leaning in his youth? Rather than thinking he is impure, I respect Dean for learning from his mistake. He is a great addition to the Democratic party. The same standard should be applied to Clark.

[newyawker99]

82. Hi rolodomo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LTR]

70. Well, if he had crossed party lines and switched to the Democrats...

...I say 'better late than never'.

We certainly didn't bitch about Jeffords switching, did we?

I also saw an interview yesterday that he and other military personnel were not able to vote on may occasions due to absentee ballots not being received until AFTER the election, a problem he'd like to see resolved.

I really don't have a problem with who he voted for thirty years ago. Many things can change in that time. What are you going to do for me in the here and now?

As far as the Iraq war was concerned, Clark has said many times that he had a problem with the way the war was carried out by Bush, not necessarily the war itself. Hell, Iraq may have eventually turned into a situation where intervention may have been needed, just like Kosovo or Afghanistan, but we all know why Bushco started it, and it had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or ethnic cleansing. War is a terrible thing, and while I'd like to see it abolished, it sometimes is a necessary evil.

That, I think most of us can agree on.

[GBD4]

83. yay!

<and even tonight posted how I think I would want a Dean/Clark ticket but now after reading this--wishy-washy statement on this evil war and his admission of voting for Nixon and Reagan. I don't think I would even want Clark for VP. Much rather have Graham.>>

Glad to hear! :) I think Graham makes a better VP choice for many reasons. Dean likes "the governor factor" that he and Graham share, and after these latest revelations, it seems Graham's war position is more in line with Dean's than is Clark's. Additionally, Graham brings insider experience to the ticket which I think would be a helpful asset for Dean to have.

[Bertrand]

8. newsguyatl

if you disagree with Clark, fine, but you should can the melodrama.

Its amazing all the negativity surrounding the process. I could easily tear into Dean on many different things, but since im pragmatic when it comes to the Dem Party, i recognize that the postives of Dean outweigh his negatives in terms of stopping Bush.

[disgruntella]

3. Dean probably would have too.

The thing is, neither of them HAD to vote on IWR. What they really would have done is speculation. And so the real point in my opinion is, they both spoke against the war after it started.

[CMT]

6. Dean has said he wouldn't have

and neither did Vermont's two senators--Leahy and Jeffords or the states congressman--Sanders.

[disgruntella]

11. But neither Dean nor Clark *had* to vote

My point is that they can *say* one thing or another, it's not the same as actually having the vote on record.

Edit: My previous post title was, admittedly, flamebait. I'm not going to shed any tears over it though.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Kucinich voted against the war, as did Bob Graham

No excuse for the warmongering four to give Bush a free pass to attack Iraq!

And while we are speaking of the warmongering four, there is no excuse for them to miss the crucial Senate vote on the mini-nukes issue.

[CMT]

36. agree

they should have taken a stand even though it would still have passed.

[rolodomo]

66. aWol scammed Congress on this issue!

I agree that one should distinguish between an balanced, pro and con analytical answer to a hypothetical question and an actual vote in Congress. The leadup to the war was a series of lies and misjudgments. Many of these errors happened after the vote. While I applaud those who were onto this from the very beginning. However, please remember that aWol commander engaged in an unprecedented breach of good faith dealing with Congress. Therefore, a vote "for" does not equate to approval for BushCo's warlust and international ineptitude. There are reasons that crimes like fraud are not dependent upon the defrauded person's assent to the fraud.

[CWebster]

31. There were those who did vote against it as well

Dean said the case was never made to give the president authority, Clark just stated he probably would've vote for it. Night and Day.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

72. Vermont and Hawaii

Were the only states, I believe, whose entire Congressional delegations voted against the war. Of course, in both cases it was only three members (Hawaii has two representatives but Rep. Patsy Mink died a few weeks before the war vote, though I believe she had been on record opposing it).

If you want the strangest state in terms of how their delegation broke on the war, you would have to look at Rhode Island, which had its Republican senator vote no and Ted Kennedy's son vote yes.

[liberalnurse]

26. No, Dean was an active grassroots supporter for

Jimmy Carter and that was 1976.....that makes him a democrat...

[PurityOfEssence]

34. My suspicions too

I have respect for Clark on this, though. Much as I hate the resolution and think it was the wrong thing to do (as well as having been a transparent set-up) I admire his directness on the admission.

Wrongheaded and potentially gullible though this is, it still shows some integrity. I'd like to see/hear the full context, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Then again, perhaps it's a calculated statement to win over the blustering sabre-rattlers and the scared, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since I've thumped on his supporters so much of late.

As for Dean, I wish there was the alternate universe where he was a legislator (especially one up for election at the time) when the trumped-up and cynical resolution was rammed down their throats.
I'd like to see what he'd really have done.

Especially when you consider the still-classified heap of horseshit that was trotted out for Congress to peruse, it's hard to be absolute on this issue.

[CMT]

40. didn't stop Kucinich or Graham

from voting against the resolution--or many other members of the house and senate.

[Pastiche423]

44. One hundred and thirty three lawmakers voted NO

[PurityOfEssence]

61. Quite true, and many with the most Foreign and Intelligence knowledge

That can be interpreted many ways, but like most things, bits and pieces of things interplay and combine in odd ways. It's definitely important to note how people like Graham and Levin saw through this crap with no trouble, but they're experts in this area. It's also worth noting that those who absolutely distrust the administration went against it too.

What went on behind closed doors will not be divulged for a very long time, though. Why did Harkin vote for it? Why did Waxman, Schiff, Harman and Berman? (There's a through-line for those four, but one isn't wise to say such things, is one?) Why Clinton?

Enough did get it right, and they're some of the real luminaries: Stark, Schakowsky and Frank come to mind. My Rep, Becerra figured it out too. (He's worth watching, incidentally...)

The intent of my post was to at least give Clark a break for candor, even though I do point out that it could just be cynical positioning too; he could have easily ducked it or positioned himself otherwise. The devil deserves his due, after all, and this was a bit of straight shooting on his part. As you know, I'm no fan, and certainly not of the more ham-handed of his supporters.

I don't necessarily buy the Dean contention that he definitely would have voted against it, regardless of circumstances, and although it's all gotten so tender of late--and on this issue, dammit, it SHOULD be tender--this was meant as a bit of a gentle reminder of the uncertainty of it all. Dean's veracity is a more than just a little iffy, and his tactics brash and often sullied, so this bears mentioning.

[Egnever]

78. I would pay money

To have seen this.

I wish there was the alternate universe where he was a legislator (especially one up for election at the time) when the trumped-up and cynical resolution was rammed down their throats.
I'd like to see what he'd really have done.


Cause he was speaking out against it prety loudly at the time. I wish he had been in the senate maybe we wouldnt be where we are today!


Or maybe as you suspect he would gave been a whole different guy and would have caved to the fears the others did and fallen in line.


My gut tells me he would have been in the midle of the frey right beside byrd!

[IndianaGreen]

5. These are legitimate issues in which to criticize Clark

and are not the orgy of Clark bashing we have seen in DU recently. Clark should be pressed hard to clarify the following statement:

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation.

We know how popular Lieberman is among the Democratic rank and file. As to Kerry, he waffles so much in his ever-changing excuses for his Iraq war vote, that I find it difficult to believe that Clark can even say that his views are the same as Kerry's.

Keep in mind that the Washington Post has a history of distorting stories to suit its increasingly conservative ideological bend.

[Bertrand]

12. I agree

I fear the DLC is pressuring him to moderate his voice under the premise that 2/3rds support the idea of the iraqi war. Clark is trying to model his campaign as the inclusive centrist General, and while that may work in the General Election, i dont think that will win the primary.

[blm]

7. At a later time, meaning AFTER real inspections

and AFTER real diplomacy as laid out in the IWR.

[Maple]

15. The question of 'going in'

should never have arisen at all....before, during, after....or years from now.

[Donna Zen]

21. there is more to the statement:

"That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did."

[OKNancy]

13. He goes on to say

But Clark took some shots at Bush, too. He compared Bush to Nixon in abusing his power to bully Congress and U.S. allies. "This is an administration which has moved in a way we have not seen any administration since Nixon to abuse executive authority to scheme, manipulate, intimidate and maneuver," Clark said.

<snip?

He said he supports universal health coverage that includes preventive care and a "freeze" on Bush's tax cuts that have yet to take effect for people earning $150,000 or more.

Clark said he supports a ban on assault weapons and was uncertain of precisely what the Brady gun law does -- and if any changes to it are needed. The law requires background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases.

"I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms," said Clark, who has been shooting weapons since he was young.

Clark, who said he does not consider homosexuality a sin, said the military needs to reconsider the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay service members. He suggested the military should consider the "don't ask, don't misbehave" policy the British use. "It depends how you define misbehave. That's what has to be looked at," he said.

[disgruntella]

19. oh, THAT can't be right

After all, Clark is JUST a general with NO valid positions on domestic policy! </sarcasm>

[RealityDose]

14. That doesn't mean he was for the war

No, Clark & Kerry were for forced inspections. They believe that when significant WMDs were found then it would have been time to attack. A real coalition should have been formed waiting for the go ahead from the UN inspectors not from Haliburton.

[Bertrand]

16. You're Right

but that is not how it's going to be spun by the Dean Camp. The DLC probably wants Clark to take over for Kerry, and Dean probably would like that stratagy.

[Maple]

18. Why?

Iraq was no danger to the US, and there was no need for anyone to invade.

[Skip Intro]

38. "no need for anyone to invade" - ? - three letter word...

o - i - l

[IndianaGreen]

25. You are using Kerry logic

The old tried and true "I was against the war and that is why I voted for it."

No thanks, I'll pass on the Kool Aid.

[HazMat]

37. But you see

the Deaniebabies don't understand nuances. They think in black and white like the man they're helping to elect -- George W. Bush -- since a Dean nomination = Bush re-election.

Kerry didn't vote for war.
Kerry didn't vote for invasion.
Kerry didn't vote for regime change.

Kerry's vote was "yes, but". Yes to put some credibility behind the threat of force to disarm Hussein, but we need to work through the UN and exhaust all efforts to build a true coalition. "Mr Bush, do not rush to war", Kerry stated way before the invasion and way before the war went bad.

There is no such thing in congress as a straight "yes" or "no" vote. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand government.

[mike_c]

50. there's no such thing as a "yes, but" vote....

Yes, or no. Those are the only possibilities. Kerry voted yes, thus betraying his constituency and doing his best to further the Bush* PNAC agenda. Stop trying to dress a pig up as a princess.

[maggrwaggr]

53. I don't think dead people understand nuances

You're either dead. Or you're not. Right now we've got thousands of dead people who don't give a RATS FUCKING ASS what you think about the "nuances" of government.

FACT: Iraq was not a THREAT to the U.S. That was obvious then and it's even more obvious now.

FACT: The US doesn't invade countries unless they've been attacked first. Bush broke that law.

FACT: You don't say "yes" and say later that it means "no". That's just plain BULLSHIT.

Especially when it's a life-and-death situation.

[HazMat]

79. Will Deanies ever stop beating on that strawman ?

Kerry voted for the Iraq Resolution to put credible threat of force behind the UN resolutions Saddam was violating, in order to get inspectors back into Iraq. The reason he didn't tie the pResident to the UN was due to the (fraudulent) case made by the administration and the CIA that Iraq posed a WMD threat to the our national security (terrorist links) and the security of our allies in the region.

Still, nothing in the resolution advocates unilateral war, invasion or regime change.

Voting in favor of the resolution was the CORRECT vote based on evidence presented. The administration misled the congress and the American people and the administration alone should be blamed. Blaming Kerry and others is akin to blaming honest jurors for a verdict based upon fraudulent evidence presented by a crooked court.

And those who voted against the resolution did NOT do so because they believed they were being misled; they didn't "see through the lies" as so many Deanies like to say. Those who voted against it simply had a difference of opinion. I believe those who voted against the resolution were WRONG based on the evidence. And Dean wasn't even in congress so how would he know what the correct vote was either way ?

Anyway, voting "yes" or "no" had nothing to do with Bush's invasion, which Kerry spoke out against. The Iraq resolution was simply about getting the UN back into Iraq and bringing Saddam into compliance.

[HazMat]

23. The IWR meant nothing, anyway

only to Karl Rove's "uselful idiots".

Bush didn't need any "resolution" to go to war.

IWR was engineered to split and weaken the party, to produce an unelectable nominee like Dean.

[CMT]

27. well then Kerry,Edwards, Lieberman, Gep

must be Rove's "useful idiots" because they voted for it and now Clark indicates he would have too.

We will see if Dean is unelectable, so far he has been doing just fine.

[HazMat]

41. Kerry's vote was 100% correct based on the evidence

presented to him, which was later revealed to be cooked.

The "useful idiots" are those now who still believe the IWR was anything but a Rove concoction.

[CMT]

42. not the way I see it

lots of democrats in the house and senate were able to see what Bush was doing at the time and voted against the resolution. The democrats who caved were worried about how it would look in an election year if Democrats didn't back a president on a foreign policy issue.

[maggrwaggr]

54. how come I wasn't fooled? How come 130 others who voted weren't either?

The people who voted gave shrub the ABILITY to invade Iraq without being held ACCOUNTABLE.

Bush can now point the figure at congress and say "they said I could do it."

Fact: Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Why can't people accept this?

Saddam Hussein was not a "suicide dictator". He was only interested in survival. Yet somehow we had this mass delusion that he was going to attack the United fucking States of America?

What the fuck? What kind of cowardly paranoia is that?

It's shameful is what it is. Absolutely shameful.

[Sterling]

28. Too bad most don't see it that way.

Too bad for Kerry, Clark and all the other enablers that is. Great for Dean, DK, BG.

[JDStutts]

39. I won't vote for any useful idiots

It is time to separate the leaders from the useful idiots.
Go Dean!

[Mechatanketra]

59. The f**k he didn't.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. -- excerpt, War Powers Act (1973). Emphasis mine.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. excerpt, H.J. 114 (aka the "Iraq vote"). Emphasis mine.

Not only does the President not have the power to go to war any time he feels like it, everyone who's read the Iraq resolution got a free reference to the law that says so. The President needs Congress's OK to attack other countries, or he's breaking the law; anyone who tells you different is lying, even if he's a well-groomed war hero running for President.

[rolodomo]

67. Congress has Repeatedly Acquiesced to President on this

and therefore effectively given to the President the legal power to enter into war. That was my understanding when I took contitutional law. However, I agree with your outrage over this issue and please don't call me a liar.

[HazMat]

80. I'll take what's behind door #3, Monty.

3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Much of the (fraudulent) case the misAdministration made was based on the threat to national security. BushCO would've simply drummed up some "terrorism" strike on "American interests", turned the threat color to red and stormed Baghdad any time he wished to.

This is the problem with the War Powers resolution, as many have pointed out over the years.

[Sterling]

24. Anyone who saw his comentary on CNN knows he was not and is not

Anti war.

[CMT]

29. I rarely saw him on CNN

becuz I hate cable news stations. I took it for granted given all the press that he was another "anti-war" candidate like Dean and Kucinich--meaning against the Iraqi war and resolution.

[CWebster]

30. What did anyone expect

He has always been one of them. After all we rant about everyday for months on end -how could anyone fall for this overnight?

[mike_c]

32. that's only one of the problems with nominating a career militarist....

He agrees with two of the major democratic war apologists. He gives the appearance of not having actually opposed invading Iraq, notwithsatanding his recent assertions, but rather of having had misgivings about the timing of the invasion and the weak nature of the "coalition." He certainly did his bit to assist CNN's over-the-top promotion of the invasion as info-tainment. His recent conversion to the Democratic Party, while admirable-- and it's true, people do change-- comes after a lifetime of supporting some of the worst republican presidents in the last 50 years, and that only in response to Clinton's charisima (and presumably his hewing to the DLC agenda), not because of any ideological alignment with the historical core issues of the Democratic Party.

The words "wolf in sheeps clothing" come to mind. The more I hear about Wesley Clark's politics, and history, the less comfortable I am about his ability to represent my interests in U.S. foreign, domestic, and military policy.

[OneBlueSky]

35. wait . . . there's more . . .

check this out . . . in his own words . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=11938

[WilliamPitt]

46. He's honest, at least

[CMT]

49. yes

I grant him that. It is not his integrity I take issue with.

[maggrwaggr]

55. I disagree. He's being as mealy-mouthed as any career politician

"I would have voted for it". BUT I would have asked for other stuff. My yes vote would have been a "good" yes vote, not a bad yes vote.

Even though I would have voted for the IWR, I don't support the war.

I "may" have voted for Reagan. I "may" have supported Nixon. Not sure I remember, ha ha!

I feel like the guy has punched me in the stomach.

That is not honest, I've watched this guy go from honest to mealy-mouthed two-faced sonofabitch in about two days.

[rolodomo]

68. If a reporter asked me on the record

who I voted for 30 years ago and I was pretty sure I still would have said "probably" just to account for the slight chance I was wrong. This is a bad habit I get into work when discussing anything that is not 100% certain.

[charlie]

77. This is Clark's inexperience and naivete

as a campaigner showing. He wasn't accounting for his vote for Water Commissioner 30 years ago. Nobody has forgotten whether or not they voted for the most controversial and reviled president in recent history, that's like not being able to remember if you slept with Marilyn Monroe. Clark needs to get a handle on campaign basics or he'll do himself in with this sort of stuff.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Well, THIS Takes a Little Wind Out of My Sails

I still support the guy, but I'm troubled by the statement, not just for its substance, but also for the apparent lack of understanding of the Democratic Party and politics that it betrays.

It's very early yet. We'll see how he does over the longer haul. There is a tendency here on DU to treat everything like a crisis or an emergency RIGHT NOW due to the instantaneous nature of information and feedback here. My guess is that we might be better served by a longer view, particularly with respect to candidates.

C'mon General, I'm still pulling for you! Work out the kinks, and fast, please!

DTH

[moondust]

48. This may play in the South but

I'm not in the South and I don't like it. The IWR granted nearly unlimited, unchecked destructive power to an aggressive phony with imperialistic values based on lies and fraud. It was a bad mistake.

[Trek234]

51. All I can say is

I told you so.

Weeks ago when I heard Clark was coming in I said "Shit. This is the begining of our defeat"

I can't believe so many people were ignorant to this guy. He's probably on the Rove pay roll. I shudder to think what will happen if he gets the nomination.

[friendofbenn]

52. clark is a lunatic

when the russians went into kosovo clark ordered his british subordinate to go in and "confront" them. luckily he disobeyed and avoided armageddon. not only would clark make a bad president he'd make a dangerous one. i strongly urge anyone thinking of supporting him to think again

[maggrwaggr]

56. sorry but that story smells like RW bullshit

and if you look at my other threads you'll see I'm gravely disappointed in Clark.

Look at that story again. It's probably coming from Faux, or someone equivalent. That story is heresay.

[friendofbenn]

57. its true

because i remember it happening at the time and i remember hearing it straight from the horses mouth. general sir micheal jackson the guys name is

[rolodomo]

69. I take it your a big fan of sir micheal jackson

because when big micheal jackson boldy claims that WWIII will start that of course means WWIII will start just as he predicted! I hold less stock in Jackson's crustal ball. I think the facts on the ground indicated that is was much more likely that WWIII would not have started. Armageddon predicitons are very appealling though I must admit.

[JasonBerry]

60. Here Is A Link

Frankly, I was telling DUers of these things - literally - MONTHS ago. I was called everything in the book. Clark has twisted the Pristina story to where it doesn't look as bad as it TRULY was.

Here is a BBC link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm

But, honestly, as bad as that is - as I said before - there's a lot worse than that. Some of it is coming out. The first reaction from a lot of Clark supporters was "Dirt!" "Smear!" Actually, I understood that. I honestly hate to see good Democrats get led down a blind path - it's not pretty.

[JasonBerry]

64. By The Way...

As many of you might remember, I have done extensive research on General Clark. Since 1999, I have watched Clark's career with great interest. I found something TONIGHT, right here at DU, that I did not know about....Clark's support for the School of the Americas. Active thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=365668

[IndianaGreen]

65. Sorry to disappoint you, but the latest comes from The Guardian

and I remember when it actually happened!

Democrats hope for a new Eisenhower

Profile Oliver Burkeman

Thursday September 18, 2003
The Guardian

In a famous clash the British commander Sir Mike Jackson refused Gen Clark's request for troops to prevent the Russians taking control of Pristina airport, reportedly telling him: "I'm not going to start the third world war for you."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1044292,00.html

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," Jackson told Clark.

Behind the scenes battle over Pristina airport between British adn US genereals comes to light

Mark Tran
Monday August 2, 1999

Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance.

Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians.

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark's order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.

News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208120,00.html

Thursday, 9 March, 2000, 14:14 GMT
Confrontation over Pristina airport


General Jackson: Backed by UK Government

Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.

For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission.

<snip>

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were (looking at) a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

[Cascadian]

75. Why is everything that is said against Clark right-wing?????

This bugs me as much as people insisting that Howard Dean is a lefty. Just because there is criticism against General Clark does not mean that it's a right-wing assumption. It just irks me!

It is happening too much!

John

[sujan]

58. war criminal is as war criminal does

[carpetbagger]

63. So what do you want to do, impeach Clinton?

Welcome to RU.

[DrFunkenstein]

74. Clinton On The Threat of Force

"Saddam's deception has defeated (UNSCOM's) effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

...

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

December 17, 1998

[CentristDemocrat]

84. Head up ass?

[Jolene]

71. Clark said: "probably" "resemble" "probably"

That is all Clark said in that article.

[returnable]

85. Exactly

And when he said he'd "probably" reject Bush's $87 billion proposal as presented, it's dismissed as pandering.

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Dean is definately a visionary who sees where things are going

No doubt about it. He is a true leader, whatever his foriegn policy experience he clearly has better judgement than the foreign policy wonks.

[CMT]

81. I agree

he was able to see thru the Bush lies.