Who Else Has Qualifications Like These?:

[Dinger]

When Phillip Murphy introduced Wes, I have to as as a die-hard Clark supporter, I was impressed yet again by his incredible resume. Nobody, but nobody in this race comes close.

Phillip D. Murphy, National Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee:

Thank you governor. Wes Clark grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas, and like many boys in the South who had more patriotism than money, he turned to the military for opportunity. General Clark graduated No. 1 in the Class of 1966 at West Point, and then won a Rhodes Scholarship. After Oxford, he left for Vietnam where he was shot four times and earned a Purple Heart, the Silver Star, and the Bronze Star. He commanded the U.S. Army's Southern Command covering Latin America and the Caribbean. He was further promoted to Supreme Allied Commander of Europe where he led Operation Allied Force in the Balkans using both diplomacy and military force as tools to end the holocaust of Serbian ethnic cleansing saving 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians without the loss of a single American soldier in combat. Today, Wes Clark remains in public life and private business. In 2006 he traveled to 25 states and to Democrats Abroad, speaking up about our values, and he supported 96 candidates for office. General Clark has authored Op-Ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, as well as two books, Waging Modern Wars and Winning Modern Wars. He has served as a military analyst on CNN and can now be seen on Fox. He and Gert live in Little Rock and his web site is securingamerica.com.

It is my great pleasure to introduce to you General Wesley Clark.

WES CLARK: Well thank you. Thank you very much for that kind introduction. Good morning, I'm Wes Clark. I'm a soldier and I'm fighting for our country.


O.K.,let me break this down:
1. He had more patriotism than money, so he turned to the military for opportunity. (He's one of us)
2. Graduated first in his calss at West point. (Intelligence)
3. A Rhodes Scolar (Intelligence)
4. After Oxford, he left for Vietnam where he was shot four times (Bravery & sacrifice)
5. He earned a Purple Heart. (Bravery & sacrifice)
6. He earned a Bronze Star (Bravery & sacrifice)
7. He earned a Silver Star (Bravery & sacrifice)
8. He commanded the U.S. Army's Southern Command covering Latin America and the Caribbean. (Leadership)
9. He was further promoted to Supreme Allied Commander of Europe where he led Operation Allied Force in the Balkans using both diplomacy and military force as tools to end the holocaust of Serbian ethnic cleansing saving 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians without the loss of a single American soldier in combat. Saving over a million lives without
a single American casuality, what can I say?
10. In 2006 he traveled to 25 states and to Democrats Abroad, speaking up about our values, and he supported 96 candidates for office. (He's a Democrat through and through)
11. General Clark has authored Op-Ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, as well as two books, Waging Modern Wars and Winning Modern Wars. He has served as a military analyst on CNN and can now be seen on Fox. (He has a plan and makes sure people know about it)

[loudsue]

1. Wes is the ONLY candidate out there that has the character, values

stature and BRAINS to turn this country around at this critical juncture. I love Obama to pieces, I love Edwards, I ADORE Dennis Kucinich. But for pure brains and know-how and values, I can't see anyone else in the whole world right now, save Wes Clark, that could do what this country needs to have done to get turned around.

He gets it about election fraud.
He gets it about globalization.
He gets it about saving the lives of our soldiers.
He gets it about the military/industrial complex.
He gets it about corporations running the government.
He's a statesman and a diplomat.

He's been around the block more times than Edwards, Obama and Kucinich combined, and he emerged a good man.

Gawd I wish he could be given the opportunity to take the helm of this country and turn us around.


:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Luckyduck]

6. Kucinich led the effort against attacking Iraq in the House of Reps

He is also leading the effort to stop an attack on Iran.

He is leading the effort to cut the funding to Bush's war OF terror.

He introduced a resolution two years ago "Homeward Bound" to start bringing the troops home.

He led the effort to vote no on the misnamed Patriot Act.

He introduced a resolution for hand counted, paper ballots to prevent future election fraud.

He introduced a resolution for Universal Healthcare- Medicare for All

I think he has the plans, and has taken actions to stand up for WE the PEOPLE.

[patrice]

2. Not a litmus test:

What and when were his first assessments of Bush's War?

This is NOT the single issue for me, but it is an important piece of the Clark "mosaic" I need to construct for myself.

[Lena inRI]

3. Here ya go, Patrice. . .

http://securingamerica.com/hasc1

He said "no" to the Bush War in 2002, repeated before Congress in 2005.

Why don't you read all there is at his securingamerica.com archives?

To know him is to love him.
:kick: :loveya: :kick: :loveya: :kick:

[patrice]

4. Thanks much.

I'm already inclined pretty favorably toward Wesley Clark, but, for me, that favorable reflex makes me more cautious.

[elleng]

10. Caution is good, Patrice;

it would be great if more were cautious, and followed up with study. There is tons of info, and I expect that you'll conclude that he has not only the experience but the necessary CHARACTER for the job.

[k_jerome]

8. as a balance, also research allegations of war crimes against the general...

by the likes of Amnesty International. also, this article in The Nation offers a view from the other side.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031215/taibbi

[xkenx]

14. All totally disproven, and here you lurk with the same mendacity

as your post in other Clark threads. You were responded to in great detail re the Serbian front man Matt Taibbi. Slobodan Milosevich is the war criminal; his trial was in The Hague. Your moral cowardice is showing loud and clear. Is it fun to unfairly smear in anonymity?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[xkenx]

16. Naturally, Serbs and Serb apologists would want to smear Clark;

he commanded to forces against THEIR ethnic cleansing. The war in the Balkans was a joint NATO operation, in which ALL 19 nations had to approve of all aspects. Clark was the General who carried out the action. All actions were investigated. Wes Clark is the last person to have his honor and integrity questioned, particularly by someone with an agenda for another candidate, someone who never has facts at hand, just innuendo or made-up claims.

[k_jerome]

17. Serbs and Serb apologists writing on antiwar websites...

it is an insidious plot. Articles on Democracy Now and Dissident Voice as well. They are everywhere, these Serb apologists.

By the way, no charges against Bushco or his generals regarding atrocities in Iraq either.

[xkenx]

18. Yeah, because there are any number of anti-war websites populated

by some who believe that no war, no matter what the circumstances, should be fought, so they attack the symbols of the war. They would have been happy to see the Serbs. slaughter a few hundred thousand MORE Albanians. You should be attacking your candidate for voting for IWR and then spending 3 more years being an enabler for Bush in Iraq, to talk about war crimes. But again, this ground has been covered with you before. Yet you lurk.

[k_jerome]

19. This ground has been covered by those that love the...

generalisimo. continue to support the non-candidate. then vote for my choice in 2008.

Amnesty International - serb apologists. ok.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Can't tell who your choice is....as it can't be Hillary.......as her hubby was

the one who was the decider on getting involved in Kosovo.

Try something else....

[k_jerome]

22. her husband isn't running....

she is....gotta do better...maybe go with whore or pig like the other Hillary haters.

there is plenty of research to do to come to conclusions on Clark. It seems that his supporters hate for people to read it for themselves. Oh well...talk him up when Bill gives him permission to run.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Oh...I see, Hillary who sleeps with a war criminal according to you

is who you support?

Please, find yourself another Avatar. The pretense is killing your credibility.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

28. So tell us something good about Hillary.

I have yet to see it done.

[k_jerome]

29. she didn't bomb civilians with cluster bombs....

tell me something bad about wes clark. criticize the savior. i mean, war crimes allegations turn into a positive for you guys.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Listen you......

“I had spoken out strongly in favor of Bill’s leadership of NATO in the bombing campaign to force Slobodan Milosevic’s troops out of Kosovo,”--Hillary Clinton.

As Hillary said, Clinton “advocated” air strikes during the Bosnian war. Hillary also admits that U.S. supported the Croat-Muslim coalition: “Gains on the ground by the Croat-Muslim coalition that the U.S. had helped support, coupled with the NATO airstrikes that Bill had advocated, finally forced the Serbs to negotiate a settlement.”

there were approx 500 deaths resulting from 78 days of bombing. You have no clue as to what the death count would have been had it not taken place. What we do know is the count of the dead in Bosnia was approx 200,000 and 7,000 in Kosovo due to the actions of your best friend, who died in the Hague accused of war crimes.

Who's defending the war criminal is not an open question. You are....when you defend Milosovic which is all that you are doing.

Barbara Boxer Statement at Condi Rice's confirmation hearing
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h...


If Germans were killed during arial bombing of Germany to stop the Nazis...then who were the war criminals in your view? Those who bombed Germany?



You must be an Edwards person.....using Hillary as a proxy decoy.

[k_jerome]

33. Senator Clinton had no decision making power...

with regards to Clark, and I cannot deny that he seems to hold the Clintons in high regard. The fact that they stood by war crimes committed under his command, that he subsequently attempted to cover up is one thing that I have a problem with. However, I continue to stand by her, as you do by the generalisimo. If he gets Bills permission to run as some sort of smoke screen Mrs. Clintons run, that is fine. My biggest nightmare is that she will select him as a running mate.

Funny how I see you and other Clark disciples in threads stirring up all kinds of crap about Edwards and Clinton, yet you whine so readily when your own not even candidate is called out on some of his actions. Get used to it. Until he announces he will be smart and not run as a fourth or fifth choice candidate, he will continue to be criticized for those actions and many more. Meanwhile, isn't there an Edwards or Clinton thread that you can post mud in. I promise not to whine as much as you do.

[FrenchieCat]

35. The difference with your postings and mine are

that mine are based on words from the candidates...

Your as based on War Criminals' words at the Hague.

In addition, I rarely if ever post in Clinton threads.....as her foreign policy experience include Bill Clinton.

Edwards has no Foreign policy experience at all, and so yes, I would prefer him not be my President.

Further, I know better than to believe that you are a Clinton Supporter. You are not.

You are one of two things, and neither one I am allow to say here at DU.

[k_jerome]

38. your attacks on real candidates....

will net you the same result as a Clark candidacy. nothing.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. If you really believed that

You wouldn't waste so much time hi-jacking pro-Clark threads.

[JVS]

46. Are you familiar with Matt Taibbi's previous work

He used to write a lot for www.exile.ru
This newspaper has quite a bit of Russophilia, and viewed the Kosovo war through a Pan-Slavic lens

[FrenchieCat]

20. Good for you!

So lets see, I come up with a different view of Mr. Taibbi....and can understand why he wouldn't be a friend of General Clark, or anyone else involved in the story of Kosovo. Considering how much Mr. Taibbi glosses over the 200,000 Bosnian deaths at the hand of his best friend, the late Milosovic!
http://www.inblogs.net/nuisance/2003_11_01_nuisance_archive.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/defending_wes_clarkre_the_nati.html
http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/004135.html
http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_philosoraptor_archive.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/monthly/2003_11.php

[k_jerome]

23. can you post blogs that have a different view of Amnesty International as well? nt.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Thought that was your job.

to spread the Milosovic love!

[k_jerome]

27. Amnesty International thought he was a war criminal too....

they seem to be pretty good at pointing those out. of course, they are probably all serb apologist over at that nutty organization.

[Clark2008]

31. AI never considered Clark a war criminal.

Evoke much?

[noamnety]

68. Here's what their Executive Director said:

"In a 2000 press release, William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA criticized the incident saying, "The bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television, which left 16 civilians dead, was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime…Civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the laws of war during Operation Allied Force." http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/154

[Jai4WKC08]

87. That was from a 2000 press release

Before the dust had really settled and people could figure out exactly what had happened. Well before the incident was reviewed by the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 2003. You can read their report (dated 1/27/04) at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm But in specific regard to the RT tower bombing, they ruled that "...insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable..." and later, "...the civilian casualties were unfortunately high but do not appear to be clearly disproportionate."

In simple terms, the facts of the matter are that Milosevic was using what had been a civilian facility as part of his command and control apparatus. NATO gave warning to evacuate the building, but the civilians were not allowed to leave. It is one of the many crimes for which he was being tried when he died.

[Change has come]

42. from a reporter that pretended to be a porn star?

Quality stuff :rofl:

Here is another view...from the same page you linked to.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040202/lawton

*snip*

This first-time candidate is a quick study. And unlike most seasoned politicians, who huddle with pollsters and consultants before daring a decision or opinion, Clark follows his own compass. When he goes "off message," it's to integrate unwieldy but central concerns into the conversation. And when he's done, he's taken thorny issues like race or patriotism that often drive a wedge into communities and given us a way to think and speak about them as a people united.

That's why I believe he's the only declared Democrat who can campaign in the South and compete with the Republicans. As a Southerner himself, he understands the region as no other candidate does. When Clark travels from Virginia to Mississippi to the Florida panhandle, he frames his positions with the values that inform his vision for governance: hard work and individual responsibility, family, faith and patriotism. And the voters hear authenticity.

We hear it in the Midwest too, because he's a straight-talking, independent sort of guy who doesn't indulge in bombast. He is clearly of the middle class and understands our worries and our dreams. Clark is just the kind of leader we want at the helm. He has been endorsed by individuals and organizations ranging from Representative Charles Rangel, to "Father of Earth Day" Gaylord Nelson, to the Native American Times.

[Auntie Bush]

60. You again...with all that shit?!

:puke:

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[twilight_sailing]

5. I sure would like to see Clark as the Dem nominee.

It would be fun. What would any Repub candidate look like in comparison?

In the words of the Decider, "Bring 'em on."

[OHdem10]

7. Didn't you know , Credentials do not

count. (Sarcasm)

The Media only looks to see who the fat cats support.
Thus those who are willing to sell their souls and
will be indebted deeply to Business and Corporate
Types become the front runners.

Remember when Bush announced his intention of running
for President--he already had collected Gobs of Money.
It was therefore"inevitable" that he was to be President.

Who has the most money in our party??? Apparently
this is the only thing that counts.

We therefore end up the "the best president money can buy".

Rather cynical today, are'nt I.

I wish Clark would be given a fair chance. I fear
our system does not permit it.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Amen!

Ours is no longer an organic democracy.

Not done at the point of a gun, but by media conglamoration headlines instead!

[PegDAC]

34. Well,

Wes has George Soros on his side...

[Jai4WKC08]

11. One thing you left out

Wes Clark works his ass off. All the time. Whatever it takes.

I won't say a lot of people have the intelligence to be #1 at West Point (or any first class school), or a Rhodes Scholar, but there are more who have the raw talent than are willing or able to put in the work it takes. It's telling that WKC's major at Oxford was a three-year program and he finished it in two because the Army wouldn't give him more time. He could have taken an easier program, but he accepted the challenge because he wanted to study philosophy, economics, and politics.

Clark thrives on work and probably wouldn't know how to live without it. But it's more than that too. The reason Clark got a Silver Star was because AFTER he was shot four times, none of them superficial, he was still commanding his company, laying return fire, shouting out orders to move up his reserve platoon, saving the lives of the lead elements caught in the ambush. If you have ever received a severe physical trauma, you know how hard it is to keep your head together and continue to function. Granted adrenalin is a factor, but the physiological processes as the body goes into shock overwhelm most people. Wes Clark has some sort of mental steeliness that most people just aren't capable of. Call it strength of will, mental discipline, confidence, determination, physical courage... it's all of those, and something else. It's more than most of us even know is possible, because for most of us, it isn't.

[Hawkowl]

49. Hear! Hear!

Without a doubt, Clark works the hardest and is the best qualified. I think he has a chance, but he is no media darling...yet. However, with our media's penchant of building up front runners just to tear them down, Edwards, Hilary, and Obama are most likely to the first to drop out vs. capturing the nomination.

[crispini]

12. I will K&R that

For an excellent, positive post. :kick: I do like Clark!

[kaleagal]

13. He's learned the painful lessons of war that the others couldn't.

Everything I read about Gen. Clark, the good and bad, lead me to believe that it would be a safe bet to say, if he had a chance for do overs when he was in command of military operations, he might not do them exactly the same. He's learned from all his experiences that war is a messy hell and no one comes out squeaky clean. I believe, had any of the other candidates in the '08 race been in his position of command over troops at any given time, they would not have done as good a job as he. And I just don't trust any of the others to have all the experience under their belt to be able to make the hard decisions our Commander in Chief has to make regarding our national security at this time in our nation's history.

[Clark2008]

30. Welcome to DU, kaleagal!

:hi:

[atre]

36. Supporters are a reflection of their candidate

That's why I'll never support Wesley Clark or any ticket that contains him. And this is a lot coming from someone who supported him in the early stages of the 2004 primary.

[bonito]

37. Anybody with family in the military

Or should I be frank... Blood on the line... will vote for Wesley Clark, including myself.

[Catchawave]

39. I'm a 3-generation "military family", w/ 5 wars....

We're voting Edwards. Any questions :evilgrin:

[bonito]

40. Catchawave ,how is Edwards standing with the AIPIC?

Just curious, can you shed some light on this?

[bonito]

41. Check this post out

And recommended it also.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x119372

[k_jerome]

53. 6 generation military....

father died from agent orange exposure related cancer. i vote for Clinton.

[susanna]

43. You won't get an argument from me. I love Wes. n/t

[Dinger]

44. Shamless Kick For The General!

He is a national treasure! :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Dinger]

45. Thank You Mods For Not Locking This Thread

:)

[Laurab]

48. I do hope Wes Clark runs

I don't have a candidate yet, and I'm not thrilled with any of the ones who have announced (although that can change, of course, it's very early).

I am impressed by his qualifications, and most of all, his intelligence, and his ability to speak off-the-cuff about things. I think he'd be a strong candidate - and we need one.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

50. Al Gore is by far the most qualified to be our next president.

Wes Clark would be a good president but Al Gore would be far more effective in office from day one, he is best experienced to effectively and compassionately administer the office.

[Jai4WKC08]

54. I like Gore, but no

Not if you're talking about executive experience.

Al Gore was probably given more to do than any VP before him, but it was still essentially just a handful of relatively small-scale projects, such as the Reinventing Government program. He was never responsible for a large agency or organization, or an over-arching project that involved a large multi-year budget or manpower requirement. The single most important task Gore was given responsibility for was negotiating the Kyoto treaty, and he basically came back with something he and Clinton couldn't get thru the Senate. And it was a Democratic Senate.

I think Gore would be a very good president, far better than most of those who are running, but it would take him some time to get up to speed on Iraq, Iran and most of the other hot spots around the world. Clark is far better informed and ready to get to work on environmental problems than Gore is on foreign policy.

[noamnety]

51. I would like to see a little less glorification of the military in the OP.

"getting shot at does not make anyone smarter or more committed. Just more nervous." - quote from one of my VFP mentors.

How does Clark feel about the fact that we have a "U.S. Army Southern Command covering Latin America"? Do other nations have such a thing? Does he see it as problematic that we have such a thing?

[k_jerome]

52. research his opinion of the School of the Americas. nt.

[noamnety]

56. That's not giving me a warm fuzzy feeling.

In 1997, as commander in chief of the US Southern Command, Clark praised the school before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying its mission had changed since the Cold War days. "This school is the best means available to ensure that the armed forces in Latin America and the armies in Latin America understand US values and adopt those values as their own," Clark said at the time.

(snip)

In New Hamspshire and Wisconsin, Clark has defended the school to questioners. "We are teaching police and military people from Latin America human rights," he said last week in Concord. "And if we didn't bring them in and teach them human rights, they wouldn't be able to learn human rights anywhere."

On the stump, Clark tells critics that Bruno will take them to visit the school, although he sometimes misidentifies Bruno as a board member.

"He's on the board. He'll be happy to take you down there," Clark told the woman who questioned him in Concord. "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," he said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm 2004

But more importantly, it's not getting at my question. I'm not asking his opinion on a school that trains officers from Latin America. I'm asking his position on the fact that the US has entire commands for different parts of the world, and whether that is comparable to what other countries have. It's a question about the entire structure of our military, and the implications of that structure; not a question about a particular school. You see what I'm getting at?

[k_jerome]

57. i feel his opinion of said school...

speaks to his views on a Southern Command with responsibility in SA in general.

[noamnety]

58. Ah, got it.

I thought you were suggesting some research on my part would somehow help defend him - I shouldn't have assumed that's where you were heading. :)

He's definitely on the wrong side of the SOA Watch: "In a position that's likely to alienate some Democratic primary voters, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is a big booster of the controversial "School of the Americas" - which critics charge has history of graduating Latin American soldiers accused of rape, murder and torture.

Clark fought for years to keep the school at Fort Benning, Ga., open, even testifying on its behalf in Congress, despite graduates like imprisoned Panamanian ex-strongman Manuel Noriega.

Clark's backing of the school - whose curriculum once included teaching torture, execution, kidnapping and blackmail - puts him at odds with many Democratic officials and groups like Amnesty International, who want the school closed. ... "

http://www.soaw.org/new/newswire_detail.php?id=409

If he supports the SOA, it would follow, as you suggest, that he's more than comfortable with the idea of using the military to meddle in other areas of the world to promote US interests. I'm not sure how that makes him substantially different from the PNAC crowd.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Actually,

Wes Clark was in charge of the Southern Command for one short year in 1996. This was the time when the school's curriculum was changed to include human rights courses, etc...

That said, I dislike that school as much as other liberals do.

I do not, however, believe that the reasons for Clark's position on SOA are as nefarious as many here would like to believe.

Clark is certainly not the only Democrat to have defended or supported the school. I will say that every President has supported the SOA.

Let's tar Max Cleland with the same brush...

Having said that, in my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.
KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES WHILE KEEPING THE PEACE - Senator Max Cleland
--------------------
Clark's main "support" for the School came in 1996, when he was the CinC of Southern Command for 1 year and at that time the school fell under his leadership.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'70s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries: newsflash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'70s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School (conveniently dating back to around the time Clark was CinC of Southern Command), now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on.The skills that these people were taught at the SOA were not torture, murder and mayhem but strategy and martial expertise. How these folks become twisted is not happening at SOA but in their own countries.

As Clark said, the corporate executives pillaging our economy went to Yale, Harvard, etc. Should we shut down those institutions? Now I agree, it's not the same thing, but, think of a more likely parallel and ask yourself should the institution be closed due to the actions of a small minority of students/attendees? You've listed 18 people out of 63,000 graduates. That's .03%. As General Clark said, a small minority.
----------------------------
There are terrible problems in South and Central America, with the links to the drug trade, human rights abuses by rebel, government, right-wing paramilitary, and plain old criminal groups, corruption, and poverty. Any program that could be used in a positive way, should be. Human rights are certainly not going to served by leaving the worst of these militaries to their own devices.

Link to PBS article with debate-style format on SOA
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sota ...

Posted by Du's Tom Rinaldo a while ago on this subject....

The School of the Americas (now known by the touchy feely name of Western Hemisphere Institute for Cooperation and Security) is a terror training camp run by the Us government, whos graduates go on to organize death squads in Central America, rightwing paramilitary units to overthrow democratic regimes, and commit other terroristic atrocities."

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

In short I would say that Clark backed that School when he did because he felts that there was still an appropriate mission for it to play. Reforms were already underway when he spoke. A number of people who were trained there have done some terrible things. More didn't. Clark believes that positive lessons and models for multinational military cooperation have been developed in South America for fighting Drug Lords that can be applied to our international struggle against terrorists, operating in places like Pakistan and Yeman.

I would certainly ask of Clark both now, and should he become President, that he ensure that strong curbs be placed on either that institution, or any other that replaces it and attempts to pick up whatever legitimate functions it pursued, to absolutely minimize the potential for human rights violations flowing from training done at that School. It is my limited understanding that much of the reform efforts that were undertaken focused on that problem, which was most acute in the 1980's during Reagan's anti Sandanista days.

I would go further and say that all abuses should be completely eliminated, and guarenteed never to occur again, but I am too realistic to ask for that about anything. The U.S. will never have full control over the actions of agents from other countries that train with our military. Having said that, I acknowledge that elements of our military have been directly involved in terrible actions.
----------
That being said.....I don't believe that Clark actually supports the SOA much more than most other Democratic politician. Period.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. And not just Cleland

What about Jack Murtha? Anti-Iraq War Democratic Activists rightfully honor and appreciate Congressman Jack Murtha as a truth to power Democrat with moral courage who stands up for his convictions, and last June Murtha was among the Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted in favor of continuing funding for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (Son of SOA). No one is going around calling Jack Murtha an Imperialist Tool Rethug. Lots of Democrats may disagree with Murtha on this one, including grassroots activists, but that doesn't mean they doubt his personal integrity. They don't say he condones or advocates torture, and no one is trying to disown him over his support of the WHINSEC.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll243.xml


I have no doubt that a number of Democrats would now close the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation if they become President. They said so and I believe them, but no Democratic President we've had to date chose to, and SOA was around for over 50 years. It was the Clinton/Gore Administration that rescued the SOA from actually being shut down, by first reforming it and then transforming it into WHINSEC. Wes Clark is not the only good Democrat who has had some type of association with this program, and I get tired when only he gets tarred by that association, despite Clark's positive contributions and clear stands against torture and in favor of international law. Al Gore toured the SOA in 1998 and promised a protester there then; "I'll take your message to Washington", still the Democratic Administration he was a large part of continued to support the program until they left office:

Solidaridad
Bimonthly Newsletter of the Latin American Information Centre (LAIC)
Year XI. Number 1. March/April 1998

"...Meanwhile in the U.S., Ms Harbury was arrested on March 2nd during a
protest at the School of the Americas (SOA) in Fort Benning, Georgia.
Human rights activists have been working to shut down the school
which is known for training Latin American military officers in
counter-insurgency tactics, including psychological and physical
torture. U.S. Vice President Gore was touring the SOA facilities at
the time of the protest. Ms Harbury told him that her husband had
been tortured and killed by five officers trained at the school.
'I'll take your message to Washington,' Gore responded.
Ms Harbury was released later the same day."
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/latinamerican/laics/soli1_98.html


I really do fear that everything ugly that the current Administration hopes to accomplish with this program will simply go on elsewhere without Congressional oversight when funding gets cut off. Laws mean nothing if the people in charge of enforcing those laws make "signing statements" saying they can ignore them, or write legal memos explaining how to get around them, like Bush and Gonzales do. Just something else to worry about.

[Jai4WKC08]

63. Not different from the PNAC crowd?

Well, if so, neither is Al Gore, or John Kerry, or any other mainstream Democrat "different from the PNAC crowd." I only mention Gore and Kerry because I'm sure they both voted for the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 which created US Southern Command (and all the other regional commands). For that matter, I'd bet they both voted to authorize and fund the SOA as well.

I'm not going to argue isolationism with you. It's too absurd to waste my time on.

[k_jerome]

66. make no mistake...

i am no fan of the general and do not trust him at all. i encourage you to research on your own his military record and alleged conduct in the Balkans. there are several good articles on progressive websites that delve into his past.

[xkenx]

85. No, YOU provide the ALLEGED proof, instead of

your usual sneaky guilt-because-I-implied-it post. It would be as if someone posted "Reliable sources report that xxxx is a serial child molester."

[Jai4WKC08]

59. I don't see glorification of the military

I see a recounting of the accomplishments of a man who spent his life in the military. Would you not expect most of those accomplishments to be related to the military? It doesn't make them any less distinguished. Not many people have accomplished as much, in any field. He has a right to be proud of what he's done. That's no glorification; it's just the simple truth.

The OP didn't claim that Clark's being shot made him smarter. He said it was evidence of bravery and sacrifice. If you read the circumstances of his getting shot (I wrote a little bit about it above), maybe you can understand the bravery part... assuming you choose to. I'm sure the members of his unit who owe their lives to his actions under fire appreciate the quality.

As for the sacrifice, I think it relates directly to the commitment your mentor suggests you shouldn't acknowledge. First off, remember it wasn't that Clark was shot AT. It was that he was shot. Four bullets ripped thru his body. He almost died. He spent a year teaching himself to walk again. He commanded a company of other rehabs while he was doing it. He had a young son he'd never even seen until he'd been back in the US for two months.

In 1970, there's no way Clark could have known he would not be called upon to go back and get shot again, so no guarantee he'd ever make the next rank, much less the very top ones. But as a #1 West Point grad and Rhodes Scholar, there's little doubt he could gotten out and made a pile of money in business. Yet he chose to stay in the military. You may not understand or even respect his decision, but you can't say he wasn't committed to something other than himself.

I can't imagine why you might have a problem with US Southern Command. It's just one of five regional commands, and how we organize our military operations around the world. Unless you have a problem with the fact that we conduct, and are prepared to conduct, military operations around the world... but if so, I think you'd better ask who in our government would change that, even if they could. Perhaps I do not understand your question, or perhaps you don't understand the structure of the US military. The ability to deploy forces world-wide sure came in handy during the tsunami a couple years ago, didn't it?

[noamnety]

64. "Getting shot" isn't an accomplishment in and of itself.

And I will add that the person I quoted was talking about himself (having been shot a few times).

If you want to talk about heroic actions he took, go ahead. But the getting shot, itself, isn't evidence of heroism, and I am objecting to the "glorification" of militarism, the equating of being involved in violent situations with being a good leader. Lots of soldiers in Iraq have been shot or killed. Some of them were fine human beings, some of them were racist assholes and rapists. You see my point that "getting wounded" shouldn't be listed as a resume builder? It doesn't inherently make one a better person, or more qualified to lead.

And yes, I think you don't fully understand my question about why the US should have regional commands for different parts of the world - as if other parts of the world are under our command. Although it's possible, as you suggest, that as a former strategic intelligence analyst for the Army, I don't understand the structure of the US military. :)

[Jai4WKC08]

69. It's painfully obvious you didn't bother to read what I wrote

I never said getting shot was an accomplishment. I was talking about bravery, sacrifice and commitment.

But if you want to talk about whether there's accomplishment in getting shot, I can go there too. Again, that is. I wouldn't have to if you'd bother to read.

The accomplishment in Clark's getting shot lies in what he did AFTER he'd been shot. He saved the lives of his men by his actions. Damn few people could have taken four bullets, two to his torso and one to his leg, and continued to function at all. It's why he got the Silver Star.

Being a good leader is being a good leader -- taking care of those you lead and getting the job done -- whether the situations are violent or not. Most of the accomplishments listed in the OP have nothing whatsoever to do with violence, and nothing to do with militarism either. Clark is not a militarist and nothing in his resume at the DNC Winter meeting "glorified" war or violence. That he has been a leader under fire is still being a leader. It does not negate that he has been a leader in every other circumstance. And it does not detract from the leader he is today, as one of the few trying to stop an impending war with Iran.

But sorry, you're wrong. With rare exception, the military doesn't award Silver Stars for nothing, and MOST people do consider it a "resume builder." It is evidence bravery and sacrifice. Even if the recipient were a "racist asshole and rapist," at least for that one event of his life, he did something right, something he deserves to be proud of. You know, I almost think if Clark were a racist asshole rapist, you'd be more willing to acknowledge any one of his accomplishments, even the Silver Star, than for the fact that he's a stand-up guy who has done nothing but good for this country and our party.


About Southern Command, a regional command is not about commanding the other parts of the world, but it is about controlling the military operations taking place in those parts of the world. You ignore what the military did during the tsunami. Do you know how many earthquakes Clark has to respond to while he was EUCOM commander. Would I be "glorifying militarism" is I say the people in Turkey and Iran are damn glad he got our troops there in time to do some good? If there have been military operations in those parts of the world not quite so benevolent, I suggest you take it up with the civilian leaders who ordered the operations and the civilian legislators who authorize and appropriate for their execution.

Oh, and for what it's worth... in my 20+ years as an Army intell officer, I've known lots of "strategic intelligence analysts for the Army" who don't know shit.

[noamnety]

72. Perhaps you should reread my post

If you want to talk about heroism, that's fine. Getting shot shouldn't be on a resume, and I was explicitly referring to the OP's inclusion of that in his "qualifications."

After Oxford, he left for Vietnam where he was shot four times (Bravery & sacrifice)
He earned a Purple Heart. (Bravery & sacrifice)

The implication that I would support a "racist asshole rapist" is a personal attack, and I won't dignify it with a response other than to say it's against DU rules.

You can talk about the tsunami all you like, but the main purpose/mission of our having commands for different parts of the world isn't to respond to natural disasters. "USEUCOM will maintain ready forces to conduct the full range of operations unilaterally or in concert with coalition partners; enhance transatlantic security through support of NATO; promote regional stability; counter terrorism; and advance U.S. interests in the area of responsibility."

I have a major philosophical difference with Clark if he believes the military ought to be used to "advance US interests" in different areas of the world. I don't buy into the whole Manifest Destiny crap, or the belief that we have a right to use the military in someone else's country to advance our own interests. I believe that's what is at the heart of the PNAC agenda - the belief that it's okay to use the military to advance US interests - which appears to be slang for "exploiting other countries in order to line the pockets of the upper crust in America."

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Then you support no Democratic candidate

First things first. If you have a philosophical difference with Clark over whether the military ought to be used to advance US interests, then you have a difference with every leading Democrat. Because there is not a one of them who does not believe in using all the elements of national power to advance US interests. Not one.

If you're a Green or some other third party, or no party, fine. But you have no business at DU attacking good Democrats here.

But I suspect it's really just a matter that you don't know what you're talking about. US interests have nothing to do with Manifest Destiny. In fact, I would submit that typical "Manifest Destiny" goals are in direct contravention with US interests -- would we be in so much trouble now if they weren't? I know Wes Clark believes so. He wrote rather extensively to that effect in his last book.

As for the other bullshit... in your original reply, you didn't say anything about whether getting shot should be on the resume. You said getting shot AT didn't make him smart or committed.

But actually, what the OP said was that going to Vietnam and getting shot was evidence of bravery and sacrifice and both are true. I'm the one who said the list as a whole were Clark's accomplishments during a military life (as opposed to a "glorification" ...of what, I'm not sure), and I will stand by that. You're being silly to single out one event on the list when you haven't shown that any of it "glorifies" anything bad.

I also said nothing at all about "supporting a racist asshole rapist" and what I did say, that I'd almost think you'd be more willing to acknowledge an accomplishment by one, was no personal attack. My thought was the many of us on the left work with (or applaud others who work with) prison inmates, recognizing when they do something good, even if we abhor what they did that was wrong. Excuse me if I didn't explain myself well enough, or if I attributed to you some charity or compassion you don't possess.

[noamnety]

83. Perhaps if you limited yourself to discussing Clark

instead of discussing me, there wouldn't be an accusation that you are making personal attacks. Think you can do that?

Please forgive my transgression of adding a preposition where I didn't need one. Neither Getting Shot nor Getting Shot At needs to be on a resume, unless the resume writer believes getting shot/shot at is, in and of itself, an accomplishment or something worthy of being glorified.
----------------------
JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted uranium, I want to know if you are president, will you vow not to use them.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I will use whatever it takes that's legal to protect the men and women against force.
----------------------
Quoting his words isn't an attack. Quoting the UN's position on DU and cluster bombs isn't an attack. It's historical fact.

[Jai4WKC08]

86. asdf

1) I'll discuss what and whom I choose because really, this isn't about Clark. This is about why you feel it's necessary to single out a military veteran for criticism, when the civilians who do worse get a pass. What you took as a personal attack was only questioning why you may actually be harder on Clark than most of us would be on a convicted criminal.

2) If you'd ever been shot, perhaps you'd appreciate the difference between getting shot and getting shot at.

3) There is no UN "position" on DU or cluster bombs. You have cited one UN document, produced by a single UN agency, that speaks to those weapons and "urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of ... cluster bombs... and weaponry containing depleted uranium." Then you linked to the opinions of a non-UN organization as to why DU and cluster bombs should be covered by existing law. But the question remains, are they illegal? They are not.

4) You will not answer the counter-questions I pose, but instead shift to different questions altogether. It shows you are not really interested in debate or discussion, but only playing word games.

5) Ok, so I get that you will never vote for Clark. Who gives a fuck?

[LWolf]

55. Which qualifications are key?

Frankly, the military credentials aren't a key qualification for U.S. president, from my perspective. It's nice that he has experience with military solutions. If I want a president that will evolve beyond military solutions, will consider military solutions to be inappropriate except in the act of defending a direct attack on American soil, which I do, the military credentials are meaningless.

I'm not sure who "us" is; he isn't one of my particular socio-economic or cultural group. I'm not particularly patriotic. As a matter of fact, I dislike the term and distrust the sentiment as a "kinder, gentler," nationalism. No one I grew up with or around would ever have been admitted to West Point to begin with; they were the grunts on the front lines who were the first to die. A family member and some friends who served in Kosovo have said, quite clearly to me, that they don't want him in the WH.

That leaves intelligence. I like that. I appreciate intelligence, and agree that it's a vital qualification for the president to have. I don't see, though, that he is more intelligent than many other contenders. Intelligence, to be worthy, must be married to integrity. Again, from my perspective. I have doubts. I don't trust the integrity of a military leader who supports the SOA.

All of this is just from my personal perspective, of course. I may be the only U.S. citizen who feels this way. My perspective may not matter at all. Still, you asked. Who has qualifications like these? I don't know, but from my perspective, there are many who have better qualifications.

[FrenchieCat]

62. So please tell me, as intelligent as all of our folks are,

which one said this in September of 2002?
And which one didn't have a clue? :shrug:


"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

"we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it."

"Then we're dealing with the longer mid term, the mid term problems. Will Iraq be able to establish a government that holds it together or will it fragment? There are strong factionary forces at work in Iraq and they will continue to be exacerbated by regional tensions in the area. The Shia in the south will be pulled by the Iranians.

The Kurds want their own organization. The Kurds will be hemmed in by the Turks. The Iraqis also, the Iranians also are nervous of the Kurds. But nevertheless, the Kurds have a certain mass and momentum that they've built up. They will have to work to establish their participation in the government or their own identity."

"We've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must."
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/mining_and_finding_prescient_g.html

[LWolf]

90. Who didn't have a clue? John Kerry.

Edwards. Hillary. Of course, there were other Democrats who DID have a clue. Not too many in the Senate, more in the house. Check the votes.

To be honest, I don't think the IWR votes of some show a lack of intelligence. It shows a willingness to compromise principles for political expediency, which is a different flaw altogether. It seemed expedient at the time, I guess.

Of course, I didn't say that "all" of "our folks" were "so intelligent." I believe I said that "many" Democrats were as intelligent as Wes Clark. Those mentioned above may or may not belong to that group. I think they are intelligent and WRONG. Intelligence is not synonymous with "correct" when it comes to political views and choices.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Are you being serious?

We're in two wars, with a third likely to be started any day, and you can say "military credentials are meaningless" with a straight face?

I don't think so. I think you've made up your mind about Clark because he's military and just throw out all the other shit to justify your prejudice.

It does seem to me, tho, that you really don't know what Clark's military credentials are. Because they are about a helluva lot more than military solutions. But then, anyone who doesn't recognize absolute integrity when they see it can't be expected to judge military credentials either.

So go ahead and believe what you want to. You can bet none of the chickenhawks who brought us the current wars, and will probably allow the next one without a squawk, will have better non-military solutions to our problems. They probably won't even try. They haven't so far.

[LWolf]

91. Yes, I'm perfectly serious.

I will go ahead and believe what I "want" to. Not really, of course. What I believe is not based on "want." It's based on my personal knowledge, experience, and sense of ethics. Just like what everyone else "believes."

I didn't really need your permission or instructions, lol.

Of course, what I believe about Clark's "credentials" are based on his record, which, yes, I have examined. I believe I already mentioned knowing people who served in Kosovo when he was there. Public record and anecdotal records of some who served under him inform what I "believe" about Clark.

I'm in a pretty good position to know why I think what I think; much better than you are, at least. Having never met me, knowing nothing about me, or my life, having never actually been inside my head, what you "think" about how I make up my mind isn't worth any more than the litter in my catbox.

It's ok, though. I know well enough that publicly disagreeing with any candidate is likely to bring the followers out of the walls to do indignant battle. That's fine. If you want to defend the man, the medals and military experience will probably be a better weapon of defense against someone who values them. If you want to defend him with me, start with the SOA.

[noamnety]

67. Clark on cluster bombs and depleted uranium

Clark, who was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time of the interview, told Democracy Now! that, if elected President, he would "use whatever it takes that's legal to protect the men and women against force" and would not rule out the use of depleted uranium or cluster bombs.

Depleted uranium munitions, which NATO forces used extensively in Kosovo, are able to pierce some armor plating. They are also radioactive heavy metals and, according to scientists, can contaminate water and soil for long periods of time, adversely affecting civilian populations. BBC News Online’s environmental correspondent says that the effects of high exposure may include increased risks of kidney failure, leukemia, cancer and birth defects.

The BBC reports that the Red Cross issued a report in 2000 claiming that NATO cluster bombs, which explode into tiny, specially designed “anti-personnel” shrapnel, were responsible for five times as many children’s deaths as landmines since the end of the bombing campaign. The report quoted a NATO ordnance disposal expert as saying that between 15 percent and 26 percent of cluster bombs did not completely detonate. Cluster bombs are widely regarded as having a high risk of causing accidental casualties.

When questioned about the detonation of clusterbombs in a busy Serbian marketplace, Clark told Democracy Now!, “It was terrible, but you know in that instance…there was a cluster bomb that opened prematurely. It was an accident. And every one of these incidents was fully investigated.”

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/154

[Jai4WKC08]

70. Both approved and funded by Congress

And both legal according to international law.

There are NO weapons that don't cause horrible pain in civilians and ruinous damage to the environment. The ONLY answer is to avoid war in the first place. It's civilians who start wars, not the military. And the further removed from the military the civilians are, the more likely they are to start the wars.

It's no accident that of over 50 Iraqi veterans who ran for office in 2006, only one ran as a Republican who supported the war.

[noamnety]

73. "Legal" is questionable at best (and certainly not equal to "moral")

"Widely decried by over 50 humanitarian and medical groups across the world, the U.S. defends its use of cluster bombs as an appropriate response to the killings at the World Trade Center. The French Nobel-prize <1999> winning organization, Doctors Without Borders, finds cluster bombs being indiscriminate weapons and based upon the provisions in the Geneva Protocol their use is thus prohibited . The International Red Cross called for an international ban on cluster bombs in September 2000.

(snip)

"35,000 unexploded bomblets in Kosovo still kill one person a week," the paper noted. They are still killing people in Laos, 30 years after the war there ended: 30 years after being dropped from U.S. planes, one Laotian a month dies of a cluster bomblet.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/abovethelaw.htm

Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto,

(snip)

Concerned at the alleged use of weapons of mass or indiscriminate destruction both against members of the armed forces and against civilian populations, resulting in death, misery and disability,

Concerned also at repeated reports on the long-term consequences of the use of such weapons upon human life and health and upon the environment,

(snip)

Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law,

Believing that continued efforts must be undertaken to sensitize public opinion to the inhuman and indiscriminate effects of such weapons and to the need for their complete elimination,

Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security,

1. Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium;

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/887c730868a70a758025665700548a00?Opendocument

If we're going to discuss the morality of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, I'll side with Doctors Without Borders and the UN Human Rights Commission over a US General and his career military supporters. When an "anti-war" general can't commit to not using Weapons of Mass Destruction (the UN's words), you shouldn't be surprised if he loses the peace activists.

[Jai4WKC08]

74. They are unquestionably legal

There is no international convention against their use, and they are not covered in any existing convention. Period.

Whether they are moral is a different issue and not one you brought up before. One of the basic tactics of the troll is to keep shifting the target as each previous attack is answered. But I may be willing to admit that they are immoral. I would also submit it is immoral to ask young Americans to risk their lives and not use every legal means you have to reduce that risk. Or to subject civilians to war of a longer duration than necessary rather than use every legal means to bring the war to a rapid close. Morality is never black and white, much as we might like it to be.

Cluster bombs are not WMDs (and the UN words you cite don't say that they are). They are conventional munitions. They are not illegal. They are cruel and indiscriminate, but so is everything else.

As I said, there are no weapons of war which are not obscene on every level. That is why war must be prevented whenever possible. Any "peace activists" who would vote for the people who start wars, like the ones who vote for war resolutions, instead of the soldiers who try to prevent them, then they deserve what they elect. Fortunately, I know lots of real peace activists who are smarter than that.

[noamnety]

77. No, they are not "unquestionably legal"

They violate the 4 rules of Humanitarian Law, which have been upheld as binding by both the US Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice.

1st Rule. The Weapon must pass a test of territoriality. Its effects must be restricted to legal military targets of the enemy in the war. A contrario, weapons may adversely affect neither civilians nor a non-enemy population.

2nd Rule. The Weapon must pass a test of temporality. The adverse effect of the weapon must end at once at the end of an armed conflict. Clearly, a weapon that would keep on killing or injuring people after the end of an armed conflict would fail this test.

3rd Rule. The Weapon must pass a test of humaneness. According to the wording of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, a weapon may not cause "unnecessary suffering" or "superfluous injury."

4th Rule. The Weapon must pass an environmental test. Weapons may not have unnecessary negative effect on the environment. This rule partially overlaps with the second one as this type of effect could adversely affect future generations.

Internationally binding. They pass none of those rules, according to the UN. http://www.bhopal.net/alliedcampaigns/archives/2006/11/war_crimes_or_n.html

As for the language I quoted: "production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular ... cluster bombs, ... and weaponry containing depleted uranium;"

If you are going to argue that the UN isn't claiming they are Weapons of Mass Destruction, then the only other alternative their language leaves us is that they are Weapons of Indiscriminate Effect - which is very clearly against the Geneva Conventions (Protocal I, Art. 51). So you are probably better off telling people that the UN calls them Weapons of Mass Destruction, since the alternative is unquestionably a war crime.


These are the treaties United Nations Human Rights Commission has said in working papers may be breached by the use of DU weapons:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
the Charter of the United Nations
the Genocide Convention
the United Nations Convention Against Torture
the Geneva Conventions including Protocol I, the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

[FrenchieCat]

79. So are you writing your congressman in reference to these

as you term "illegal" arsenal that America possesses and uses everyday?

And as for making Wes Clark responsible and not those lawmakers (including those running for President) who have done nothing when they have more power than Clark ever had in dealing with this?

I believe that you should send various senators and congresspeople that you know will listen the science information that you have and a demand that a bill be written in reference to the weaponry used by the military.
We now have a Democratic congress! Get busy!

That will be more fruitful to your concern than to dump on Wes Clark what he has never had any real control over.

[noamnety]

81. lol

(paraphrasing) "Why are you discussing Wes Clark's positions in a thread about Wes Clark?!!!"

Yes, my elected officials are to blame for their votes, and yes, they do hear from me. But this isn't a thread about them. It's a thread about Clark, so in this thread, I am discussing his stated positions, one of which is that he will not rule out future use of DU and cluster bombs if elected president.

[FrenchieCat]

82. I believe that what Wes Clark believes is in getting away from

using cluster bombs or otherwise as a way of pursuing our liberty.

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339
"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex." - Wes Clark

[Jai4WKC08]

88. Try on this paraphrase then

Why are you hi-jacking a thread about Wes Clark, but have no interest at all in any threads about the various legislators who essentially handed those weapons to Clark and said, "Here, use these"?

[noamnety]

89. I haven't hi-jacked the clark thread.

I've discussed Clark in the Clark thread.

You've done a poor job of searching my posting history if you think I've singled out Clark for my criticism. Here, let me help:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=112849#113344
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3092579
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3037811#3038313
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3062596#3063477
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3094713#3094741

You see a pattern here? When elected officials claim they oppose the war, and continue to fund it, or claim they oppose the war but want to leave troops there for some political purpose, or claim they oppose war but think they might use DU or cluster bombs in the future, it pisses me off. I don't care if it's Edwards, Clark, Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Pelosi, Rahm, or God. It pisses me off.

I think the only guy I haven't trashed for war mongering is probably Kucinich - but if you can prove me wrong there, the difference between you and me is I'll read the links with an open mind, and if he's been advocating killing people or using weapons that kill civilians, or bombing tv stations, I'll call him out for it, too.

[Jai4WKC08]

80. Nope, nothing there

I went to the link you provided and found no court ruling, of any jurisdiction, that the weaponry the US used in Kosovo was in contravention of any established international law.

But you know, even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily have any legal bearing on what was used some seven years ago.

I'll tell you something else. There's no settled science that DU causes any significant long term health or environmental effects. Even the document at the link you provided admits as much. Now, I'm not saying it does or doesn't. I think it probably does, altho I'm not convinced how severe. But if you want to talk legality, you gotta do better than thoughts and feelings.

I'd also point out that you brought up the morality of using these weapons even if they're legal, but now you side-step it rather than address the conflicting moral issues. Just as you ignore that it is Congress, to include most of the Democrats, who voted to authorize and fund for the acquisition of these weapons. Why single out Clark?

Have you never figured out that Clark is well liked and respected among the UN and humanitarian community leaders who worked in the Balkans during the war? Don't you think maybe it's because he always showed reciprocal respect for them and their goals?

[sendero]

71. If qualifications and character..

... got folks elected president, Bush would have been knocked out in the first primary.

[AX10]

84. kick