Wesley Clark, Democratic Frontrunner

[Tony]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030922.shtml

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago.

Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.

I’m curious to know what our democrats here think of this. If this was Bush, Rumsfeild or Cheney hanging out with a "war criminal" the democrats and bedwetting left would be going apesh!t.

 

[Chaos]

I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

 

[Tony]

I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

So since reagan and bush might have been seen hangin' with saddam, things are now "even"?

 

[Chaos]

So since reagan and bush might have been seen hangin' with saddam, things are now "even"?

You´ve said:

If this was Bush, Rumsfeild or Cheney hanging out with a "war criminal" the democrats and bedwetting left would be going apesh!t.

It was Reagan and Bush (or at least people they sent) hanging out with "a ´war criminal´". So Republicans are not exactly in a position to point and call names in that respect.
The left didn´t go apesh!t or anything else, did they?

The party whose presidents cozied up with Saddam and OBL in the 80´s should not call to loudly at a candidate of another who met with a war criminal. This is like a gangster calling another one a scoundrel.

Anyway, I´d like to know exactly under which circumstances Clark met with Mladic - your link doesn´t work for me, I just get a blank white screen.

 

[Tony]

It was Reagan and Bush (or at least people they sent) hanging out with "a ´war criminal´". So Republicans are not exactly in a position to point and call names in that respect.

No they arent, but this isnt about republicans, its about democrats.

 

[Chaos]

Yes, but the Republicans do not seem to mind staffing their administrations with people that have (or have had) ties with war criminals and terrorists.

As an outsider to U.S. politics, I see no reason why the democrats should have problems with that then.

(Note: if you find a sarcasm, you can keep it)

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

The issue at this point is which Democrat will take on Bush.

 

[Clancie]

I agree with those who've said you probably don't want to go here, Tony. Do you really want to start documenting all the unsavory war criminals and murderers that Reagan, Bush and their various emissaries have wined and dined and aided and abetted through the years?

Rumsfeld was quite chummy with Saddam as Reagan's representative shortly after Saddam had gassed his own people (and we knew).

Politics makes strange bedfellows, no doubt about it. But you won't be able to support the argument that Republicans are less tarnished by this, not at all.

P.S. And, just curious, why usurp my original thread title rather than starting your own--or at least adding, "Part II" to your version of it?

 

[Tony]

Politics makes strange bedfellows, no doubt about it. But you won't be able to support the argument that Republicans are less tarnished by this, not at all.

Im not trying to make that argument, I just want opinions of what democrats think of Clark hanging with a "war criminal".

P.S. And, just curious, why usurp my original thread title rather than starting your own--or at least adding, "Part II" to your version of it?

Irony.

 

[SRW]

I´m sure some pictures could be found of assorted Reagan and Bush sr. Administration members "hanging out" with a certain Mr. Saddam H., formerly a resident of Bagdhad, Iraq.

So I guess they´re even with the Democrats on that account.

And so what does this have to do with what Wes Clark does? I would hope that General Clark has a better excuse than

"I was hanging out with this guy cause Rumsfeld got to hang out with Saddam."

Just because someone else does something wrong does not make it right when someone else does the same thing.

If Clark had a real good reason for meeting with this man I would like to hear it.

 

[Uther]

Tony: I'm not sure I have enough to go on here. Do you have more information on the incident, preferably from someone other than Robert Novak?

-Uther

 

[Tony]

Tony: I'm not sure I have enough to go on here. Do you have more information on the incident, preferably from someone other than Robert Novak?

-Uther

No. Here is a picture from Drudge.

 

[Uther]

While I can't really reply to Novak's column without doing more research on the incident, one sentence from Novak caught my attention:

On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic.

Now, I wasn't sure exactly when Mladic was indicted, but I seemed to recall it happening in 1995. Sure enough, after I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic <a href=http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm>here</a>. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995. I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.

-Uther

 

[Tony]

Now, I wasn't sure exactly when Mladic was indicted, but I seemed to recall it happening in 1995. Sure enough, after I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic <a href=http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm>here</a>. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995. I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.

Ok, that's cool, I started this thread to get opinions, it seems that Novak is bending the truth.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Uther

I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic here. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995.

I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.

Wow, Uther, fabulous point! I had read this anecdote in Newsweek and another reputable news source and not one of them actually looked it up as you did!

Novak isn't "bending the truth", Tony. What he wrote is irresponsibly smearing someone. Very bad!

And I guarantee we will see this factually corrected (eventually) and still the smear of Clark will be misrepresented and restated over and over and over by the Bush campaign and Republicans in the press all throughout 2004. (And can I really blame them? After all, "Willie Horton" did wonders for dad....)

 

[EvilYeti]

That's Rumsfeld on the left, btw.

 

[clk]

That's Rumsfeld on the left, btw.

I’m curious to know what our republicans here think of this. If this was Clinton, Clark or Dean hanging out with a "war criminal" the republicans and bedwetting right would be going apesh!t.

Oh wait.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I’m curious to know what our republicans here think of this. If this was Clinton, Clark or Dean hanging out with a "war criminal" the republicans and bedwetting right would be going apesh!t.

Oh wait.

Let's see. Gotta come up with a campaign slogan.

I know!

VOTE FOR CLARK!
He's no worse of a war criminal than Rumsfeld!

I sure hope the Democrats can do better than this by the time the convention rolls aroud.

 

[Bjorn]

Let's see. Gotta come up with a campaign slogan.

I know!

VOTE FOR CLARK!
He's no worse of a war criminal than Rumsfeld!

I sure hope the Democrats can do better than this by the time the convention rolls aroud.

Sorry Abdul - Uther just established this fact:

I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.

Whereas the meetings with Saddam took place after he bombed his own people and we knew it.

So, unless you disprove Uther's info - your slogan should be along the lines that Clark didn't do it ....

 

[SRW]

Now, I wasn't sure exactly when Mladic was indicted, but I seemed to recall it happening in 1995. Sure enough, after I did a little checking, I found the initial indictment of Mladic and Radovan Karadzic <a href=http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii951116e.htm>here</a>. You can see the initial indictment was filed November 14, 1995, more than a year after the Clark-Mladic meeting. Also, the crimes referred to in the indictment all occurred in 1995. I am by no means defending Mladic, or Clark's decision to meet with him, I'm just pointing out that the inflamatory claim of Novak's column -- that Wesley Clark met with an indicted war criminal in August, 1994 -- is factually incorrect. At the time of the meeting Mladic had neither been indicted or committed the crimes he would later be indicted for.

-Uther

Novac dose not specifically state that Mladic was indicted at the time of the meeting. Only Clark met with Mladic a indicted war criminal.

I know why Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam, you may recall that at that time Saddam was fighting a war against Iran, a country what was involved in killing Americans in Lebanon. World events are world events.

I still have not heard an answer on why Clark was meeting with Mladic, he may have a very good reason, or possibly Novac is not being honest with the state departments objection to this meeting. I do not know. If an US officer was meeting foreign leaders against the wishes of the state department, that sounds more than a little dangerous.

With out Clarks side of the story it is hard to say if there is something here or not.