A quick explanatory analogy for you, Finagle. Years before I met the lovely mrs. green, I had a girlfriend named S. S wasn’t married at the time, but she is now. So is the following statement true or false?
In 1996, minty green dated S, a married woman.
Keep in mind that Shodan now seems to indicate he knew Srebrenica and the indictment were a year after Clark’s meeting with Mladic. Does that help demonstrate why the Srebrenica and “indicted war criminal” claims are so damn dishonest?
In other news, Clark came out in favor of a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
Does this affect anyone’s picture of Clark? According to the story his aides have tried to downplay the matter. Seems like an example of classic gaffe, when a politicial accidentally tells truth at an inconvenient time. He should have saved his statement of support for the amendment until AFTER he got the nomination. This could get Clark in big trouble with some of the democrat’s core voters.
Well, the facts seem to be these:
a. Clark met with Mladic in 1994. Mladic, although not indicted, was known by the State Department to have been involved in war atrocities. It is reported in the Washington Post (in 1994) that State twice asked Clark not to meet with Mladic. They not only met, but apparently had a jolly time of it, including exchanging gifts and posing for a picture wearing big grins and each other's hats. At the time, (long, long before Clark's run for President) it was a diplomatic embarassment.
I haven’t found (and didn’t expect to find) actual copies of the State Department’s requests to Clark or, in fact, any directives from that period. However, by 1992, Mladic had been named by the Secretary of State as a potential war crimes candidate (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~bosnia/criminal/newsday_2.html). So indicted or not, there could have been no doubt in Clark’s mind who he was meeting with.
My conclusion – Clark’s meeting with Mladic might have been ill-advised. Posing for a photo op with him certainly was. It’s a lot more embarassing picture than the one in the tank that sank the Dukakis campaign years ago and doesn’t demonstrate a lot of political savvy.
I still think that Minty’s Green’s characterization of Shodan’s post as “lies, lies, lies” rather than a misstatement is grossly overblown, given that the facts are essentially correct – Clark met with one of the world’s true scumbags against the advice of the State Department, resulting in a diplomatic fiasco.
As for Minty's rather strained metaphor, I prefer this one:
* Before getting married, Minty dated P, even though all his friends said she was a syphilitic street walker. A year later, P was diagnosed with every STD in the books. * Should Minty get himself tested?
This metaphor does a better job of conveying that a person can be truly noxious, and known to be noxious, even before the official confirmation.I do not contest for one moment that Mladic was a war criminal, and generally believed to have been a very bad person indeed, at the time Clark met with him. Clearly, that point alone wasn’t enough for Shodan and the right-wing media he was parroting–they had to go out and make it look even worse by lying about it.
All of this talk about a single meeting is rather ironic, seeing as Wesley Clark was one of a handful of leaders who actually took a hard line on the genocidal activities of the Serbs.
I looked up “Wesley Clark” in the index of Samantha Power’s A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (2002) and found the following on the first 2 pages of the chapter on Kosovo:
Sounds like a man of high character to me.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Finagle *
I think that’s gone way overboard. The key difference is between being noxious, and doing horrific things. There’s a world of difference between having paid a social call on Pol Pot in Paris in 1972, and having done the same in Phnom Penh in 1980.
Well, at least we now know what Sam Stone’s trigger words are.
So you’re saying Nixon shouldn’t have gone to China?
All this banter got me to thinking, so I clicked on the various links, read up, then ended up at the Clark website.
I ended up donating 25 bucks.
I just read a blurb in the paper describing Clark’s disinclination (to date, anyway) to engage in negative campaigning. In fact, Clark defended Dean from some of the attacks leveled by other Democrats in the race and gently called on them to cut it out and to focus on their common goal of winning next fall.
Sounds to me like this guy is loaded with character.
Character? Yes.
Decisiveness? He seems lacking despite the fact he was a general. He also seems to be under the impression that everything can be solved if only he’s diplomatic enough. Thus he speaks of talking with Syria and Iran and North Korea. He never says what he will do if that fails, because by gosh, it can’t fail! He’s more “diplomatic” than that caveman Bush!
I have no doubts about Howard Dean or Joe Liebermans’ decisiveness. They’ve made it very clear where they stand on every issue they’ve addressed.
On the contrary, one of the (petty) criticisms of Clark from his fellow generals is that he is so certain about the correctness of his views that it causes conflict with others. There’s an article in Slate today on this very topic.
“Decisiveness” - ah, yes, a truly underappreciated trait in a leader. The ability to stick to one’s guns, adhere to an ideology, even in the face of overwhelming and indisputable proof that one’s actions are ineffective or downright wrong.
Einstein is famously quoted as saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
Hear, hear, adaher, for the marvelous “decisiveness” of George W. Bush.
Okay, I’m now thouroughly confused, minty.
I’m actually hoping for a Dean/Clark ticket and so was initially heartened by your posts that seemed to debunk Clark’s accusations.
But at this point, your arguments are starting to lead me to believe that Clark is actually guilty of doing what he’s accused of doing.
When confronted with cites from the NY Times, MS/NBC, ect. you come back with something you wrote yourself, using a timeline from Clark’s own campaign website? Are you serious?
Answering statements made from reliable sources stating that Clark was warned not to meet with suspected war criminals with “well, can you show me he was told not to meet with Mladic in particular?” (paraphrasing, of course) who is one of the most notorious war criminals, is shades of The Ryan. And indicitive of a desperate man grasping at straws.
I want to be on your side in this debate, but your arguments are making it very hard. Can you please come up with some reliable third party sources to substantiate your claims?
And just what precisely is it that “he’s accused of doing”? I think I’ve done a pretty good job of separating out what actually occurred (meeting with Mladic in 1994) from what’s a pack of lies (indicted war criminal, Srebrenica, stalled career, etc.) and what’s simply unsubstantiated (the details of the alleged State Department “warning”).
Fuckin’-A, I’m serious. And don’t be ridiculous if you’re claiming that Clark’s website was the only source I used. Hell, I linked to most of 'em earlier in the thread.
No, it’s simply pointing out that the latter-day news accounts appear to be parroting the conservative line, not referring any contemporary or independent account of the State Department “warning.” It’s also pointing out that the only purportedly contemporary news report anyone has offered (a) is note even fucking quoted, much less linked or otherwise shown to us, and (b) doesn’t say one damn word about Ratko Mladic and therefore does not support the current conservative lies about the alleged warning. This is not a trivial complaint–I wanna know what the State Department actually said, not what WorldNetDaily is saying about it nine years later.
Which claims? If you’re talking about my 5-item list, what the hell are you complaining about? Here’s the proof I already offered:
Mladic was not an “indicted war criminal” at the time of the 1994 meeting.
In light of #1, it would the State Department State Department could not have “warned Clark not to go to Mladic’s headquarters, since Mladic is an indicted war criminal.” This obviously needs no further citation, since the claim depends on the truth of the lie I proved in Item #1.
What do you want a cite on? That Clark was sent to Bosnia on a diplomatic mission? That the U.S. government was in direct negotiations with the Serbian government, including Mladic and Milosevic, at the time of the meeting? Seriously, do you disupte either of those facts?
Clark’s career did not “stall” after the 1994 meeting with Mladic. He served as Director for Strategic Plans and Policy of the Joint Chiefs until 1996. Then he was tapped as commander of the U.S. Southern Command until July 1997, whereupon he became commander-in-chief of NATO. All of that is available at Clark’s campaign website, but it’s also easily verified through other sources. Like the NATO link I just provided.
In short, where in the world do you get off complaining about my cites? Do you have evidence to the contrary on any of my 5 claims? Or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?
Whoah there, Sparky.
As I stated mulitple times in my post, I want to be on your side, so there’s no need for the hostility. I was not rude to you in my post, I respectfully ask for the same from you. Your abrasive manner is not doing you any favors. Hell, you’re alienating people in your own damn camp.
As far as what Clark is accused of doing, I was referring to meeting with a known suspected war criminial, after being asked to refrain from doing just that by the State Department. Then, not only meeting with him, but having drinks and posing for goofy pictures, adding insult to injury.
I made no notice of his “stalled career” since your NATO cite took care of that. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
It was the only one you mentioned in that post. Not to mention the fact that you didn’t attribute your own writing, yet used the quote function, alluding to the fact that it was from a reputable source. You waited until the next post to admit that your “quote” was from yourself. Rather misleading, that. You seem rather quick to scream LIAR! at the slightest missquote or fact made my an opposing party, but don’t seem to be practicing particularly honest tactics yourself.
What about IzzyR’s cite (which was linked to and quoted) from the NYTimes?
So you’re going to discount the NYTimes article, a newspaper generally known to be a reliable source, because it’s not waving the State Dept. memo in your face? Are you going to believe anything but the actual memo? If not, then I hope your standards are this uniformly stringent for all your news. Nothing but primary sources for you. Although, that would make staying consistantly informed about issues rather tedious.
I believe Finagle provided a cite (hopefully up to your standards) stating that Mladic was a potential war crimes candidate:
So if you’re discounting Shodan’s entire statment because Mladic had not been officially indicted yet, even though the warning, according to the Washington post was to not meet with suspected war criminals
sounds like nothing but a semantic nitpick to me.
See my above comment. Sounds like a semantic nitpick.
Wait a minute. So, the U.S government was in direct negotiations with Mladic, Clark was sent there on a diplomatic mission, but was warned not to actually meet with him? (I’m putting “him” in place of “any suspected war criminals” since according to the Secretary of State, he was declared a “suspected war criminal” at the time Clark met with him). That just doesn’t make any sense.
Again, I didn’t question that. But as I didn’t specify that in my post, I can see why you would include it.
Again with the rudeness. Where do I get off? As if anyone should have the sheer nerve to question you! Honestly minty, you’re beginning to make me wish I was Republican.
Helpful hint, lezlers: If you want me to treat you with the utmost respect and civility, you might not want to start off by: [ul][li]Comparing me with The Ryan []Breathlessly asking “Are you serious?” because I referred to Clark’s campaign site as authority for information that is 100% factually correct[]Calling me “a desperate man grasping at straws.” Imploring me to “please come up with some reliable third party sources to substantiate your claims” when I had already done so[/ul][/li]From where I’m sitting, you ain’t looking anything like an innocent party here.
I’ll respond to the substance of your post later, if I feel like responding to you at all.
Forgot the relevant quote:
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
Helpful hint, lezlers: If you want me to treat you with the utmost respect and civility, you might not want to start off by: [ul][li]Comparing me with The Ryan[/li][/quote]
If it walks like a duck…
[quote]
** [li]Breathlessly asking “Are you serious?” because I referred to Clark’s campaign site as authority for information that is 100% factually correct**[/li][/quote]
Well, considering you’re ranting and raving about people’s lack of unbaised sources, then admitting to using one the most biased source available (the candidates own campaign website) you can understand why I couldn’t let the irony go unnoticed.
[quote]
[li]Calling me “a desperate man grasping at straws.” [*]Imploring me to “please come up with some reliable third party sources to substantiate your claims” when I had already done so[/ul][/li][/quote
I said that so far, that’s what you’re argument has made you to look like. And I stand by it. Considering I said I wanted to be on your side, I guess you could say I was hoping you would take it as constructive critisism, considering the fact that if someone wanting to be on your side thinks you look this way, you’re making it way too easy forsomeone who is disagreeing with you.
Don’t do me any favors, sweetheart.
And :rolleyes: yourself.
Sorry, lezlers, but you are missing the point. Nobody is claiming that the 1993 meeting was Clark’s finest hour, least of all minty green. What he’s saying is that shodon’s characterization of the meeting was a vicious distortion. I agree, although I believe it was inadvertent in important ways.
Mladic is notorious because he slaughtered some 7,000 Muslims, the largest massacre in Europe in 50 years. But he did this in 1995, 2 years after the meeting. Nobody thought he was an angel in 1993, of course, but he certainly didn’t have the same monstrous reputation during the Clark rendez-vous. So we’re not talking about tiny distinctions here.
Indeed, in Samantha Power’s A Problem from Hell, the index has 3 lines connecting Mladic to the (1995) Srebrenica chapter, 1 line that connects to the International Criminal Court Chapter and 1 line referring to the concluding chapter.*
But the Bosnia chapter (referring to events in 1993) has no mention of Mladic, as far as I can tell. Nor of Wesley Clark or that subsequently over-amplified meeting.
Clark is being smeared by the atrocities committed by Mladic after their meeting. Admittedly, I would like to know why Clark decided to meet with the Bosnian General: the context of that event is still unclear to me.
Still, the smear covers up a larger truth: Clark apparently pressed harder for actions against war criminals than anybody in the Pentagon, including erstwhile detractors such as Cohen. But that was in 1995. (Shelton and Franks are not listed in Power’s book). It is a shame that these central policy considerations are lost in this discussion.
Oddly enough, there actually is a picture “broadcast around the world” of Mladic enjoying a drink with a NATO commander on July 12, 1995, the day after Serb forces seized the UN declared “Safe Area”. But the NATO representative is Dutch Col. Tom Karremans, and not anyone from the US.