I'm Back and Need Help with Something Before I Leave Again

[Composed Thinker]

I remember someone explaining the situation very well. When people say Wesley Clark is a war criminal, some have told me what the real story is. Help me out again, before I leave.

This is what someone said to me:

Wesley Clark has some serious problems as a candidate, kiddies. He was removed from the position on SACEUR two months early, because he was consistently pressing for 200,000 troops to use in a ground war despite his superiors repeated directives. thankfully his agenda failed.

dont forget he was investigated for war crimes. although acquitted, there were disturbing allegations that were not fully explained.

He tried to order British General Jackson to attack a Russian detachment at the end of the war in Yugoslavia. Jackson refused his order, telling the general, "I'm not going to start World War III for you."

Clark was involved in the Waco incident in '93. He was the commander of the base that supplied troops and weapons for use in the attack which killed 80-some civilians: men women and children. the extent of his involvment is highly troubling.

Wesley Clark was referred to by his subordinates as the "ultimate perfumed prince". He was investigated for forging combat reports in Vietnam to benefit his career.

if you want a candidate who is is a consummate ass-kisser and will do anything to advance his career including killing innocent civilians, clark is your man.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So can someone tell me the real story and give me some links, if possible. I've been searching but haven't found anything.

[Composed Thinker]

1. BUMP

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[CarlBallard]

3. Investigated and acquited is damning?

Really isn't acquited the opposited of a problem? Also calling Waco an attack? Last I checked the Davidians blew themselves up. I fail to see how their suicide reflects badly on Clark.

[Composed Thinker]

4. Thanks

[Droopy]

15. The Davidians didn't blow themselves up

See the documentary "Waco: Rules of Engagement". This is a must see for everybody who is interested in how our government works. Remember the investigation into Waco? Rep. Charles Schumer comes across as a real asshole in this. Janet Reno as uninformed and incompetent regarding the situation. I don't recall hearing anything about Gen. Clark.

[KoKo]

5. Clark gives me the creeps every time I see him. I can't explain it, but

the "Guardian" article does give me some clues.

Everytime during the build up and during the press coverage of the "Invasion" I saw him on the cables he gave me a bad feeling. And, I kept seeing all kinds of posts on DU praising him, and so I would look for him and listen when he was on and every time I found him to be more like a Repug than a Dem in his talk about what we were going to do and what we were doing when we Invaded in the first weeks. I even posted about my feelings on DU and never got an answer as to why he was so great. Finally, for my sanity, I stopped watching the "Invasion" so I haven't seen him since those early days.

I will never support him. I don't believe in having a military person as President. Sorry..I don't. I understand about Eisenhauer and was to young to know him......but I think he was elected because of the war....and I don't think my Dem family every thought he was anything too great...from conversations I heard when I was little. He wasn't bad....but not great. So I guess that's in the middle.

Given our HUGE Military Industrial Complex which Eisenhauer warned against......I don't think this is the best time to put a former military commander into the President's seat.

He seems Repug to me and if Clinton releaved him of his command two months early....I will trust Clinton on his judgement.

What are DU'ers thinking in pushing this man to run? I just don't get it.

[TeeYiYi]

6. I agree . . .

It's like looking into the eyes of 'Stepford' . . . and if it's true about Waco, there's no way in hell . . .

TYY

[CarlBallard]

14. If what's true about Waco?

What's wrong with the Danforth report(.pdf)? Do you have something that isn't on worldnetdaily to back that up? What should he have done? Shold he have given them candy for shooting federal agents? Should he have lovingly admired their illegal weapons cashe? The Davidians blew themselves up. Tragic as that is, it isn't Clinton's fault, it isn't Clark's fault, it's Koresh's fault.

[jfxgillis]

7. Help me out here

Tell me again why you aren't an amusing but nevertheless insidous right-wing troll?

Please provide links.

[Isome]

8. Interesting

I've read about Clark and I've seen him interviewed. Despite not having had an opportunity to sift through any disparaging information, I liked him. However, not knowing any details regarding the "allegations", I can't offer any input.

But, since it's been brought up, I've always wondered about the Waco lament. I don't quite get it! What recourse does law enforcement have when a legal warrant (either search or arrest) is met with armed resistance of military caliber weapons? Not only was there automatic weapons fire, but there were numerous reports of sexual abuse of children by David Koresh. And, to add fuel to the fire, when one of the children was sent out during the latter part of the siege, she had a note pinned to her coat saying that all the adults would be dead after the children leave the compound.

Just how long should the authorities have waited without action to flush them out -- a month, six months, a few years? The same holds true for Ruby Ridge. When is it okay for law enforcement to enforce a legal warrant? When the warrantee is ready to accept the warrant?

I remember clearly the Philadelphia bombing of the Move apartment buidling because of neighbors' complaints that they stunk and were causing a disturbance by playing dissenting government views over a loud speaker. Where was the hue & cry for them? Or, is it that smelly people deserve to be bombed and those not smell, but equally as anti-government, should be treated more delicately?

[Aaron]

9. Maybe people think things went wrong with all three

but that MOVE happened much longer ago than Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Just guessing here.

[Isome]

10. It happened in '85.

And, the point of that would be ...? The '80s were the formative years in the U.S. and we didn't know any better? The 90's were years of enlightenment and now we know that armed resistance to a search warrant is not cause for law enforcement to react with equal force?

[Isome]

11. I realize you said you were just guessing...

So you'll have to take my continued inquiries in the spirit in which they're given and know that they're open to anyone who reads them.

If, in fact, people believe all three were wrong, on some level, what recourse is law enforcement supposed to take in the face of armed resistance to a legal search or arrest warrant? Nothing? Go away and come back after the intended suspects have had time to think about the gravity of the situation?

[sierrak9s]

16. A few points...

I didn't live in Philly at the time, but I DO remember a hue and cry over the MOVE bombing.
You raise good points about "what are the authorities supposed to do." And you're right that they can't just say "'scuse me, sorry to bother you, catch ya later."
But the main outrage I see against Waco was the extent of the force used in the end, vs. the lack of foresight in the beginning. In other words, it is well documented that the ATF had plenty of opportunity to pick up Koresh on his morning jogs, but deliberately did not because they were in a turf war and wanted something big and splashy to generate funding. That's why they invited news people along on the raid; and that's also what tipped off the Davidians that the Feds were coming. Then the standoff, which I agree with you they couldn't just walk away from; but the supposed justification for going in with TANKS was that there was "child abuse" going on in the compound. That was just an invention on the part of the Feds. And then finally, they flat-out lied about using incendiaries.
As for Ruby Ridge, again, it's a matter of foresight vs. later excessive force. The whole thing started with a Federal agent inducing Randy Weaver to buy a shotgun that was an inch shorter than legal. They tried to use that purchase to coerce him to be an informant, and he refused. When he failed to show up for court on the weapons charge, that's when they went after him on his own turf. While sneaking up on the cabin, they shot the family dog; that sparked a gun battle, in which they fatally shot 15-year-old Sammy Weaver in the back, and a Federal agent was wounded. So the Feds descended in force, with orders to shoot any armed male in the vicinity of the cabin, WHETHER OR NOT he presented a threat. Those Rules of Engagement were totally illegal, and to this day nobody will take responsibility for them -- but because of them, a sniper shot at an armed male who was running toward the cabin and instead hit Vicky Weaver in the face, killing her instantly, while she held the family's baby in her arms. Federal agents later taunted the family over loudspeakers, to get them to surrender, calling out for Vicky and asking what she was cooking for breakfast. This while her body lay on the floor of the cabin.
No; they couldn't just walk away. But a little more foresight, and the situations would never have escalated to where they did.

[Isome]

19. That sounds like...

The version of events given by the anti-government, sovereign-nation-within-a-nation proclamants who belong to, and/or fraternize with, white supremacists groups. I'd be truly interested to know where your version of events is documented.

My own sources were culled from a google search -- I eliminated all those from sites like newsmax.

[sierrak9s]

20. Hoo boy...

And here I thought I'd gone out of my way to be fair. O8)
I didn't take the version set forth above from any one particular source. I typed it from memory, and if pressed, I couldn't begin to tell you where it all came from. Since I don't read stuff like newsmax, tho, it couldn't have come from there. :)
Am I "anti-government?" To some extent, yes. I'm ready to believe accounts like the one above, because they fit with my pre-conceptions of how government behaves when it's given too much power and not enough oversight.
I don't see how you can look at the War on Some Drugs and not become at least a little bit cynical about government and police power. I lived in San Diego when the local sheriffs decided to murder a man for his ranch. That's not just me talking, either -- the post-shooting investigation determined that the sheriffs never had any evidence of marijuana, and decided to make the raid because of the value of the property that they could confiscate.
I was personally acquainted with a woman who was a "material witness" in a corruption case down there -- the local US Attorney threatened to take away her kids if she didn't "toe the company line" in her testimony. So yeah, to a certain extent my own perceptions are colored by cynicism toward government.
But I'd be interested to hear what part of my synopsis you think is untrue. I didn't include (because I don't believe) the more wild-eyed stuff about Vicky Weaver being intentionally targeted, or Federal agents at Waco shooting at people trying to flee the burning building. I thought what I wrote was fairly well documented, but again, I'm doing this from memory. In fact, as I review it, I think I was mistaken about the Federal agent in the initial shootout with Sammy Weaver -- he was killed, not just wounded. I think. But the Federal government did pay the Weavers something like three million dollars to settle a civil suit. And I'm absolutely positive about the rules of engagement being "shoot any armed male on sight," because there was a huge stink about it. Here's one source: http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/ruby_ridge/index.html
Anyway, I still think you raise a good point about "hey, the Feds can't just mumble an apology and walk away," but that doesn't mean that they can't exercise better judgment in the run-up.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Democat]

17. Some on the far left consider all military to be "war criminals"

I have had several conversations with far left people who consider anyone in the military to be "war criminals" - there is nothing you can do to make those people happy.

[LEFTofLEFT]

18. MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Don't be fooled by Clark.