Clark-smearing - It's starting

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

today on sean hannity, callers were alledging that they served under clark and that he constantly ordered them to fabricate things.

if the rw wants to get into lies regarding the military-industrial complex, it will blow up in their face

also, hannity keeps saying that these candidates are 'criticizing our president in a time of war, while we have soldiers in the field'
so apprently, running for president is now considered treasonous

[GregW]

1. But how can it be a "time of war" if ...

[oasis]

2. Clown Hannity will sink with Chimpy's plummeting numbers.

His devotion to the lying sack of shit residing in the White House will damage his own credibility long after the Chimp is retired to his pig farm in Crawford.

The General is spotless, "bring 'em on".

[Clete]

3. You mean it's spread beyond DU?

Who would've guessed.

[Gman]

4. The right wing also got a former KKK official

to endorse Bustamante. And, now they've invented some kind of "militant Latino" group (not MEChA) that wants to return the US SW to Mexico...

Latino group threatening U.S.?
Caller to radio talk show: Pay Mexico for Southwest – or else

<snip>
A caller to a West Coast talk show who claimed membership in a militant Latino group says the U.S. must acknowledge much of the Southwest belongs to Mexico and pay the proper amount for it – or else.

The caller, who identified himself only as "Louis," made his remarks on KSFO's Barbara Simpson show, which is broadcast in San Francisco, Aug. 31. According to Simpson, the man claimed he was from Los Angeles.
</snip>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34526

The point is, they'll do and say and invent anything to get what they want.

[tom_paine]

43. Yep. Watergate never stopped, did it?

Maybe for a couple years around the time of Jimmy carter, but cleary the Busheviks were back up to their old dirty tricks again by the 1980 October Surprise that got them so cozy with the Iranian Radicals theyw ould later sell weapons to.

[diplomats]

5. I wouldn't worry about that Clark stuff

at this point. But thanks for the tip about the attacks accelerating. That's to be expected.

[Mz Pip]

6. Bullshit

ANYBODY can call in and claim to be anyone with a story to tell. It's anonymous. I could call in a make something up about the time me and Dick got stuck in an elevator and... OH I WAS SO UPSE, the things he wanted me to do! <sarcasm>

What a crock.

MzPip
:dem:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. and get this...

...they're questioning his service on goldberg's site:

Reply 11 - Posted by: delta dave, 9/11/2003 9:25:17 PM

Did clarke serve in vietnam? Or did he avoid nam and hide out in EUCOM? How come kerry, who did serve in vietnam and shot the wounded, does not make an instant match with clarke who carries out war making on 5th world counties from 50,000 feet? What does clarke who may claim military experience have in common with a dean that would disband the military and surrender national sovernity to a band of terrorist have in common that they would even consider running as ticket mates? I guess politics does make strange bedfellows... but that is another story line altogether

[juajen]

14. LOL

I can tell you right now I "got no intentions of votin' for a man who 'shoots the wounded'!" Where do these idiots come from?

[Clark Can WIN]

15. I'm not sure but I think it may be...........

Crawford Texas

"Where do these idiots come from?"

[RevolutionStartsNow]

8. As a Dean supporter, let me just say...

this is good news for Clark...It means people are paying attention.

Has anyone noticed that this board is now all about Dean and/or Clark?

Fasten your seatbelts.

[Julien Sorel]

9. Interesting.

Nobody else gets this kind of attention.

I think I smell :scared:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

10. and i found this out at free republic

Apparently the lawyer in waco was killed to clear the way for a clark run

wow, how can such credible evidence be ignored by the lib'rul media? i mean, one of the country's two major parties is about to nominate a murder conspirator at the insistance of vince foster's murderer. i'm glad i stumbled on to this. i could never live with myself if i'd cast my vote for killer. we need to stop this man before he slaughters again. how do we know he didn't help bill clinton rape women?

wake up, america! it's not too late!

To: HenryLeeII

then Clark will be found lying with a shotgun about 75 feet away from his BMW, no wait, that was the Waco attorney earlier this week

Remarkably litle attention was paid this this murder by Hillary to setup the Clark run. Once Clark has pushed aside the other candidates, the way will be clear to bring Hillary in for the top spot. This Prosecutor knew MORE THAN ANYONE the facts of the case and Wesley Clark's bloody involvement at Waco. He HAD to be killed. And so he was. Stalinists like Hillary think nothing of disposing of people who even hint at being a bump in the road.


36 posted on 09/11/2003 2:35 PM PDT by montag813
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies >

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

11. and i found this out at free republic

Apparently the lawyer in waco was killed to clear the way for a clark run

wow, how can such credible evidence be ignored by the lib'rul media? i mean, one of the country's two major parties is about to nominate a murder conspirator at the insistance of vince foster's murderer. i'm glad i stumbled on to this. i could never live with myself if i'd cast my vote for killer. we need to stop this man before he slaughters again. how do we know he didn't help bill clinton rape women?

wake up, america! it's not too late!

To: HenryLeeII

then Clark will be found lying with a shotgun about 75 feet away from his BMW, no wait, that was the Waco attorney earlier this week

Remarkably litle attention was paid this this murder by Hillary to setup the Clark run. Once Clark has pushed aside the other candidates, the way will be clear to bring Hillary in for the top spot. This Prosecutor knew MORE THAN ANYONE the facts of the case and Wesley Clark's bloody involvement at Waco. He HAD to be killed. And so he was. Stalinists like Hillary think nothing of disposing of people who even hint at being a bump in the road.


36 posted on 09/11/2003 2:35 PM PDT by montag813
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies >

[Julien Sorel]

13. LOL

I'm grateful they have them, too.

If Clark gets elected, there are a couple of people who post here I wouldn't be surprised to see making a switch over there, where they can trade conspiracy theories about Clark in harmony.

[Brian Sweat]

58. Damn,

I read the first line of you post and I was going to make a sarcastic reply about how it was really Hillary that killed him. Then I read the rest of you post and I realized that no matter how absurdly I try to caricature these people, I can never come up with anything more bazaar than the real thing.

[rasputin1952]

12. Just wait until Clark jumps into the fray...

all hell is going to break loose.

Remember Bob Kerrey? The admin was terrified of Kerrey's war record:
Awarded MOH
Silver Star
Purple Heart
Lost leg in combat

Remember that Kerrey is a college president now in NY, not an easy task, so we know he has intelligence, (another frightening aspect this admin is terrified of), and he is somewhat charismatic and telegenic.

Short bio on Clark:
Commander NATO forces
Viet Nam service
Silver Star
Bronze Star
Purple Heart
2 MA degrees
Graduated #1 in class at WP.
Exceptionally intelligent
Calls the shots straight
Charismatic
Telegenic

And, he learned a long time ago, that this administration is about as corrupt as is humanly possible.

The way I figure it, if bush & co were so scared of Kerrey to pull out some tall tale about a midnight firefight, and the ridiculous notion that Kerrey's men mowed down innocent civilians, they will do everything they can to disgrace Wesley Clark. It would not surprise me if this admin started calling him out on aiding and abetting terrorists, (something many in this admin are guilty of).

However, Clark is apparently spotless, and if Sharpton and some others do their jobs by continuing to bring to the forefront the many
absurdities of this admin, there should be no problem winning the WH back in '04, with Clark in the Oval Office.

:bounce:

edited: made typo's and want to make sure it is BOB Kerrey, former Sen of NE, I'm talking about. I do, occasionally make mistakes.

[Paragon]

16. Why shouldn't they?

Since when do Repukes discriminate about who they slander and libel?

[aneerkoinos]

17. I've read on DU (where else? :) )

That in the aftermath of Kosovo Clark ordered a British commander on the field to remove by force the Russian paras from the airfield they had occupied. The British commander declined the order stating that he's not going to start WWIII.

Is this story true? Any links? If it is true, I would say it is sufficient to question Clark's judgement, if not sanity, and he's not fit to be President of US and supreme commander of the strongest army on Earth.

[Pepperbelly]

18. it is horseshit ...

and repetition of it is mere mendacity.

[aneerkoinos]

19. Thanks but

I would be gratefull for more information than just "horseshit".

Any links to where this claim is discussed or debunked in more detail? I would like to make up my own mind based on available information, not just take your word for it :).

[Pepperbelly]

22. We have been over this ...

time after time on the board and frankly, it is too early and I am a bit too rushed to tell you wht happened. Maybe some of the others will point you the right way but I have to go to work in a half hour and want to read some other stuff.

But it is horseshit.

[TAH6988]

23. Actually

It did happen, but was not as bad as some make it sound. The British general refused Clark's order to deploy his troops to the airfield in Pristina in order to prevent the Russians from using it.

[Pepperbelly]

24. the smear is horseshit ...

WWIII was NOT about to be started at the Pristina Airport. Jackson had his panties in a wad because he was the big cheese and didn't like taking orders so he got hyperventilatingly hyperbolic (I love the smell of alliteration in the morning.)

[TAH6988]

25. It's not a "smear"

It's a statement of fact. Clark ordered Jackson to the airfield. Jackson refused saying that he was "not going to start WWIII." Jackson did not go. There was nothing Clark could do about it. Where's the horsecrap?

[Pepperbelly]

27. the smear is ...

pretending that there is any merit to Jackson's heat-of-the-moment comment in the middle of an argument and treating it like a reasoned policy statement made after reflection and study.

Jackson was wrong about the order. Period.

[TAH6988]

28. Jackson was wrong...so?

That doesn't mean the incident didn't happen -- it did.

[Pepperbelly]

30. the smear is horseshit ...

it isn't a matter of whether objective facts are true, it is a matter of smearing Clark's judgement based on heat-of-the moment comments made by an insubordinate subordinate. The smear is that Clark's judgement is not demostrably flawed based on this incident but anti-Clark partisans pretend that it is.

What is so difficult about this concept?

[TAH6988]

36. I don't see this as a smear at all

1. Clark ordered Jackson to take the airfield.
2. Jackson refused saying he would not start WWIII.
3. Clark could not make Jackson obey the order.
4. Jackson should have been fired.

Where's the smear? You are reading to much into this. It' only a "smear" if you let it be.

[Pepperbelly]

39. ok ...

but I have to leave for work so I will take this up later if it's still around and the thread isn't so long as to lock up my old puter.

The context that makes it a smear is the implied conclusion always offered by the tale-bearer: that Clark's judgement is flawed because Jackson was right. He wasn't.

[TAH6988]

40. No one knows

now do they? I seriously doubt that the Russians could or would have done anything to confront NATO. Good thing we never had to find out. I think Clark's order was temperate and the right thing to do. Jackson felt otherwise, and his Govt backed him up.

[union_maid]

20. He's making them REALLY nervous, huh?

This is getting very interesting. They're going to have to do better than this though.

[TAH6988]

21. Clark DID order

a British three-star to the airfield in Pristina in order to arrive there before the Russians and thereby deny their use of the airfield. The Brit refused his order and did say that he "was not going to start WWIII for you." Read Clark's own book, "Waging Modern War" for his side of the story.

[aneerkoinos]

26. Thanks

Not nearly as bad as I remembered the story.

So what's Clark's side of the story?

[TAH6988]

32. Pretty much the same thing

Jackson felt that blocking the Russians from the airfield could cause a major confrontation between the Russians and NATO. Hence his comment about "starting WWIII." Clark felt that Jackson was engaging in a bit of hyperbole; that there was no way the Russians would, or even could, do anything to confront NATO. Clark was almost certainly correct. That said, Jackson seriously underminded Clark's authority, not to say caused him a great deal of personal embarrassment, and Clark should have pressed to have him removed from the NATO command structure.

[jumptheshadow]

29. This keeps coming up again and again

I brought it up with one of the Draft Clark people at the meetup. He clearly got frustrated and raised his voice a little. (That's not the way to handle it, it's too defensive, IMO.)

I wonder if the "World War III" argument might simply boil down to personality conflict coupled with an intemperate reaction?

[Pepperbelly]

35. of course it was ...

that is what is implicit in all accounts of it. There was no danger of WWIII. Period.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. What I Don't Understand

The Russians were not authorized to take the airport....


They were grandstanding....

Because they were a world power NATO was supposed to let them make a mockery of the process....


That doesn't make sense......

[aneerkoinos]

41. To understand

what happened it is vital to remember that Kosovo operation was illegal, it had no SC approval and Russia was utterly humiliated by NATO decision to sidestep SC and show Russia how irrelevant it had became. The whole thing was psychological, it is not very smart to treat wounded ego by adding more insults when that ego is armed with nukes.

International politics is not kindergarten, it's a bar full of drunk brutes with broken bottles in their hands, and one has to act accordingly to avoid all out fight.

Consequent nuclear holocoust was in all probability very far out scenario, but lots of other bad things might have happened if Clark's unwise and undiplomatic order had been followed. We know what happened, Russians had their ego-soothing show-off, cooled down and then back to business as usual.

IMO the whole thing should have not been military decision in the first place but a political decision. Maybe Clark assumed too great authority or maybe there were no politicians willing to take responsibility?

If I remember right, it was also unclear at least at the time if and to what extent the Russian military had political approvement for their action. So there was a possibility that overeager military commanders on both sides were escalating things into situation that would be very difficult for politicians to back down from.

[TAH6988]

42. Russia was in NO position

to confront NATO and Clark knew it. Clark's order to Jackson was legal and proper. Jackson should have been fired for disobeying.

[aneerkoinos]

44. I repeat

Maybe you didn't read my post since you don't address any of the points I made.

The political repercussions, regardless if a firefight had broken out between Russian and NATO troops, might well have been of such magnitude that it was not Clark's position to give such order in the first place and Jackson was right to disobey. Making that judgement should have been Clinton's and other leader's job.

History shows that things went pretty smooth, but had Jackson obeyed there might have been pretty big and unpleasent whatifs...

[TAH6988]

45. It was a military decison

and was Clark's to make. Hundreds of military decisions have political repercussions, such as what targets to bomb. Serving as SACEUR, I'm sure Clark was fully aware of the politcal ramifications of his order to Jackson. The SACEUR position has always been 1/2 solider, 1/2 diplomat. Jackson disobeyed a legal order from a superior officer; he should have been fired.

[aneerkoinos]

46. Again

you fail to see the point: the MAGNITUDE of those political repercussions (possibility of shooting conflict between Russian and NATO troops and what might follow) was such that Clark showed poor judgement making that decision by himself and not asking his superiors opinion. Breaking chain of command by Jackson is peanuts compared to this and I'm glad he had enough sense not to obey, and also history shows that in this case it was better to be safe than sorry.

[TAH6988]

48. Did you read Clark's book?

How do you know what decisions he was authorized to make and not make? That military decision ws TOTALLY within his authority and power as SACEUR. Jackson did not "break chain of command," he failed to follow an order, and should have been fired.

You and I disagree on this. Let's leave it at that.

[aneerkoinos]

50. Wrap up

Yep, let's disagree or rather stop debating apples and oranges, but since you asked questions maybe I should answer.

No, haven't read it, I know I should. I asked about Clark's version but there have been no answers yet. You may be right that he had formal authority to give that order, I haven't disputed that, but I question his judgement giving that order. So far I haven't seen any convinsing arguments that it was the right decision to make and that it was Clark who should have made the decision without first consulting his superiors.

[TAH6988]

51. And I've yet to see anything

that siad it was a wrong decision or that Clark needed to do anything other than what he did. See yah.

[Tinoire]

52. Actually it was Jackson's decision and he was backed by UK & US

Jackson was backed on this by the UK, the US and had full authority to tell Clark no- especially since Clark wanted to use British and Frnech troops for this.

----------------------
Gen. Jackson confirmed he had communicated the contents of Gen. Clark's order to the command of the British national contingent of the force at the time. That commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Dannit, then consulted with his superiors in Britain. "(Gen.) Jackson's reservations won the day, when senior military commanders in Britain and the United States decided together to rescind the order

<snip>

He also reportedly appeared fully to support NATO's system that allows each member nation to retain sovereignty over the commitment of its own troops. "Nations have volunteered forces, and if they feel uncomfortable they have the right to say no. Nations, not least America, retain full command of their national forces," Gen. Jackson reportedly stressed.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/sa130999.htm

----------------------
International Herald Tribune

Their meeting expanded into conference calls with General Wesley Clark, NATO's supreme commander, and U.S. decision-makers roused from their beds in predawn Washington, including Samuel Berger, the national security adviser, and civilian and uniformed chiefs at the Pentagon.

Agreement was quick among the Americans that a NATO task force should be sent to seal off the airport. But General Jackson objected that the move might poison the chances for good Serbian cooperation with the peacekeeping force.

Invoking the peacekeeping accord negotiated with the Serbian military by NATO, he said that advancing the arrival of peacekeepers could violate the provision for ''synchronization'' between the Serbian forces' withdrawal and the NATO forces' entry. U.S. officials explained that the accord also named General Jackson as the arbiter on interpreting how to carry it out.

http://www.iht.com/IHT/DIPLO/99/jf061999.html
------------------
SHAPE NEWS SUMMARY & ANALYSIS 02 AUGUST 1999
"Generals at war over Kosovo raid," headlines The Times. A related Sky News report claimed Gen. Jackson defied NATO to keep order in Kosovo. He refused to lead an air assault team into Pristina airport to block the Russians. The head of the Kosovo peacekeeping force overruled Gen. Clark as allied troops poured into the province because he feared triggering a global conflict, said the BBC. Related information was also carried by Reuters.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/sa020899.htm
-------

The Times (UK), August 2, 1999
Generals at war over Kosovo raid

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL Sir Michael Jackson's refusal to risk Armageddon was at the heart of his tensions with General Wesley Clark, Nato supreme commander, as the occupation of Kosovo began. "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," the British general was reported to have told General Clark after refusing his orders to send assault troops and helicopters into Pristina airport to block the Russian forces.

The clash, in which the British Government backed General Jackson, and the American Government did not support General Clark, surfaced just days after the Nato commander had been abruptly told in a midnight call that he would be replaced next April.

Trouble between the generals started immediately after the air war had ended and General Jackson had been made commander on the ground in Kosovo.

<snip>
General Clark was not mollified. He asked Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of Nato's Southern Command, to order helicopters to land on the runways at Pristina so that Russian Ilyushin transports could not land. This time Admiral Ellis balked, saying General Jackson would not like it.

<snip>

Both General Jackson and General Clark appealed to their political leadership back home for support. General Jackson got all the help he needed. General Clark did not, meaning effectively that his orders had been overruled.

<snip>

http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990802generals.htm

-------

General Sir Mike Jackson - he insists on Mike rather than Michael - is one of Britain's most charismatic and popular post-war military commanders. In 1999, he was acclaimed internationally for his handling of the Kosovo crisis when he commanded the Nato peace-keeping force (for which he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order by the Queen). Three weeks ago, he became the most senior soldier in the British Army when he was appointed Chief of the General Staff.

Gen Jackson, who is a fluent speaker of Russian and served in the Intelligence Corps before transferring to the Parachute Regiment, is reputed to have the best mind in the British Army. He has been known affectionately to many of those serving under his command as the Prince of Darkness as well as the Hero of Kosovo, although it is said that he dislikes both titles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/23/nmike23.xml

[TAH6988]

55. A minor correction

"The head of the Kosovo peacekeeping force overruled Gen. Clark as allied troops poured into the province because he feared triggering a global conflict, said the BBC..."

The head of the Kosovo peacekeeping force WORKED for Clark, Clark was SACEUR. As such he could NOT overrule Clark's orders.

While Jackson did indeed retain sovereign control over UK forces, he still, in fact, disobeyed Clark's order.

Also, as Clark did not report to the US military in his role as SACEUR, senior military officers in the US COULD NOT rescind his order. To suggest otherwise, shows a lack of undertanding on how the NATO command structure works. As SACEUR, Clark was responsible to the Secretary General of NATO (the head of the North Atlantic Council), and NOT to the US military chain of command.

[clar]

31. You need to get used to this

Yes, it's offensive, and from what I've read is unsubstantiated, but if Clark's in the race, he's now a target just like every other candidate for the nomination.

I'm sure it's more difficult for you as you're related to Clark, but step back. Counter attacks with a reasoned defense, not "it's bullshit", and "repetition is mere mendacity". It comes off as, "how dare anyone question Clark?" And we all know what that's reminicent of.

[Pepperbelly]

33. we have tilled this ground so many ...

times that I have little patience with it any more. The smear itself is crap and if one has looked into it, that is apparent.

[TAH6988]

38. Pepper

It's not a smear! Just relate the facts and ask people what did Clark do wrong? NOTHING! It was Jackson who came off as the insubordinate ass he was!

[Terwilliger]

37. amazing considering he hasn't even declared a candidacy

maybe that's why he's being attacked so much

[poskonig]

47. So much for Clark being "invulnerable" to GOP attacks.

My bet is that they'll paint him as an unstable, wacky, Ross Perot type of person. Trigger-happy, into conspiracy theories, could cause WWIII, etc. etc.

[Tinoire]

53. If you check past archives- even at DU- these are not new claims

I went through the archives at FR and at DU to see what people were saying waaaay before Clark was ever being "drafted", waaay before anyone was even thinking about primaries and the opinion was less than complimentary.

Now that he's interested in the Presidency, we have a bunch of people suddenly saying that these are smears to discredit his run- they are not smear, they are not said with the sole purpose of discrediting his run because they were said long ago and the evidence of that remains.

[phillybri]

49. So that asshole never said anything about Clinton during Kosovo?

Bullshit....

[robbedvoter]

54. Pristina again:

>In short: Russians tried to pull a fast one on behalf of Milosevic. No WWIII, but Jackson's insubordinations caused lengthy negotiations later to get the Russians out of there. Clark was right, Jackson was wrong.

Secret Russian Troop Deployment Thwarted
>
> By Robert G. Kaiser and David Hoffman
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Friday, June 25, 1999; Page A1
>
> Russia's surprise deployment of 200 troops to the Pristina airport on
> June 12
> was part of a scheme to send into Kosovo a contingent of 1,000 or
> more men
> who could have tried to stake out a Russian zone in the northwest
> sector of
> the province, Western intelligence analysts have concluded.
>
> The carefully planned operation was thwarted when the governments of
> Hungary,
> Bulgaria and Romania, prodded by the United States, denied Russian
> requests
> to use their airspace to fly more Russians into Kosovo.
>
> When senior U.S. officials realized what the Russians had in mind,
> they
> lobbied the Eastern Europeans on overflight rights and began pursuing
> their
> Russian counterparts by telephone "at ungodly hours" on Sunday, June
> 13,
> according to one official. The Americans warned the Russians that
> their
> unilateral military moves risked obliterating the good will generated
> by
> their help in reaching a peace agreement.
>
> Western analysts still dispute whether Moscow's intention was to
> seize a
> Russian zone in Kosovo or simply to send in more troops to strengthen
> Russia's hand in negotiating peacekeeping arrangements. Either way,
> the
> unilateral deployment of a large contingent would have
> caused "grievous harm
> to support for Russia" in Washington, said one senior State Department
> official.
>
> snip
> A reconstruction of the events surrounding the Russians' unexpected
> deployment into Kosovo, based on reporting in Washington, Moscow and
> Brussels, indicates that the Russian operation was thoroughly planned,
> deliberately deceptive and considerably more ambitious than its
> accomplishments would suggest. Many questions remain about who in
> Moscow was
> in charge of the decision-making that led to the operation.
>
> When the NATO allies realized, late on June 11, that the Russians
> were moving
> men toward Pristina, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the NATO commander,
> speedily
> devised a plan to deploy NATO troops by helicopter to the Pristina
> airport,
> creating the possibility for the first NATO-Russia confrontation
> since the
> end of the Cold War. But British Gen. Michael Jackson, head of the
> peacekeeping force, argued that such a move would upset the delicate
> arrangements he had negotiated with Yugoslav officers on their
> withdrawal
> from Kosovo, and Clark's plan was dropped.
>
> In Moscow, Russian generals were openly frustrated at their inability
> to
> complete the deployment. "When the Russian military saw how popular
> their
> first little glorious victory was," said one senior U.S. official,
> referring
> to the arrival of the 200 troops at Pristina's airport, "the effort
> to score
> again became more intense,
> and more
> important from their point of view. If they'd been able to keep on
> going,
> you could have had a very serious breakdown in confidence, and maybe
> in our
> ability to organize a peacekeeping effort in Kosovo."
>
>
>
> the
> idea of going in first, we aren't sure," this official said.
>snip
>
> Russian military officials have boasted that the deception involved
> in the
> Pristina airport operation was deliberate. "The operation was very
> carefully
> prepared," Gen. Georgi Shpak, commander of Russia's paratroopers,
> told a
> Russian newspaper. "The main difficulty was to hide the fact that the
> operation was being prepared."
>
> snip
>
> Western nations were alarmed when the Russians moved into the Pristina
> airport, though not afraid of the small force of 200. Within two
> weeks the
> British were providing food and water for the isolated contingent.
>
> But Clark took the Russian deployment seriously, which led to his
> plan to
> dispatch U.S. troops by helicopter to the airport. Defense Secretary
> William
> S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
> Staff,
> supported Clark's plan. But Jackson and the British government
> demurred, and
> Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov assured U.S. officials that the
> Russian
> force moving toward Kosovo would stop before it crossed into the
> province.
>
> The Russians' premature arrival in Pristina despite Ivanov's assurance
> complicated the diplomatic exchanges over the peacekeeping
> arrangements. The
> Russians insisted that they be given a separate sector within Kosovo,
> contributing to the conclusion of some Western intelligence analysts
> that
> they had intended to establish such a sector unilaterally. Other
> Western
> officials argued that the Russian goal was to create a presence on the
> ground as a bargaining chip.
>
> snip
>
> Yeltsin announced last Friday that he had firmly instructed Sergeyev
> to win
> approval for a separate Russian zone, saying he "categorically does
> not
> agree" with the idea of Russian troops patrolling sectors controlled
> by
> other countries. But several hours later, for reasons still not clear
> to the
> non-Russian participants, the Russians agreed to a plan that
> dispersed their
> troops through the British, French, German and American sectors, with
> no
> zone of their own.
>
> At the end of the long negotiations, Sergeyev and Ivanov said they
> had to
> make one last phone call to Yeltsin for his approval of the final
> deal. They
> adjourned to the Russian Embassy in Helsinki, then came back to
> accept the
> arrangements. Had they spoken personally with Yeltsin? "They said it
> was
> Yeltsin," according to one U.S. negotiator.
>
> Correspondent William Drozdiak in Brussels and staff writers Bradley
> Graham
> and John F. Harris in Washington contributed to this report. Hoffman
> reported from Moscow.
>
> © 1999 The Washington Post Company
>

[Brian Sweat]

56. I predicted this would happen.

It may not meet the strict definition of fascism, but there is something happen in the country today that is every bit as bad a fascism.

We have reached the point were the right is complaining because opposition candidates are criticizing the president. I believe it is about to get much worse.

[neebob]

57. Give him three hours?!

Would you believe I didn't know Sean Hannity had a radio show until yesterday? The internet went down while I was at work, so I went looking for news on the radio. Hearing Hannity was a whole different experience for me. Good grief, he's worse than Limbaugh. And the callers - holy crap! They're serious.

I seem to exist in a pocket of proper Bush-hating peaceniks, so except for my mother, who doesn't actually scare me, I don't get exposed to this kind of thinking every day. I'm trying to imagine how scary these people really are - like how they would be if their man wasn't in the White House anymore or their tactics were clearly not working and they had a reason to freak out.