Were Madeline Albright , Wes Clark, and Bill Clinton Some Of The Bad Guys?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

It seems many of the critiques of American foreign policy I see here lump Democratic administrations and Republican administrations all together and conclude that America has committed one wrong after another against the world...


Even accepting the premise that nations like individuals are basically amoral and will usually act in their own self interest I think foreign policy can not be reduced to a battle of black hats and white hats...

[htuttle]

1. "Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun"

This is like comparing Vespasian to Caligula. Sure, Vespasian was a heck of a lot nicer guy than Caligula, and a much better leader, but he was still an Emperor of Rome. I think the difference was more apparent to those in Rome, than to those fighting off Roman conquest on the Northern frontier.

Same with Clinton, et. al vs Bush. Although with our modern media, I think most of the world would agree that Clinton was 'better' (ie., not just people in Rome anymore).

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Madeline Albright is one of the "bad guys" now

She has joined the enemy, PNAC. Along with Biden & McCain.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I Am Anti-PNAC..

However two points need to be made clear:


1) Madeline Albright opposed the invasion of Iraq.

and

2) I would associate myself with the sentiments in that communique. I am troubled by Putin's authoritarian instincts.

[Peak_Oil]

45. Madeline said that she was willing to kill 500K children

I have the video clip of her acknowledging that the trade sanctions the US imposed on Iraq would kill 500K children. She acknowledged that this was a true statement, and that was a price she was willing to pay.

[sandnsea]

46. And she immediately apologized

And said that wasn't what she meant at all. I know I have told you that over and over again. Why do you repeat that lie?

[Peak_Oil]

48. I don't think so.

You must be thinking of something else. And what was the lie?

http://www.iacenter.org/albrt_ua.htm
http://www.oxfordstudent.com/2003-10-30/news/3
http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):

CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

[sandnsea]

52. I quoted her book

To YOU. I'll go dig it out later, I've got people coming over. You know damned well she said that was the biggest mistake of her life. So I don't know why you keep repeating it.

Especially considering your hysteria over Churchill making the EXACT SAME GODDAMNED FUCKING POINT. How in the world do you have the nerve to rip up Albright because of the way we treat other countries and then piss all over Churchill for agreeing with you?

[Peak_Oil]

56. Are you sure?

I guess I just don't remember this exchange. I'll concede when you send me a link. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong. You seem very sure. And who's Churchill? Winston? Really, I think you might be thinking of someone else.

In any case, I'll keep an eye out for your link.

Until then, I stand by my quote. She said it. That is true. I haven't seen her retraction yet. When I do, I'll stop.

[sandnsea]

59. Here

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations…. As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own. (pp 275)

[Just Me]

6. Her signature was solicited for a single letter and so she is PNAC?

Is that a rational conclusion?

I do believe she is foolish for not completely disassociating herself from this cabal. However, a signature on a letter concerning Putin is hardly evidence that she is now a member of PNAC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Don't Like Putin... He Is Not A Small d Democrat...

That's probably why he's buds with Bush* or at least ostensibly so....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. The Problem With PNAC Is They Have Giving A Bad Name To A Good Concept....

That concept being promoting liberal democracy...


I remember during the 00 campaign it was Al Gore who argued that America should have a robust foreign policy that promotes democracy and Bush* was saying we should have a non-interventionist policy and be "humble"


I admit we needed a new paradigm after 9-11 but certainly not the paradigm Buah has adopted...

[AntiCoup2K4]

97. Fascism and "good concepts"

The Autobahn and Volkswagens were great concepts, but that doesn't make the Nazis any less genocidal fascist criminals. But at least you can say their intentions were good in those two instances. PNAC has no true intentions of democracy, as our own elections prove. And I won't excuse ANYTHING on that website or ANYONE involved in their treason.

[BootinUp]

61. Was about to post the same thing n/t

[Donna Zen]

15. Three organizations listed on the letterhead:

The copy of that letter that I have seen posted--actually at DU somewhere--had three organizations listed on the letterhead. One of which, not PNAC, Albright and Holbrooke are associated with and it is multilaterist. It follows that the organizations agreed about Putin, and made a joint statement.

When we begin reading as opposed to grasping at hate and fear, our understanding of the reality would increase, our decision making would become more accurate, and our search to find allies to promote our vision over PNAC's would actually become effective.

I do not agree with everything that Albright says, but to make her the enemy is just stupid. Another instance of letting the need to assimilate anti-establishment branding override logic.

File that letter under: little knowledge dangerous thing

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Putin Is Awful.... As Awful As The Fella Who Looked Into His Soul...

I like Richard Holbrooke.

He would have made a fine Secretary Of State...

Maybe in the next Democratic administration....

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

35. By your logic, Albright must also be Greek...

...or Estonian or Spanish since there are signatories on that press release from those countries too (who have nothing to do with PNAC). Oh, and that press release is posted on many other websites (besides PNAC's) including this Russian one, for example... does this make her Russian too?

Just because some PNACers (pee-knackers?) happen to sign it and the release is posted on their website does not mean that it is a PNAC document. It just so happens this this wide range of people agreed on this one point.

[Rowdyboy]

4. The world appeared to approve of Clinton on the international stage

Europeans, Africans and Asian all seemed pretty supportive of his policies and, as Albright and Clark were his deputies (in a manner of speaking) I presume the civilized world approves of them too. The only exception being those who believe that ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was a myth and that the poor, innocent Serbs were butchered by America imperialism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Well

Clinton did get a standing ovation at the UN...


When was the last time an American president regardless of party got that kind of positive attention..


Also, only two nations opposed our operations in Kosovo

Russia and China and even Russia was with us at the end...

[cestpaspossible]

9. This is what puzzles me.

You say: I think foreign policy can not be reduced to a battle of black hats and white hats

and then you ask: Were Madeline Albright , Wes Clark, and Bill Clinton Some Of The Bad Guys?

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction there?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Because Many Critiques Of American Foreign Policy Read That Way

eom

[Clark2008]

11. I don't understand the premise of your question.

I realize that the three worked together to stop the genocide in Kosovo, and I understand that, lately, Clinton has been giving lip service to Shrub's war, but Albright and Clark have been solidly anti-Iraqi-war.
In fact, Clark was the only primary candidate who called out the PNAC and their world-domination plan.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
And, I don't think you're necessarily slamming Albright, Clark and Clinton, btw. I think you're trying to make a point - it's just that it's lost on me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. They Were All Part Of The Clinton Foreign Policy Team...

eom

[flordehinojos]

13. the answer might be more complicated than a just a simple "yes" or "no"

answer. i did see madeleine albright today when she told wolf blitzer that, yes. She thinks miss condolorOSA-rice is an ably qualified secretary of state because condolorOSA-rice was TAUGHT by ALBRIGHT's FATHER who INSISTED that she PURSUE studies IN POLITICS/OR HISTORY/ OR WHATEVER it was that Albright says qualifies Condolorosa for the sec. of state position.

MY GOD, IF THAT ISN'T A BIGOTED ENDORSEMENT OF THE CONDOLOROSA RICE, I don't know what is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many students don't fit the bill!? How many professors don't either!?

And just because old man albright (or whatever Mz. Albright's father's name is) taught the CONDOLOROSA ... that alone does not qualify her, nor does it make it a qualification for the position of SECRETARY OF STATE.

wouldn't it have been wonderful if albright had said, "No. I don't think she is qualified and MY FATHER was terribly mistaken and completely off track in good judgement when he insisted that CONDOLOROSA RICE pursue those studies in history that eventually nominated her for the position of secretary of state, for which she is just simply not qualified."

God, how many ways are there to toot one's own horn? ... and was the old man promoting CONDOLOROSA because he was a bigoted white professor promoting an underage black female achiever?

There are just so many ways to skin albright's statement this morning.

Mz. Albright might have sounded more genuine if she had said, observe the facts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Maybe You Or I Would Have Done That

But Then We Wouldn't Have To Publicly Fend Off The Slings And Arrows That Surely Would Have Come Her Way...


I can't imagine the firestorm that would have caused...


And she didn't say how she would vote if she was a senator...

[flordehinojos]

16. that is what the hell is wrong with diplomacy. people can't say what they

really think. i think that if people were honest about how they think the air about so many issues could really be cleared out for a much more healthy way of resolving things.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Even The Reverand Al Pulls His Punchs Some Times...

It's what makes the world go around....

[flordehinojos]

20. do you mean like, "i am going to ride this donkey to the white house....?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. He Always Said How He Liked Joe Lieberman...

And that's a plus if he could see beyond somebody's politics...

[Zensea]

19. Are they neoliberals?

How much difference is there between neoliberalism and neoconservatism?

That's one way to answer the question.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Nothing Wrong With Welfare State Liberalism...

eom

[Zensea]

28. welfare state liberalism and neoliberalism are not the same thing

One is regarding internal policy, one is regarding external policy.
Unless you mean something different by the term welfare state liberalism than I think.
You're mixing the terms whether you're aware of it or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Believe In A Market Economy...

So that makes me an external neo liberal and an internal welfare state liberal...


The government should ensure that folks basic needs are met and from there we are on our own...


Some folks will rise... Some folks will fall.... The government should provide the floor that breaks the fall.....

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. I voted no.

There's a lot they did right: Clinton ordered a hit on bin Laden which the CIA bungled. Margaret Albright figured out within a year that the Taliban were bad hombres and in 1998 helped draft a policy that forbade anybody from negotiating with them. (A policy which wasn't broken until Bush came into office and right before the 9/11 strikes). Clark worked well with Sandy Berger and Clinton in getting the intelligence agencies to share information.

My only disagreement with Margaret came when she stated that we shouldn't spend time finding who was to blame for the defensive failure of 09/11. I think it's imperative that we do find out exactly why things went wrong, or we may continue to promote people that don't belong in those agencies.


I also have a couple of disagreements with Clark. First, he shouldn't have delegated the bin Laden family air flights out of the U.S.A. to the F.B.I. If he knew bin Laden was behind 9/11, he should have micro managed the interrogations of the family. Also, I think he should have fine-tuned his criticism about striking those who draw first blood. I don't disagree with strategic strikes to retaliate for any attacks made against Americans; but I emphasize, they need to be STRATEGIC strikes.

[Adelante]

23. Wrong Clark(e)

Richard Clarke. :hi:

The Clark in the OP is Wesley Clark.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Absolutely. I meant Richard Clarke.

Thanks for the correction.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Think You Got Richard Clarke And Wes Clark Mixed Up

but Richard Clarke is one of the good guys too...

[JohnOneillsMemory]

25. Consider: War is for economics, not mercy. Balkan bombing=economics. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. But The Serbs Were Doing Some Wicked Shit To The Muslims...

Those raped Muslim women weren't making that stuff up...


And the Serbs were targeting Muslim youth in Kosovo because they were ready, willing, and able to resist...


Call me naive but I think we were on the side of the angels in Kosovo...

[Igel]

36. No angels in Kosovo.

It had an insurgency less violent than in Iraq, but the Kosovar liberation dudes had no trouble killing policement and taking over villages. Like many other things (e.g., Pakistan) it's not news until it's big enough.

Or maybe Milosevic was very, very good about planting stories a year in advance of the big move in Kosovo.

And things certainly didn't get better when NATO kicked out the Serbs.

[Jai4WKC08]

38. Maybe not angels

But before the NATO intervention, the crimes of the Kosovars pailed in comparison to Milosovic's Serbia.

Since then, it's pretty well gone to shit because BushCo refuses to show leadership within NATO and in the Balkans in general.

For Repubs, no oil = no interest.

[Donna Zen]

39. Ralston and NATO

dropped the ball. The agreement that was signed called for the disarmament of the KLA. Ralston did not enforce the agreement.

Also, Clark did an op ed last week (WSJ) about this subject. What needs to be done to transition the country to independence. Kosova was autonomous until 1989.

I have a piece from Chris Hedges, but it will mean typing since it is not available on the net. But until I get around to it, in summary it says that every reporter on the ground in Kosova wanted the intervention to occur. They were there. They saw the bodies. Not only did they kill people--anyone, old, young, you name it--the bodies were mutilated.

I trust Hedges, someone who was against the Iraq war, and knows exactly what was going on. The friggin pro-Milosovic posts piss me off.

I am a Serb American married to a Serb American. The government in Belgrade was nothing more than an organized crime ring.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. Thank you for this post Donna

I don't share your background but I share your outrage. If you ever have the time to type that up it would be very helpful. Kosovo is obviously a matter that will keep getting brought up.

[Donna Zen]

58. My pleasure

my dearest Tom.

~Danica (I wasn't always Donna Zen)

[Adelante]

67. Oooh "Danica Zen"

I like it :)

[Igel]

55. I'm not saying the Serbs weren't brutal.

They were. Their army was brutal in the Croat/Bosnian/Serb war, and afterwards. In grad school at the time, I heard plenty about what was going on in that fiasco before the MSM issued a peep, the pictures started showing up on tv, and people went ballistic.

Similarly, the Kosovo/Serb business was going on for a while before the MSM caught wind of it. And if it wasn't on CBS or CNN, it didn't happen.

Just because the Serbs did wrong by the Kosovars is no reason to whitewash what the Kosovars did both before and after.

[Adelante]

68. Chris Hedges's book

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning

Should be read far and wide.

[Donna Zen]

74. Krugman

In one column Krugman said that it was the most important book he read last year.

[Adelante]

77. The title puts a lot of people off, I think

It's a shame. This is one of the singlemost important anti-war books ever written.

[Donna Zen]

94. Funny you should mention it

After hearing Chris Hedges I was really interested in what he had to say. Several months passed, punctuated by visits to the bookstore where I would take the book off the shelf, and put the book back on the shelf. It wasn't just the title, although that didn't provide much assurance of guilt-free read; it was knowing what a rough ride Hedges had previewed when I'd seen him interviewed. I was afraid to buy this book about what General Clark calls, "the pornography of war."

41 people (currently) think Albright, Clark, and Clinton are worse than Milosevic. God help us. It makes me want to puke.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Keep in mind though

That any real freepers (you know - Republican trouble makers) would likely pile onto Clinton etc. with their votes also.

And yes I know that many Democrats are sincerely voting their convictions. I don't doubt that, probably very few non supportive Republicans participate on DU polls, but I bet the number is greater than zero.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

79. That is a stunning book. 'A coherent narrative' is what keeps us sane.

That was perhaps the most important thing he concluded when studying mass graves and the trauma of wondering what happened when people go missing.

I dedicate hours a day since 9/11 to getting a coherent narrative to share with others. That's one of the reasons that I offer this information on the US military and Wesley Clark's role in the past and his candidacy in the future:

I'm giving you all this because you and I keep ending up on opposite sides of opinion over Wesley Clark.

Violence is a tool of economics, not justice. That is a universal characteristic of the oil barons and weapons merchants who have owned and run the US government for the last 100 years.

War is indeed a racket, just as General Smedly Butler wrote in 1937 after he realized his career was as hit-man for United Fruit in the Caribbean and that the US was run by fascists who use the military as their private army. There's a reason the CIA is known as Corporation's Invisible Army.

Skip history for just a minute, ok?

Imagine a US president who has a book called 'Winning Modern Wars.' The rest of the world knows what war is for: Money.
But not most Americans slathered in glory progaganda.
Is this the path to peace?

Ok, now back to history. Read every link below and see how Wesley Clark fits into our intended future of permanent war for global resources, not justice. I dare you.

http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm
(The New US-British Oil Imperialism, 100 Year War for Oil)

Read former CIA station chief of Angola, John Stockwell in a 1987 speech. There is a video that loads along with the transcript.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
(Americas Third World War How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries)

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
(Killing Hope US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II)

http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html
(A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, From Wounded Knee to Yugoslavia, -this stops in 1999 and misses Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti again, and more.)

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GAG501A.html
(New Pentagon Vision Transforms War Agenda)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
(The Origins of the Overclass)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm
(The Rise of Fascism in America)

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
(Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler)

[dogman]

40. Consider the fact the people of Serbia overthrew Milosevic

in an uprising of the people after NATO broke his military hold on the country. It was not just the Muslim minority that found him oppressive.

[Adelante]

57. Nobody says there were no Kosovar insurgents

It's impossible to think there wouldn't be, since a Serbian state policy of ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians had a long history, going back to the conquest in 1913. Under Tito, Kosovo was independent, but Milosevic's dictatorship beginning in 1989 soon took it up again. By the early '90s, according to Helsinki Human Rights Watch, ethnic cleansing was happening in northern Kosovo. After that, of course, they were pretty busy in Croatia and Bosnia.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/yugoslavia/


Once they caught their breath, they came again for the Albanians. But the Serb government themselves only count 10 Serb deaths between 1995 and the 1997 uprising. When 14 Serb policemen were shot in a gun battle, the retaliation by Serb police was to kill 14 Albanian women, children and old men. So, you're right, there are no angels, but this was the state shooting on civilians, and not even unusual an occurrence there.

The big move was bigger, but not so different qualitatively than what had been happening all along. They knew genocide would follow the cleansing. They knew they could either flee or die. That was the only choice Milosevic left the Kosovar Albanians. So why not an insurgency?

Edit: I just saw your Post #55 -- I agree with you there. Neither side of it should be whitewashed.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

43. There were horrible things going on, true. Wouldn't say otherwise.

Just as Saddam was a horrible monster who slaughered thousands. But the invasion if Iraq is also not a mercy mission, it is oil economics and geopolitics. The US creates monsters like him to do their bidding and then knocks him down to control his territory and pretend to be the White Hat Sheriff or Angel of Mercy Bearing Depleted Uranium Weapons and Clusterbombs.

>snip<

This is probably the most important webpage to gain understanding of the last 100 years of US history. Look at the section which describes Kosovo as one of the routes for getting out Caspian Sea oil and gas, the next big prize the neocons are bombing Iran for.
http://www.new-enlightenment.com/impintro1.htm
(The New US-British Oil Imperialism)





The US military is used for economics as it always has been. Read General Michael Jackson's own words about how the Balkans are part of the Caspian Sea Oil/Pipeline-istan issues.

Some WesClark supporters will only attack the messenger, either me or anyone citing info presented by an organization they don't like such as The Worker's Party (which does take rediculous positions like 'Tienamin Square was evil students slaughtering innocent soldiers'!!)or Ramsey Clark or Lyndon LaRouche who both criticise US imperialism relentlessly, indiscriminately in some people's eyes. So be it.

That is another debate that gets threads locked for all the flaming.
But address the issue of economics, not messengers.

The smears by association and attempts to discredit IGNORE the underlying theme of WAR AS A TOOL OF ECONOMICS and not a tool of justice. Even WWII fit this model since the corporate money elite in the US supported Hitler, armed him, and then dominated the Europe he destroyed for 50 years under the Marshall Plan. Prescott Bush's boss both financed Hitler and then administered the Marshall Plan. Sound like a familar tactic?

Consequently, WesClark's book called 'Winning Modern Wars' is really the capitalist theme of 'Getting Away With Murder.' Yes, he rips the neocons but they are not THE problem, just a recent symptom of something going on for 100 years, oil wars.

I expect much flaming from a few die-hard Clark supporters who think I'm trying to deny Dems the only candidate 'who can win.' So be it.

Here. Read General Michael Jackson's own words about Kosovo-

>snip<
Caspian Sea's Oil Reserves

By Michel Collon

Michel Collon of Belgium is the author of two books on the Balkans, Liar’s Poker, and Monopoly. He is a regular contributor to, Solidaire, the weekly newspaper of the Workers’ Party of Belgium, on the geo-political aims of NATO’s war. He spoke of the attempt to gain control of the Caspian Sea’s oil reserves and the pipelines used to distribute this oil.

Why Don’t They Ever Talk abaout the "8th and 10th Corridors"?

Three weeks after the beginning of the war, General Michael Jackson, commander of KFOR in Macedonia and soon in Kosovo, confided to the Italian daily, Sole 24 Ore: "Today, the circumstances which we have created here have changed. Today, it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the stability of Macedonia and its entry into NATO. But we will certainly remain here a long time so that we can also guarantee the security of the energy corridors which traverse this country."

The Italian daily went on to say, "It is clear that Jackson is referring to the 8th Corridor, the East-West axis which ought to be combined to the pipeline bringing energy resources from Central Asia to terminals in the Black Sea and in the Adriatic, connecting Europe to Central Asia. That explains why the great and medium-sized powers, and first of all Russia, don’t want to be excluded from the settling of scores that will take place over the next few months in the Balkans."


>snip<

Yes, the 'Executive Intelligence Review' is a LaRouche site. Take it with as much salt as you like. But notice the sources cited in it are The Guardian and others. This article from Nov. 2001 claims that al-Queda operative Zawahiri and others involved in the assassination of Egypt's Sadat are in Kosovo in NATO controlled territory. Interesting. So is going after terrorists also a reason for doing high-altitude bombing with depleted uranium weapons and destroying infrastructure and other countries oil refineries? Good question.

>snip<
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2842us_alqaeda_kla.html
But who is Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, whose brother Zaiman is running terrorist camps under NATO protection in the U.S. zone in Kosovo? As the London Guardian wrote recently, "Even to say he is bin Laden's right-hand man may understate his importance." He is considered by many to be the real head of what is known as the bin Laden group. "Some analysts believe that in his current role in Afghanistan, al-Zawahiri has taken over control of much of bin Laden's terrorist finances, operations, plans, and resources," wrote the Guardian. His known terrorist career started no later than 1981, with his involvement in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat; it includes the massacre of 70 people on a tourist bus in 1997 Luxor, Egypt, and the assassination attempt against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1995.

Strangely enough, according to an expert who testified before a U.S. Congressional committee in January 2000, al-Zawahiri was granted U.S. residence by the Immigration and Naturalization Service—something almost impossible for many legitimate immigrants to obtain. Should we be surprised that one of the centers of operation for al-Zawahiri was London, where one of his closest relatives resided? President Mubarak is believed to have referred to him when, after the Luxor massacre, he stated: "There are people who carried out crimes and who were sentenced and live on British soil."

>snip<

Hmmm. Much more going here than a mercy mission, isn't there?

[Just Me]

44. Okay. Yes, the incentive was oil. HOWEVER, the genocide was the,...

,...provocation,...unlike the war on Iraq which had NO humanitarian basis. Moreover, Saddam's murderous actions had nothing to do with any form of "genocide" rather than destroying a militant coup (and, puhlease,...tell me you do not believe this administration wouldn't do whatever it would take to destroy a militant coup if one were to ever occur here in the US).

I think it is imperative that we distinguish between a military involvement where actual genocide was taking place and one where NO genocide was taking place. What the neoCONspirators did in Iraq, was indulged on account of pure greed with NO humanitarian facet whatsoever involved in the undertaking.

[Donna Zen]

72. Got It!

The new rules: if there is hint or a whiff of a hint that oil or pipelines or bad guys are on the scene, then we must let genocide proceed at a pace!

Everything is not black and white.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

75. The US gov't CREATES genocide and starvation all the time. Sad but true.

That is the black in 'black and white.' Violence is a tool of economics, not justice. That is a universal characteristic of the oil barons and weapons merchants who have owned and run the US government for the last 100 years.

Skip history for just a minute, ok?

Imagine a US president who has a book called 'Winning Modern Wars.' The rest of the world knows what war is for: Money. But not most Americans like you, I guess. Is this the path to peace?

Ok, now back to history. Read every link below and see how Wesley Clark fits into our intended future of permanent war for global resources, not justice. I dare you.

http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm
(The New US-British Oil Imperialism, 100 Year War for Oil)

Read former CIA station chief of Angola, John Stockwell in a 1987 speech. There is a video that loads along with the transcript.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
(Americas Third World War How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries)

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
(Killing Hope US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II)

http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html
(A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, From Wounded Knee to Yugoslavia, -this stops in 1999 and misses Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti again, and more.)

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GAG501A.html
(New Pentagon Vision Transforms War Agenda)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
(The Origins of the Overclass)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm
(The Rise of Fascism in America)

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
(Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler)

[Sparkly]

80. Have you read "Winning Modern Wars?"

It's essentially a criticism of Bush's war in Iraq and bungled "war on terror."

[Adelante]

82. This is what gets lost

Clark is the opposite of a nationalist neocon warmonger.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

84. I know he's been criticising the neocons. That's great. But the neocons

are only the worst of a bad bunch that been in DC for the last 100 years.

You're absolutely right, though. Taking on the neocons with all his uniform-based credibility is a damn good thing.

Wes could well be completely sincere about his vision for America. I concede that may well be.

My point is that his uniform-based creds will be used for recruiting and putting the illusion of virtue back over the reality of the US governments history and future.

In short, he will be used to do a better job of what the neocons and DLC neodems WILL do with or without him.

Does that make sense?

[Sparkly]

86. No.

I'm not being sarcastic. I read your post three times and I don't know what you're trying to say.

You think the US government is, was, and will be bad because it engages in war for money, and according to one of your sites this goes back to FDR who initiated the tools of current US facism, is that right?

And this will continue "with or without" Clark, but with him is worse because he gives an "illusion of virtue," so somebody who's more obviously bad would be better, is that right?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

91. See my post #87. Colin Powell rides again. A civilian candidate, I think.

No, I sure don't want an obviously horrible candidate to prevent a 'stealth' candidate. Given that BBV means we can't even vote anymore, I find discussions of candidates to be almost moot. But the psychological symbolism of a candidate still has a cultural effect on the public. So who is in the circus ring matters in this way.

I don't know if a truth-telling candidate can avoid going the way of JFK, RFK, and MLK. I see a Clark presidency as the next Eisenhower administration. And Eisenhower realized he was a figurehead for the CIA and left office in 1961 warning us against the Military Industrial Complex.

Since Clark retired, he has lobbied DARPA for Acxiom, works for the ex-head of FEMA, and does a lot of recruiting talk. Not exactly a warning against the Military Industrial Complex, just the neocons which is certainly good.

I am concerned he'll put the happy face on the police-state we already live in. I want a candidate who will arouse the justified alarm over in Americans over where we already are. BBV means the neocons are not going to give up power. There will be a continuity for them in the front of our vision or out of it.

Have you seen the 'Doomsday Act' passed by Congress in January? If Representatives can't make it to Congress because of some event, then they aren't Reps any more. And whoever is there in DC calls the shots.

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=62564
Congress Passes Doomsday Plan - The Boston Herald 1/9/05

WASHINGTON- With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.

Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress - are required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring war.

But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will be needed to do business under ``catastrophic circumstances.''

Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House would be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or less.

Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber would effectively not be counted as a congressman.

The circumstances include ``natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.''

The House could be run by a small number of lawmakers for months, because House vacancies must be filled by special elections. Governors can make temporary appointments to the Senate.

>snip<

We are way down a path that Wesley Clark can't save us from. And I confess I'm not sure who can.

I wish I had a better answer for you. I really do. We need to get CIVILIAN control of our government back from the CIA and Pentagon who have been running it for 50 years.

[Adelante]

30. Bad guys?

It depends a lot on one's view of humanitarian intervention. If you're for it, they weren't bad guys. If you're against it, they were. Personally, it's what I would like to see our armed forces doing more of, stopping genocide once it's ongoing as in Bosnia, and stopping ethnic cleansing on its way to full out genocide as in Kosovo. I only wish these guys had been so bad in Rwanda as some DUers think they were in Kosovo.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. There Are Folks Who Believe That The History Of America Is That

of a nation committing wrong on top of wrong against it's own people and others...


Obviously I think the record is more mixed...

[Adelante]

34. Oh, I voted no

You're absolutely right on this. I wish more here would look at all of the various aspects of foreign policy instead of jumping on every last opportunity for anti-Americanism. There's plenty to be critical about, God knows, but that goes for every other country on earth, as well.

[ermoore]

42. This is true.

I read somewhere that some British official (I forget the cat's name or position) said that basically the good thing about Americans is that we might not get it right at first, but that we always ended up doing the right thing. I thought it was pretty cool. I think it's true for the most part, though I'm sure many here will disagree.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

78. Ok. Read all this and see how mixed it is. 100 years of oil wars.

I'm giving you all this because you and I keep ending up on opposite sides of opinion over Wesley Clark.

Violence is a tool of economics, not justice. That is a universal characteristic of the oil barons and weapons merchants who have owned and run the US government for the last 100 years.

Skip history for just a minute, ok?

Imagine a US president who has a book called 'Winning Modern Wars.' The rest of the world knows what war is for: Money.
But not most Americans slathered in glory progaganda.
Is this the path to peace?

Ok, now back to history. Read every link below and see how Wesley Clark fits into our intended future of permanent war for global resources, not justice. I dare you.

http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm
(The New US-British Oil Imperialism, 100 Year War for Oil)

Read former CIA station chief of Angola, John Stockwell in a 1987 speech. There is a video that loads along with the transcript.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
(Americas Third World War How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries)

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
(Killing Hope US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II)

http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html
(A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, From Wounded Knee to Yugoslavia, -this stops in 1999 and misses Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti again, and more.)

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GAG501A.html
(New Pentagon Vision Transforms War Agenda)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
(The Origins of the Overclass)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm
(The Rise of Fascism in America)

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
(Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler)

[Adelante]

81. Okay, JohnOneillsMemory

I think you are a sincere person and I even think you're nice, despite our disagreement on Wesley Clark and that you are very obviously out after his ass. I'm going to read your links and come back when I have time to talk with you about this. But please stop spamming this thread. I'm not alerting on you, because alerting's a drag, but you are putting yourself in a bad position doing this. So stop it.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

87. Final consideration and I will move on, to summarize:

Wes could well be completely sincere about his vision for America. I concede that may well be.

My point is that his uniform-based creds will be used for recruiting and putting the illusion of virtue back over the reality of the US governments history and future.

In short, he will be used to do a better job of what the neocons and DLC neodems WILL do with or without him.

Look what happened to Colin Powell. His cred and good intentions (?) were USED to get us into another Vietnam, the very thing he writes very clearly about wanting to prevent.

The acquisition of oil by violence will be with us for a long time and a 'good guy' general is just the person to put people like us at ease while it happens. I don't want any more Colin Powells.

on edit- And no, I'm not trying to 'put the bad jacket' on him to keep an affective candidate out of the running. I read about this COINTELPRO tactic in criticism's of Ward Churchill. He worked for years in the American Indian Movement and kept getting accused of being a FBI mole by one person. The accuser was called out by others in the movement for a pattern of 'putting the bad jacket' on the most affective activists.

So I hope my clarification that no matter what WesClark's intention's are he will be exploited by the power structure allays some Clark supporters hostility to my comments. Oh, well. I call'em as I see'em. There, done. Now more coffee for me...

[Sparkly]

88. So one person working as puppet for a radical Republican administration

is *exactly* like a different person who's a Democrat and an outspoken opponent of Bush foreign policy (or lack thereof) -- simply because both are generals-? Does that sound fair to you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

89. Clark showed a lot more Balls than Powell did, to put it bluntly

Powell perhaps is a good example of the point you are trying to make, but they are far from the same person. Clark called for a cut in the Defense Budget when he ran, and Clark is a man who says what he means and means what he says. It is precisely because it is a 100 year old problem that the problem can not be reversed by any one Presidential Administration, but having someone in charge who wants some significant changes made who has the goods to blow the whistle on those opposing them would be a very helpful step in that direction.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

92. "problem can't be reversed by one admin."...I totally agree.....n/t

[Sparkly]

90. I read parts, skimmed all

and my response is, "Yeah, AND...??" There are pages and pages here but I don't see the connection with Clark.

There seems to be a trend toward massive cut/pastes and links to long articles on certain topics, as if the volume alone somehow points to something sinister (or maybe it's just meant to overwhelm). :shrug:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

93. see my post #91 for a more pointed summary, not meant to "overwhelm">

I posted sources to illustrate the history and methods of the tiger whose back Wesley Clark wants to ride.

I try to back up my viewpoints, not overwhelm.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. The thing about black and white world views is they become absurd

It is like racial classifications. The census bureau wants them all neat and tidy but underlying "Caucasian" racism translates mixed white and black blood lines into "black", every time. There is your classic black and white world view.

Given our historical starting point, and factoring in all global realities, including domestic American economic and political realities, and how the sum total of forces were balanced at the start of Clinton's Administration, these three people did good in my book.

Outside of literally totalitarian societies there is no single command structure, certainly not a Presidential Administration, that can reverse the flow of American history on a dime. Given these circumstances there will never be a totally pure lily white Democratic Administrations nor an absolute coal black Republican Administrations. Neither has that much freedom of mobility even it the intent were there to break free from all existing paradigms and pre existing alliances among competing interests.

If Clinton were God he could have handled Kosovo very differently. Once divine inspiration revealed exactly the best way to proceed, he could have mandated total international cooperation on exactly that plan of action. China, Russia, Greece, Albania, and so on all would have fallen into perfect line. And if Leftist Gods were in power for enough years preceding Clinton, maybe all ethnic tensions across Yugoslavia would have been extinguished, replaced by instincts of Sisterhood, Brotherhood, and mutual aid inspired by our benign example.

Bosnia and Kosovo were collective horrors that were reeling further out of control. Rwanda was a nightmare that should have been directly confronted by America's military after American leadership forced the U.N. to act, and failing that we should have acted anyway. Over a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda. Clark wanted us to stop it. Clinton felt politically constrained against acting. But Clinton later in his Presidency went to Africa and apologized in person for his failure to act. Bill Clinton learned a lesson and admitted to the world his mistake. That is something that George W Bush will never freely do.

[Igel]

37. "Bad guys" according to whom?

He still supported Israel, enforced the no-fly zone, and signed the bill declaring the US was in favor of regime change in Iraq. He didn't take the Sa'udis head-on. The Srebrenica massacre and most of the Serb/Croat/Bosnian war under his watch; he wasn't reponsible, but some folks think he gleefully committed a crime of omission. Islamicists didn't think he was much better than Bush I. Not everybody includes the good stuff in forming a judgment.

Europe? UN? Most Americans? Good guy.

N. Korea? Started as good guy, ended up as bad guy.

[ermoore]

41. They weren't too good.

They're both popular. They were both nice to everybody and didn't yell loudly, or chastise too strongly, or start any wars.

On the other hand, they really, really tried hard to make everyone believe that there was no genocide happening in Rwanda. Obviously, this is detestable.
They did finally intervene in the Balkans, but they waited until so many people had already died and still wouldn't have intervened without a lot of pressure from Congress . (I suppose we shouldn't complain, given the world's track record with previous genocides, but still . . .)

I mean, maybe they did some good things, but I don't think that makes up for their inaction in Africa.

For the record, it's not that I think they're evil, they just did what was politically expedient, same as every other US administration before them. We've been ignoring genocides for almost 100 years (hell, 500 if you count Native Americans).

I will say this for the * administration. The war in Iraq and talk of spreading democracy and what not has made it much harder to ignore this kind of stuff. After all how would it look if we only gave a damn about democracy in oil-rich countries? Thus the situations in Liberia and Haiti were jumped on fairly quickly (and at least in Haiti, things weren't so much helped as they were just restored to the shitty status-quo, but I don't know how much one can do in regards to Haiti at the moment).

On Edit: Fixed a typo.

[sandnsea]

47. Different goals, so no, not bad guys

Bush's goal is US corporate take-over.

Clinton's goal was improved global relations and living standards through trade and the exchange of democratic ideas.

They sometimes look the same, but they aren't the same. Opening China to capitalism was supposed to be followed by pressure to improve labor rights, human rights and the environment.

Bush didn't do that because his goal is power and global dominance. There is a difference.

[stillcool]

49. Too much emphasis on single actions......

and not enough on the 'big picture', and all the players. Like if you take a rose, remove all the petals, the stem etc. and throw them away.... focus on one thorn. Is it still a rose?

[borg5575]

50. I voted for Clinton twice.

However, it just made me want to puke when I saw him out there on the Super Bowl field a while ago standing next to Bush I.

I also saw him say on Larry King's show on CNN that Bush won the 2004 election "fair and square" so definitely Clinton has to now be counted as one of the "bad guys."

I know that your question related to foreign policy, however, I just can't abide Democrats who seem to lie down and play dead in the face of Bush's atrocities.

[ClarkUSA]

51. I know why Wes Clark always does well in polls at DU...

some of the 1.5 million Albanians he saved from genocidal ethnic cleansing at the
hands of Serbs and their leader, Hitler-admirer Slobidan Milosevic must be DU members.

Truth to power.

[car54whereareyou]

53. I'm not Albanian...

but I am a Clark Supporter. Kudos to you, ClarkUSA!

[ClarkUSA]

60. Truth to Power always

car54whereareyou, welcome to DU.


:toast:

[IndianaGreen]

62. Why don't you poll the victims of American foreign policy?

Your poll is like asking Germans if the Nazis were too naughty to their neighbors.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. They Had An Impromptu Poll At The U N In 1998

When Clinton spoke almost all the representatives of the nations of the world stood up and and cheered...

[IndianaGreen]

64. Most of those representatives are on our payroll

You don't really think that most of those nations are truly free and democratic. Shall we mention that bastion of press censorship and torture that is Egypt?

[fujiyama]

65. I agree

that many corrupt nations are under the US payroll.

However, there was a genuine liking for Clinton by most nations. You should see those crowds in Africa and India that he recieved. There is no way in hell Bush would get those crowds anywhere.

Most felt that when they spoke to him, the US would atleast consider what they had to say.

The current regime doesn't give a shit and doesn't pretend to either.

[Donna Zen]

71. Broad brush vs situations and merits:

American foreign policy which for the most part represents corporate interests has for the most part betrayed our country's stated ideals and values. Nevertheless, I believe that the trio cited in the poll, do not deserve the scorn that those who voted "yes" have heaped upon them. Each event in history while connected is still a separate event and deserves to be exaimed on its merits:

Even as I detest the pestilence that is war and fear its deadly addiction, even as I see it lead states and groups towards self-immolation, even as I concede that it is war that has left millions of dead and maimed across the planet, I, like most reporters in Sarajevo and Kosova, desperately hoped for armed intervention. The poison that is war does not free us from the ethics of responsibility. There are times when we must take this poison--just as a person with cancer accepts chemotherapy to live. We can not succumb to despair...We in the industrialized world bear responsibility for the world's genocides because we had the power to intervene and did not. We stood by and watched the slaughter in Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Rwanda where a million people died. The blood of the victims of Srebrenica--a designated UN safe area in Bosnia--is on our hands...There was never any secret about Milosevic's plans for a greater Serbia or his intent to use force and ethnic cleansing to create it. (Hedges 16-17)

I have long ago concluded that those who pride themselves in their abilities to post all of the anti-this-and-that links, would be the first in line to condemn Clinton-Albright-Clark had they sat back and let Milosevic fill the graves in Kosova. And in that case, I would be with them. I've read the ridiculous links about the ties to Al Qaeda and drugs--but what does that have to do with stopping genocide. This was not a resource war; this was not another pawn in the Great Game II. Your country actually--for once--did the right thing.

[JNelson6563]

69. Valid point

I'll give you that.

[fujiyama]

66. Mixed Results - though more positive than negative

Their tenure wasn't perfect and overall I give them mixed results, but by the end, and overall I'd say they did more good for the US and the world than bad.

Clinton genuinely tried to bring peace in several areas. He did his best to secure peace in the middle east as well as Northern Ireland. I had some conflicts over their handling of the crisis in Serbia and perhaps my stance is similar to Kucinch on that. I can't stand Milosevic supporters or defenders, but I do think it wasn't quite as black and white as it was made out. Overall though, the US did the right thing there.

I think his administration started off rough though. The first two-four years were a complete mess. Part of it was cleaning up things from Reagan years but there were many blunders. I think the US FP establishment (ie the state dept - "foggy bottom") works slowly and there is too much cronyism, corruption, and resistance to change. The inability and unwillingness to act during the Rwanda massacre is also a very shameful part of the administration (and Clinton too will admit that). The old Cold war mentality had too much effect on thinking in those first several years. I think by the end the administration started realizing the changes. This was probably one of the biggest disasters when this admin took over - As Clarke said, their mentality was trapped in amber - Cold War style missile defense, etc.

I also agree with another poster that he was way too close with the Saudis. Too much beaurocratic bullshit prevented proper investigations in the terrorist attacks that took place. Part of this was due to Freeh and and FBI though - talk about a corrupt SOB.

I also think the US should have made a more concerted effort to make better relations with Russia and India. Fortunately toward the end Clinton did mend relations with India to a large extent but I think his stance toward China was too soft (awarding them MSFT and there were some questionable campaign contributions).

In the end though, Clinton could relate just as easily with those in India and Africa as he could here. The cheering crowds are something I don't expect to see an American president to get anytime soon. Atleast he was able to show people that he acted like he cared, though I think there some real compassion as well.

[Donna Zen]

70. To those who voted "yes"

...maybe it is time to think about who the enemy is; who you spend your time defending. This is the handywork of Milosevic.

War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning

Chris Hedges

On a chilly, rainy day in March 1998 I was in a small Albanian village in Kosova, twenty-five miles west of the provincial capital of Pristina. I was waiting with a few thousand Kosavar Albanian mourners for a red Mercedes truck to rumble down the dirt road and unload a cargo of fourteen bodies. A group of distraught women, seated on wooden planks set up on concrete blocks, was in the dirt yard.

When the truck pulled into the yard I climbed into the back. Before each corpse, wrapped in bloodstained blankets and rugs, was lifted out for washing and burial I checked ot see if the body was mutilated. I pulled back the cloth to uncover the faces. The gouged-out eyes, the shattered skulls, the gaping rows of broken teeth, and sinewy strands of flayed flesh greeted me. When I could not see clearly in the fading light I flicked on my Maglite. I jotted each disfigurement in my notebook.

The bodies were passed silently out of the truck...In the hasty effort to confer some dignity on the dead family members, often weeping, tried to wash away the bloodstains from the faces. Most could not do it and had to helped away.

It was not an uncommon event for me. I have seen many such dead. Several weeks later it would be worse. I would be in a warehouse with fifty- one bodies, including children, even infants, women, and elderly from the town of Prekaz. I had spent time with many of them. I stared into their lifeless faces. I was again in the twilight zone of I could not wholly believe what I saw in front of me. (74-5)

[IrateCitizen]

73. Not an either/or choice, DSB

Personally, I believe that the Clinton Administration was the last one to at least operate under the idea of paying lip service to such ideals as human rights and democracy. But in the end, they were still an embodiment of the bipartisan theme of US foreign policy throughout the latter half of the 20th century, which was one of maintaining and expanding US hegemony.

Was everything they did in pursuit of this end "bad"? No. And I also believe that they are, in their hearts, somewhat more well-intentioned people than the current gang of thugs occupying the WH. But I view their ultimate end as an immoral and unjust one -- one that will ultimately only engender resentment from the majority of the rest of the world, in spite of the attraction of the PERSONALITY of Clinton.

Shortly after the end of WWII, when it was clear that the US had arrived as a world power, a group of predominantly liberal hawks set about crafting US post-war foreign policy. Perhaps the reality of this policy, and its true goals, was best summed up by George Kennan.

We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

Overall, I think that Clinton's administration fulfilled the prophecy of George Kennan rather well. They touched on all of these "ideological slogans", but the true aim of foreign policy was not pursuing any sort of justice or democracy, but hegemony.

[Malikshah]

76. Albright and Clinton both have a lot of 'splainin to do

I will always hold the sanctions against them, as well as Clinton myths re: Camp David II.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. 60 Minutes II did a segment prior to the Primaries

In it Dan Rather interviewed Wes Clark on a number of issues, Kosovo of course came up. Here is the link to the segment most relevent here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584555.shtml

Here are some quotes from the transcript:

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: In the summer of 1998, while I was in command, another round of ethnic cleansing started. And I was warning the Pentagon about it and trying to mobilize U.S. opinion and U.S. leadership to take action to prevent it.

Well, we did take some action. We tried to undertake diplomacy. There was a lot of discussion. And meanwhile the Serbs were moving some 300 to 400,000 Kosovar Albanians -- were driven from their homes. They fled to the mountains because they had to get away from the Serb military.

And in the mountains, this is what you saw. This is a five-week-old baby who's died of exposure. And the family's preparing him for burial. When you can stop something like this, you should.

DAN RATHER: ...Hearing you speak of this is the first time I've seen you speak with real emotion.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Yeah.

DAN RATHER: Deep-seated emotion. Tell me why that is?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Why? Because you're dealing with people's lives when you're dealing with things like this, Dan. This is about life and death. It's about the difference between academic theories and discussions of deterrence and prevention and preemption, and what the real impact is on the ground of U.S. actions...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Bad guys. But, most "leaders" with power are.

Clinton and Albright paid lip service to human rights while carrying out a foreign policy that was a continuance of much the same foreign policy that this country has been carrying out for decades. That is to ensure that the markets remain weighted in our favor so that we can enjoy the bread and circuses (or, Big Macs and the Super Bowl) without having to fret about the restless folks of the third world who are starving to support us.

Rwanda has no oil or other resources that interest us. Clinton & Albright subverted the UN's attempts to stop the genocide there. Iraq has lots of oil, and threatened the stability of the oil supply throughout the region.

How much attention does anyone think that Iraqi human rights would have got if it was a landlocked country with no resources in Africa? My guess is about the same amount as Nepal is getting today.

America's foreign policy has been based on greed and hegemony since 1945.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

95. NO! Clark, Clinton, and Albright are good people!