February 08, 2004
THE K STANDS FOR KOOKAZOID
Wesley Clark alleges White House meddling in his Kosovo campaign:
Some top Clinton administration officials wanted to end the Kosovo war abruptly in the summer of 1999, at almost any cost, because the presidential campaign of then-Vice President Al Gore was about to begin, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark says in his official papers. "There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie,' " Clark said in a January 2000 interview with NATO's official historian, four months before leaving the post of supreme allied commander Europe.
Instapundit doesn’t completely buy this; neither does Andrew Sullivan, who writes:
Clark is simply too crazy to be president of the U.S.
Clark’s craziness was apparent months ago. And what is it with Clark and these White House voices he keeps hearing? Recall this, from Michael Moore:
My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.
Hmm. Well, at least the following rings true:
Clark told the historian that he chafed during the war at having to submit individual bombing targets to the White House and the French government for approval. He said Clinton reviewed them directly, apparently because of embarrassment over the U.S. military's 1998 bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. He also quoted a deputy French defense minister as acknowledging that Paris rejected some of his target choices simply for the sake of "saying no."
DEMOCRAT UPDATE. John Kerry wins big in Michigan and Washington, and Howard Dean has lost the support of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Posted by Tim Blair at February 8, 2004 04:44 PMWhen I asked Clark how he explained being fired by Clinton after winning a war for him, he said that he didn't believe that Clinton had anything to do with it. The President did indeed sign the order that mandated Clark's early removal from the SACEUR post, but Sandy Berger later explained to Clark that neither he nor the President knew what they were signing. It was, Clark says, a setup, engineered by Cohen's office and by the Chiefs. As for Clinton, "He was hornswoggled."
WELL! Since Clark is running for PRESIDENT, he, ex-Prez Clinton, ex-DefSec Cohen, & ex-NatSecAdv Sandy Berger were all questioned at length by industrious & truth-ravenous reporters about those 85 words—NOT. Generally, General Clark, as Presidential candidate, has been interrogated by crusty cynical reporters (complete with ducats in their hatbands) about his being FIRED as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe—NOT. The press has gone to shit.
The words are from “General Clark’s Battles” by Peter J. Boyer in the New Yorker issue of 2003-11-17, posted 2003-11-10 at
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact .
Its such a nice thing that so many people are prepared to help Clark through this difficult stage of his life. Its not easy coping with mental illness. Particularly when you are in a primary race with Al Sharpton and Denis Kuchinich.
Posted by: Quentin George at February 8, 2004 at 07:47 PMFrom memory there were rumors and speculation right throughout the bombing campaign that Clinton was out of his depth and the bombing was going to stop at any time.
If Clinton was worried about pharmaceutical plants he managed one better this time and took out the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
In fairness to Clark it would have been a bloody hard job running a military campaign under Clinton. Perhaps thats what pushed him over the edge.
Whatever else may be evidence of Clark's craziness, surely "chafed at French obstructionism" is not.
Posted by: Mike G at February 9, 2004 at 12:24 AMThe AFSCME web site still has the Dean Endorcement as the top story.
I guess they are hedging the bets, or maybe it is a great example of state workers vs the private sector
Posted by: P. Ingemi at February 9, 2004 at 07:11 AMAFSCUM (oops! AFSCME) will whore itself to any politician it believes will enable it to continue to feed at the public trough. Here in the states, when a city like Detroit goes from 2,000,000 in population to less than 900,000, are there fewer public employees? Well, fewer, but nowhere near half as many. More like 90% of the previous numbers. With less population (and those left on average poorer) where does the tax money come from to pay all those AFSCUM members? Why from the pockets of US Taxpayers. Detroit is arguably the second worst governed city of over 100,000 in the US (St. Louis is the best bet for first). AFSCUM wants to continue to pour federal tax money down state and local public employment ratholes regardless of need, quality, or ability of the state or local government to come up with the dollars. Thus, they offer their union dues up on the altar of whichever candidate (usually Democratic) that appears most able to win and who promises to keep the federal money flowing.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at February 9, 2004 at 07:15 AMClark, schmark - who cares ?
Not even the Dems are kooky enough to select a non-humanoid.
Kerry is gonna be the main game. Clark is toast already.
Posted by: Arik at February 9, 2004 at 08:56 AMKeep in mind that this is the same person that said the rich will be willing to pay higher taxes, because it’s there patriotic duty.
Keep in mind that this is the same person that said the rich will be willing to pay higher taxes, because it’s there patriotic duty.
Sorry about the double post. My browser hiccuped on me. :/
Posted by: Kayarbee at February 9, 2004 at 12:02 PM