Posted September 25, 2003

"Citizen Clark"

With regard to Wesley Clarks run for Democrat Presidential candidacy, I quote the most misunderestimated philosopher in history; "Bring 'em on!"

Campaign debates would be an interesting forum to ask some tough questions, like, "General Clark, did you agree with General Jackson's belief that using force to remove Russian troops from Pristina airport could lead to World War III? If so, was this your intention, and do you think this would have been good for America? If not, why was the mission not carried out?"

Or how about,"Do you consider the Kosovo campaign to have been a success? If so, given that the justification for the bombing was that the Serbs were ethnically cleansing the Albanians, what level of ethnic cleansing of non-KLA Kosovo residents of all ethnicities, including Albanian, would the KLA have to attain before the operation would be considered a failure?"

Or "Do you regret having your picture taken with a war criminal?" What am I saying? – birds of a feather.

Or "Were the NATO massacres of Albanian refugees intended to show Milosevic how to do it, or were they an attempt to create the mass graves that had been reported prior to the campaign?" ...

I could go on, and even throw a couple in for Lieberman about 'American values', but I think you get the picture.

~ Tom D.

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Oh yes, very much so. I'm sort of surprised both Clark and Lieberman are running, given these sorts of skeletons very much out of the closet. Unless, of course, they are actually proud of what they've said and done, in which case that is simply nauseating. I hope the voters think the same way.

"...It has long been known that US Army tanks took part in the tragic and lethal 1993 storming of a religious commune in Waco, Texas. But was one of the officers involved Wesley Clark? Records indicate his second-in-command advised federal officials in preparation for the assault. One official Congressional report mentions the involvement of two high-ranking officers. In the spring of 1999, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair of CounterPunch speculated the mystery officer may have been no other than Clark... Soon thereafter, they unearthed the names of the two officers, and it turned out Clark was not involved...."

This is an unfair, mean and unacceptable manner of argument – in the midst of an indictment of someone, to make an accusation and then own up that he was innocent. If he was innocent, DON'T BRING IT UP.

I have just read an atrocious history, The American Axis by Max Wallace (2003), in which the author tries to indict Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh for being supporters of the Nazis. Wallace uses this tactic again and again, particularly with Ford. Ford is accused of X, the entire accusation is aired, and then the author admits there is no evidence for X, or no proof of X. But in airing the accusation, the author adds to the foul odor around his subject, which is his aim. He is mixing false accusations, true accusations and we-don't-know accusations merely to have lots and lots of accusations. That is what Malic is doing here. All the other things he says about Clark may be true, but he undermines his own position by including this.

~ Bruce Ramsey, Seattle, Washington

Nebojsa Malic replies:

One of the reasons I included this particular passage was to clear the air. There have been so many comments on Clark's candidacy, before and since Wednesday's announcement, which included the Waco allegation. I researched it, and came up with the CounterPunch articles that both speculated, then recanted that speculation. I thought it fair to mention both, because as I said, though Clark has many sins, Waco turned out not to be one of them. Yet my attempt to be fair and actually *not* mud-sling at Clark was perceived a smear job. Well, that sounds to me like a perception problem.

I am heartened that you recognize that a vote for Bush /Cheney is a vote for imperialism and, presumably (and correctly, in my opinion), you think that is wrong.

Because of Clark's real military experience (irrespective of what you may think of it), he is probably the only Democratic candidate that can beat Bush.

The Bush camp will continue playing on the fear of the American public and the myth that only a Republican can protect them.

~ Bob Poster

Nebojsa Malic replies:

I am glad you oppose imperialism as well. It is a true enemy of civilization everywhere.

It really makes no difference who wears the crown – Bush, Clark, or someone else, Democrat, Republican, Green or Purple – what we get is still an Emperor. That's the problem.

I had few supporters when I railed against the Clinton /Madeline Albright-caused bloodbath in Yugoslavia. All I heard from so called progressives were brayings that "we have to stop the genocide" evidence of which was one photo of prisoners of war who look far healthier than the average patient I see daily at a big city hospital. That war (against a World War II ally who sacrificed many of their own to stop Hitler) laid the foundation for this one. Wesley Clark is irrelevant. I work for the government and I can assure you he was given the same message all are given at that level which is "either you get the job done or we will get someone who can." Why are Clinton and Albright so ignored for their contribution to the war in Iraq?

~ William Garner

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Thank you for your support. Yes, the tragedy of all this is that the Clinton regime and the Bush regime have exhibited identical behavior (for all intents and purposes), while using different justifications. But most people appear to believe there are real differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, which blinds them to the obvious: that both parties favor Empire. The government, no matter who runs it, has its own agenda - power. That's what it's all about – not 'WMDs' or 'humanitarian disasters.'

So yes, in that respect, Clark is rather irrelevant. So are we, the taxpaying serfs. Question is, do we accept this state of affairs, or oppose it? And I think the answer is obvious.

This was a very interesting and informative article by Mr. Malic. No, sir, American's don't know better. Please continue offering viewpoints and information not available through the popular media. Some of us really appreciate it.

~ Cyndy Kayet

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Thank you. As I said, I don't normally get involved in details of American politics, except to argue incessantly against the Empire as something that is bad both for this country, as well as its victims (my compatriots included). But in Clark's case I truly had to make an exception, as this man has done much evil already, and should not be given the opportunity to do more.

"Lifting the Wool: Governments Are Mafias, War Is Their Racket"

Great article illustrating how despite the rhetoric, aggression is still aggression – and for exposing the euphemisms the State hides behind with "legitimate authority."

I'm sure RandRoids will give you hell, but I'd join you in a foxhole any day.

~ Tim Swanson

Alan Bock replies:

Let's just hope we (or perhaps more pertinently my 18-year-old son) don't have to be in a literal foxhole by conscription anytime soon. But I'm happy to be in a metaphorical or intellectual foxhole with other enemies of the state.

Casualties in Iraq

Thanks for keeping track of these awful numbers. I've been looking for a good source on wounded to link to on my blog (http://publicuscornelius.blogspot.com). It's pretty depressing that the Pentagon has been trying to keep these numbers under wraps. Anyway, thanks again and keep up the antiwar blogging.

~ Patrick Schaefer

I am certain that the reported data for both dead and wounded Americans is underreported by those agencies that you have listed as sources. I have a friend who is currently assigned to work as a medic in Baghdad (I cannot name him here). He said that the daily death toll reflects only those who are killed in action, not those who die subsequently of their injuries. The death toll doesn't account for deaths due to non-combat causes since the war.

Finally, he wrote to me that the number of wounded each day would "cause riots in the streets" if people had any idea what it really was. There are independent media sites on the web that are not censored by the government, perhaps you could use them for confirmation of your data.

If what my friend says is true the American people must know as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our military.

~ Gina A Gray

Wesley Clark

The essay in Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, Sept. 16., cites a number of quotes from general Clark that portray him as pro-war. They want to present him as a "sheep in wolf's clothing." However, the quotes that indicate that he is pro-war are all taken from January on CNN when he was one of their military experts. They fail to tell us that his quotes were in service of the role he was providing, rather than being his political stance. This type of fairness seems like the same type of fairness on Fox TV – deceptive and slanted for a political cause.

~ Stan Johnson, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

Check out this article, written by Clark in April, praising the war as a great victory: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm.

"How To Stay Out of the Military"

I'd just like to say thanks for running my article 'How to Stay Out of the Military." I read your site every day and honored that you ran an article of mine. I received many letters from parents thanking me (and indirectly you) for that information.

~ Dave Wiggins

"Ideology of American Empire"

The article,"Ideology of American Empire" was interesting, but misses the point by a wide mark. Indeed, American foreign policy is less Jacobin than an extension of Whig ideology that views "freedom" as ever-expanding. Originating in England as a byproduct of the struggle between crown and parliament, it reached its high point just before the American Revolution, during which time the Whig ideology was assumed by our Founding Fathers, Jefferson (and John Locke and Sydney Algeron), in particular. As such, the US became the new locus of expanding freedoms, as Britain had become too corrupted by money and power.

Whig ideology fueled the Revolution (which was in fact a civil war within the Empire – small, to be sure, but a civil war nevertheless). Using this ideology, the US expanded and grew, bringing "freedom and virtue" to all: to "our" continent, to the oppressed during American Civil War; to the "oppressed" during the Spanish American War; WWI; WWII; the Cold War, and now the Middle East. Its role is virtually "universal" in our history and has put us as the primary force for expansion in today's world: to make the world "safe" for democracy, and now to remake the world as a "democratic" entity.

As long as the US does the right thing, so the argument goes, we will be an exceptionalist country, liberated as it were from the historical process of growth and decline. This has a very long, complicated (and very sad history. You may read more about it in my book, Gilded Age Construction of Modern American Homophobia, Macmillan Press, June 2003).

The American Ideology (which I label "national ideology" in my book) has a very rich history and is thoroughly documented. It is also thoroughly expansionist, and imperialist in so far as it will never stop as long as there is the perception that peoples need to be "freed" and we do not lose our alleged "moral compass" (thus the rantings of Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, and the current administration, for example).

Understand that the Whig ideology is actually as old as the country, and has been its motivating ideological foundation. If you like, I can when time permits, write you more about it.

~ Jay Hatheway, PhD, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of History, Edgewood College, Wisconsin

"They are called 'The Searchers'. But what are they looking for?"

As the allegations that Bush & Co. used to promote their war are disproved and they are forced to admit that they had no basis, I have a suggestion for our congress. The government has, in the past, readily seized and appropriated the assets of people and groups that it considers to be hostile to the United States. I suggest that they seize the assets of Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of those responsible for perpetrating this fiasco and distribute them among the families of the soldiers who are being killed and maimed in Iraq.

~ KW

"We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq"

I am really impressed by your article. I am a liberal Democrat, and if a majority of the Republican Party had the same views you have, I would consider voting for Republicans.

Thank you for being honest and outspoken, because we need to stop this madness before it's too late. I believe that this issue is so important for the future of USA and the world, that we have to unite against the war regardless of our political affiliation and views.

~ YK

Hallelujah! At least one "congress critter" who talks sense. We probably should pull out and pay some smaller amount in reparations, say $10 billion. It should be taken out of one of Bush's favorite military projects. The current plan means that the American people directly or indirectly will be paying the Vice President's company billions of dollars. If that isn't wholesale corruption then I don't know what would be.

I do sometimes thing that there is a real reason for our actions regarding Iraq though – a reason the government is not honest enough to mention. The real reason we are there is that we are too dependent on Mideast oil and our biggest supplier, Saudi Arabia, is likely to be in civil war or other major disruption any time now. We grabbed Iraq under this scenario as a hedge against our energy prices being drastically multiplied in the midst of a weak economy. The 87 billion is a huge band aid to ready the Iraqi oil supply and hold it. It seems more attractive to the politicos because it can come from deficit spending instead of at the pump prices. But it is a huge shell game. If such were the real reason then there should be a very large push toward hybrid cars and the touted hydrogen economy for some small fraction of that $87 billion.

The other factor keeping us from letting go of the Iraqi tar baby is its proximity to our favorite massively repressive regime which has violated more UN resolutions than any other nation – Israel.

~ Samantha Atkins

Congressman Ron Paul is one politician who is not blinded by party loyalty, as some Republicans and Democrats are. His reasons for why we should not fork out 87 billion dollars for the Iraqi quagmire are explained clearly in his article "We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq." I am proud to have a representative from my home state of Texas to finally speak the truth about this war.

~ Sherry Maxey

"Republicans Want Iraq To Share Cost of Rebuilding"

This article is a great example of woolly-thinkers getting the jitters when the price of occupation comes home to them.

But it is only the tip of the iceberg if we bug out and recognize Iraqi sovereignty. Why? Because they'll sue us, that's why. We bombed the xyz out of 'em for 11 years – no UN mandate, there – and then we tore up a lot of their country. This is called reparations, payments for an unjustified war of aggression.

As a taxpayer, I'm not very happy about our prospects – any of them.

~ J. Paige Straley