Interesting. In a long
thread about Wesley Clark in which "Armando" decided to show face, I've been censored. All I did was link an article which apparently (even though it was on topic) was too HOT for DailyKos. So, I figured why not link it in a diary and really get the censorhip police fired up.
So here's the article on Wesley Clark that's been deemed TOO HOT for DailyKos! Enjoy, and disagree.
Free speech is welcome in this diary.
From: Z Magazine
Wesley Clark & Howard Dean
By Sunil K. Sharma & Josh Frank
...
Clark's decision to run as a Democrat is a recent development and his allegiance to the Party is questionable at best. Clark's first presidential vote was for Richard Nixon. He subsequently voted twice for Ronald Reagan and then for George Bush the Elder. Until two years ago, Clark was delivering speeches at GOP fundraisers in his home state of Arkansas, fueling speculation he was considering a run for the Oval Office as a Republican. In his speech at a fundraiser for the Pulaski County Republican Party on May 11, 2001, Clark praised Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and Bush Sr.'s foreign policy. He also singled out the current Administration's hyper-unilater- alist national security team: "We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condo- leezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."
Clark only declared as a Democrat this past August. Why the decision to run as a Democrat? A hint can be found in a recent Newsweek article. After 9/11, Clark had expected the Bush administration to enlist him in their "war on terror." "After all, he'd been NATO commander...and the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties. But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it. Word was that Karl Rove, the president's political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. [Clark] happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman....`I would have been a Republican,' Clark told them, `if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.' Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race--as a Democrat. Clark insisted the remark was a `humorous tweak.' The two others said it was anything but. `He went into detail about his grievances,' Holtzman said. `Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked" (Newsweek, September 29, 2003).
So why are liberals and progressives so star struck over Clark? One reason is the widespread perception that, as Michael Moore writes in his aforementioned letter, Clark "oppose[s] war." As the media watchdog group FAIR reveals in a review of statements made by Clark before, during, and after the Iraq war, if Clark is "anti-war" then the term has been gutted of any meaning.
* In an article published in the London Times, April 10, Clark savors the U.S.'s great "victory" over Iraq: "Liberation is at hand. Liberation--the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.... President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
* As the U.S. and its client Israel are presently focusing the crosshairs on Syria and Iran, we have Clark writing in the same article: "But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don't look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice--indeed, may have been already--that they are `next' if they fail to comply with Washington's concerns."
The above sounds straight out of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century playbook.
...
It's clear that Clark included as legitimate targets schools, bridges, hospitals, electrical facilities, market places, trains, refugee convoys, and media outlets. Clark bombed Serbia with "an almost sadistic fanaticism" (William Blum), making profligate use of deadly cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells, of the sort used to ravage Iraq. The Washington Post reports Clark "would rise out of his seat and slap the table. `I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign now'!"
Independent estimates of the civilian death toll in the Kosovo War range from 500-2,000, yet Clark, in testimony to Congress, said there were between 20 and 30 instances of "collateral damage."
Clark's attempts to cover up instances of intentional NATO bombings of civilian targets have been exposed, though not properly publicized. In one case, 14 people were killed in Grdenicka, Serbia on April 12, 1999 when a U.S. jet bombed a passenger train crossing a bridge. Clark claimed the atrocity was a tragic mistake, as the pilot was firing on the bridge and the train only came into view after the bombs had been dropped. He showed two video films shot from the nose of the remote control-guided bombs to support his claim, which were later found to have been doctored. In fact, the train could be seen on the bridge when the pilot bombed it and he turned around to make a second sweep on the burning bridge, dropping a bomb directly on the carriage. This is the anti-war, anti- unilateralist candidate?
Read the rest From: HERE!
UPDATE:
For starters, almost everyone is missing the Clark story, either out of sheer denial, or ignorance. Second, I was censored. The comment was rated by Armando and his crew because they didn't like the content. I realize this is a blog, but if something like the above story is edited out by us liberals, what kind of example are we setting for our movement? Not only are we not open to debate, we are not open to self reflection either. Sad.