Clark - "US plans to attack seven Muslim states"

[LeadMagnet]

Article

Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.


A former commander of NATO's forces in Europe, Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

The general?s allegations surface in a new book, The Clark Critique, excerpts from which appear in the latest edition of the US magazine Newsweek.

Clark says after the 11 September 2001 attacks, many Bush administration officials seemed determined to move against Iraq, invoking the idea of state sponsorship of terrorism, ?even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever?.

Ousting Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action, the general writes, dismissing it as a ?Cold War approach?.

Clark criticises the plan to attack the seven states, saying it targeted the wrong countries, ignored the ?real sources of terrorists?, and failed to achieve ?the greater force of international law? that would bring wider global support.

"There was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever"

General Wesley Clark


He also condemns George Bush?s notorious Axis of Evil speech made during his 2002 State of the Union address. ?There were no obvious connections between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea,? says Clark.


The former NATO commander acknowledges Iranian and Syrian support for resistance groups such as Lebanon?s Hizb Allah and the Palestinian movement Hamas.

?But neither Hezbollah [sic] nor Hamas were targeting Americans,? he writes. ?Why not build international power against Al Qaeda??

Instead, Clark points the finger at what he calls ?the real sources of terrorists - US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia?.

Clark blames Egypt?s ?repressive policies?, Pakistan?s ?corruption and poverty, as well as Saudi Arabia?s ?radical ideology and direct funding? for creating a pool of angry young men who became ?terrorists?.


The recent Democrat Party convert says Bush should have adopted a more preventive measures and targeted extremist leaders. ?The way to beat terrorists was to take away their popular support,? adds Clark, though he offers little to suggest how this would be achieved.

But White House policy was quickly set in order to achieve particular goals, Clark writes, saying the US administration used the 9/11 attacks to address broader objectives in the Middle East.

Clark, who supervised NATO?s campaign to oust Serbia?s forces from Kosovo in 1999, also takes a swipe at the United States? allies in Europe, which provided staging bases and planning headquarters for "radical" groups.

War record

The retired general last week declared his intention to win the Democrat nomination to challenge George Bush for the presidency in 2004.

Just days after entering the presidential race, Clark has raced ahead of the nine other Democratic contenders in the latest polls.

Many political observers have portrayed Clark as an anti-war candidate whose own war record ? he was decorated after being shot and wounded while serving in Vietnam ? means he cannot be accused of lacking courage or patriotism.

Clark has frequently criticised Washington?s policy towards Iraq.

He claimed previously that after the 9/11 attacks, he was pressed by the Bush administration to link the strikes directly to Iraq but refused - a claim the White House denies. However, once the war on Iraq began, he urged decisive action to achieve a rapid US victory.

Despite his anti-war stand on Iraq, the general has had a reputation for being belligerent. He was criticised during the Kosovo campaign for defending attacks on civilian Serbian targets, including the bombing of a television station that left about 20 journalists and other staff dead.

Article

 

[tnitsuj]

"Instead, Clark points the finger at what he calls ?the real sources of terrorists - US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia?.

Clark blames Egypt?s ?repressive policies?, Pakistan?s ?corruption and poverty, as well as Saudi Arabia?s ?radical ideology and direct funding? for creating a pool of angry young men who became ?terrorists?."

DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OUR SO CALLED ALLIES ARE F#CKING US IN THE REAR.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Clarks major problem could be ego. Now he certainly is far more accomplished than Bush, and to some degree has earned his arrogance. If can keep it in check, I think he could make a good president.

That there were/are plans made for attack is not suprising. That the plans were meant to be used, if possible, would be disquieting

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's hard not to be arrogant when you've got talent . . . that's why I cannot fathom why Bush is so arrogant.

I agree with much of what Clark says but accomplishing those difficult goals may be next to impossible considering the poisoned atmosphere created by Bush. That's not an excuse to continue Bush policies or do nothing but Clark has to acknowledge that the US will have to bend over backwards to earn the world's respect and cooperation. The problem with such frank discussions is it might not sell well with an American public that believes it has a right to live above the means of everyone else regardless of the consequences.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Item 1) tnitsuj - "OUR SO CALLED ALLIES ARE F#CKING US IN THE REAR."

A) Acutally no, they are using OUR alliance and support, both Politicaly and Financialy
to maintain thier dominance over their citizenry. We are their enablerers of repression.

Item 2) Winnie - I'm convinced that we have those plans for attack in reserve for defensive operations,
but when taken out of context of design and used "Pre-emptively" they cross the bounds of acceptability.

If, in fact. we are attacked then we are justified in using them in a defensive posture.
Using them on a 'What-If' basis, fabrication of false evidence to settle a grudge, or to gain
a homestead political advantage over another party is not what our country is about.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One of Clark's advantages is that he has personally worked overseas in a multinational setting and I believe has a good grasp of what the UN can and cannot do. He knows the structure and concerns of other countries, especially the Europeans.

Clark (or any Bush replacement) will need to go before the UN and make clear that unilateral pre-emptive policy was an abberation from the Bush administration, and that any future response will be more measured. Making enemies of the world was not a good strategy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Capt., I am not troubled that we have battle contingencies. We need them. That is the justification for academic military exercises. Pre-emptive philosophy alters all that. What was intended for defense, becomes Pear Harbor scenarios multiplied many times over. That was a pre-emptive as well. Iraq was a perversion of policy that did not need to happen, and should not again.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
One of Clark's advantages is that he has personally worked overseas in a multinational setting and I believe has a good grasp of what the UN can and cannot do. He knows the structure and concerns of other countries, especially the Europeans.

Clark (or any Bush replacement) will need to go before the UN and make clear that unilateral pre-emptive policy was an abberation from the Bush administration, and that any future response will be more measured. Making enemies of the world was not a good strategy.

Right....he is the prince of measured response..... and is keenly aware of English sentiment anyway.

Snippet......"The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.

When they did not get it, they felt double-crossed.

As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first.

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''


Then there is the whole thing of his "early" retirement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 308nato

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
One of Clark's advantages is that he has personally worked overseas in a multinational setting and I believe has a good grasp of what the UN can and cannot do. He knows the structure and concerns of other countries, especially the Europeans.

Clark (or any Bush replacement) will need to go before the UN and make clear that unilateral pre-emptive policy was an abberation from the Bush administration, and that any future response will be more measured. Making enemies of the world was not a good strategy.

Right....he is the prince of measured response..... and is keenly aware of English sentiment anyway.

Snippet......"The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.

When they did not get it, they felt double-crossed.

As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first.

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''


Then there is the whole thing of his "early" retirement.

Interesting that a Bushie would be critical of any one else for failing to have a measured response. Kind of like Atilla the Hun supporters being disappointed that the opposition was too aggressive in defending themselves. No matter. Assuming the article to be factual, this was not one of Clarks better ideas. I am continually evaluating Clark, Dean and the others. The Bushies problem is that most people are evaluating Clark as a potential replacement for Bush, not for an icon or idol to whom they must make obesience. I have no doubt that if Clark is elected he will make mistakes like any other. It is degree and kind of mistakes, and if they are corrected or just further compounded. I doubt many of the candidates would be the cluster fsck that Bush is.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If I remember correctly I do believe their was active debate over Russian activity in Kosovo. If you check the archives of any dink tank like Heritage or bluster press like NewsMax you will find plenty of articles that reference Russia as an adversary. The Russians were threatening World War well before Clark's near incident at Pristina. I'm not excusing Clark's behavior (which I think was wrong) but clearly many of you don't remember 1999 very well.

CNN International 99Jan

Administration officials were unpleasantly surprised when Russian troops rolled into the capital of Kosovo after repeated assurances from Moscow that they would not enter the province before a NATO-led peacekeeping force.

But after a flurry of late-night talks Friday, U.S. diplomats said they were satisfied with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov's claim that the deployment was an "unfortunate" mistake and waited for the forces to leave Pristina.

Jamestown Foundation

The Russians objected to a U.S.-sponsored amendment to the resolution that "all countries to arrest" those indicted for war crimes by the international tribunal for former Yugoslavia (AFP, Russian agencies, July 10). Moscow has repeatedly defended Belgrade authorities against war crimes charges while simultaneously calling for top NATO officials to themselves be punished for the alliance's air campaign in Yugoslavia.

Newsmax

Hundreds of angry Russian demonstrators marched through the Russian capital last week, calling for war on NATO. One banner carried by the marchers said: "It's time to bomb the military bases of the United States."

Newsmax 99AprNewsmax: Russians may send military aid to Milosevic

 

[308nato]

[/quote]Interesting that a Bushie would be critical of any one else for failing to have a measured response. Kind of like Atilla the Hun supporters being disappointed that the opposition was too aggressive in defending themselves. No matter. Assuming the article to be factual, this was not one of Clarks better ideas. I am continually evaluating Clark, Dean and the others. The Bushies problem is that most people are evaluating Clark as a potential replacement for Bush, not for an icon or idol to whom they must make obesience. I have no doubt that if Clark is elected he will make mistakes like any other. It is degree and kind of mistakes, and if they are corrected or just further compounded. I doubt many of the candidates would be the cluster fsck that Bush is.[/quote]

Interesting you call me a Bushie. I guess anyone who dares urinate on the great hope of the left is a Bushie.

Actually, I was merely pointing out that your characterization of Clark as a man who would be "measured" militarily or foreign relation wise is flawed. Most of what is being said about Clark currently is what the left wishes and assumes he is like. The sheep act like they have known him for years.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 308nato

Interesting that a Bushie would be critical of any one else for failing to have a measured response. Kind of like Atilla the Hun supporters being disappointed that the opposition was too aggressive in defending themselves. No matter. Assuming the article to be factual, this was not one of Clarks better ideas. I am continually evaluating Clark, Dean and the others. The Bushies problem is that most people are evaluating Clark as a potential replacement for Bush, not for an icon or idol to whom they must make obesience. I have no doubt that if Clark is elected he will make mistakes like any other. It is degree and kind of mistakes, and if they are corrected or just further compounded. I doubt many of the candidates would be the cluster fsck that Bush is.[/quote]

Interesting you call me a Bushie. I guess anyone who dares urinate on the great hope of the left is a Bushie.

Actually, I was merely pointing out that your characterization of Clark as a man who would be "measured" militarily or foreign relation wise is flawed. Most of what is being said about Clark currently is what the left wishes and assumes he is like. The sheep act like they have known him for years.[/quote]


If you noticed, I said Clark would have to assure the UN that responses would be more measured. That would be true for any Bush replacement, especially in light of how other countries were treated at the UN. Clark is an arrogant, stubborn SOB. Now, he worked within NATO. I believe you will acknowlege that the political situation within NATO is on a par with the UN. There are often squabbles. In the end, Clark had to work with these people in spite of his personal tendencies. Bush has demonstrated he cannot work with people. He tells people what they will do. If they do not, then he hurls barbs at them, dismisses them and goes about single mindedly. He cannot work with others with different outlooks. See how diplomatically he handled the UN assembly the other day. Diplomacy is beyond him. You are either his friend or enemy. If you lived this way, you would be out of a job in a hurry as someone who is dysfunctional. Unfortunately we can fire a President only every four years. Since I made the mistake of helping to hire him, I will be sure to try to reverse that error.

Clark, Dean, or any of the others perfect? Not nearly. Better than Bush has proven himself to be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

PS

If you are not an ardent Bush supporter, I retract my statement linking you to Bushies.

There ya go

 

[DealMonkey]

You're either with us, or you're a Bushie! Oh wait, no. Never mind, that was stupid.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You're either with us, or you're a Bushie! Oh wait, no. Never mind, that was stupid.

I've heard that before somewhere..

Clark is electable. He could command all the big coastal states including Florida and probably pick up Arkansas and Tennessee along with a small central northern state.. if Kerrey of Nebraska ran with him, he'd pick up that state too. I also think New Mexico would lean his way. No other democratic hopeful could manage this. I don't think.. In any event, he also has the Clinton machine with him in all the key slots and Bush's strong hold, the military would move away from Bush towards Clark but, they already are in the large state calc's.
To win the democratic nod, Clark just needs to act presidential and charismatic. If he gets hit with US Economic issues he needs to stick to vision and not specifics. In Foreign affairs... focus on how to undo the ill advised philosophy of the current administration.. while being strong... Americans like strong.. especially, the Central State folks.. Flags and Strength will carry the day.
At no time mention Hillary. She would upset the close states that he needs.. She has democratic support but, he'd get that anyway.. the game would be won by attracting the Bush states to his column..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You're either with us, or you're a Bushie! Oh wait, no. Never mind, that was stupid.

I've heard that before somewhere..

Clark is electable. He could command all the big coastal states including Florida and probably pick up Arkansas and Tennessee along with a small central northern state.. if Kerrey of Nebraska ran with him, he'd pick up that state too. I also think New Mexico would lean his way. No other democratic hopeful could manage this. I don't think.. In any event, he also has the Clinton machine with him in all the key slots and Bush's strong hold, the military would move away from Bush towards Clark but, they already are in the large state calc's.
To win the democratic nod, Clark just needs to act presidential and charismatic. If he gets hit with US Economic issues he needs to stick to vision and not specifics. In Foreign affairs... focus on how to undo the ill advised philosophy of the current administration.. while being strong... Americans like strong.. especially, the Central State folks.. Flags and Strength will carry the day.
At no time mention Hillary. She would upset the close states that he needs.. She has democratic support but, he'd get that anyway.. the game would be won by attracting the Bush states to his column..

Ah, but the flaw in your plan is that Clark doesn't control his path. As you mentioned - he has the Clinton machine behind him. He has no choice to wether or not Hillary gets mentioned - Bill is in control of the party - he is by far the most influential Dem and will somehow get Hillary into the WH:Q Just you wait and see

But yes Clark only has a chance if he is vague - we've seen how well positioned his statements have been so far.

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

Clark/Kerry would probably be a more viable ticket than a Clark/Dean Cage Match,
even though Dean has a higher Poll Number than Kerry.

The Double-Up on Military Service Records would serve them well as strong on policy,
and the two alone would provide twice as much Service Record as the entire Bush Administration.
Yes, Rumsfeld was in the service - an Instructor for the Navy, but George W. Felony Bush went
AWOL during his 'National Guard' stint, and somehow had charges kept from being pressed against him.
I guess having his father as CIA director, and his affiliation with the Nixon & Reagan Administrations
may have had some influence on keeping his records clean so as not to reflect on Daddy B.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clark/Kerry would probably be a more viable ticket than a Clark/Dean Cage Match,
even though Dean has a higher Poll Number than Kerry.

The Double-Up on Military Service Records would serve them well as strong on policy,
and the two alone would provide twide as much Service Record as the entire Bush Administration.
Yes, Rumsfeld <EM>was</EM> in the service - an <EM>Instructor</EM> for the Navy, but George W. Felony Bush went
AWOL during his 'National Guard' stint, and somehow had charges kept from being pressed against him.
I guess having his father as CIA director, and his affiliation with the Nixon & Reagan Administrations
may have had some influence on keeping his records clean so as not to reflect on Daddy B.

I would feel alot more comfortable with a Clark/Kerry ticket than any other combo. I still don't think they'd have a snow ball's chance in hell of getting elected, but on the off chance hell freezes over - I'd much rather see them than Dean/kucinich/Clinton/or any of the other dwarves in office.

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

I think we are seeing the Bush Administration alienating the 'Moderate' Republicans,
as well as those who ride the middle and swing vote either way.
Their hard core right supporters may not have the manpower (Voters) to carry them through
if they continue to ignore the wants of the general public. Jobs and Fiscal Policies may doom them.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: 308nato

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
One of Clark's advantages is that he has personally worked overseas in a multinational setting and I believe has a good grasp of what the UN can and cannot do. He knows the structure and concerns of other countries, especially the Europeans.

Clark (or any Bush replacement) will need to go before the UN and make clear that unilateral pre-emptive policy was an abberation from the Bush administration, and that any future response will be more measured. Making enemies of the world was not a good strategy.

Right....he is the prince of measured response..... and is keenly aware of English sentiment anyway.

Snippet......"The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.

When they did not get it, they felt double-crossed.

As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first.

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''


Then there is the whole thing of his "early" retirement.

I qoute Retired General H. Hugh Shelton former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

 

[LunarRay]

CADpublican said:
Ah, but the flaw in your plan is that Clark doesn't control his path. As you mentioned - he has the Clinton machine behind him. He has no choice to wether or not Hillary gets mentioned - Bill is in control of the party - he is by far the most influential Dem and will somehow get Hillary into the WH Just you wait and see

But yes Clark only has a chance if he is vague - we've seen how well positioned his statements have been so far.
*********************
He won't be vague. He'll be presidential... he'll say things like; In this economy getting employment back in shape is the first priority. He'll save specifics until the pulse is better taken at the Bush/Clark debates.
The Party Platform planks will spell out the general theme... and it better not be dumb...
Bill has Hillary in the Senate.. maybe if the needed states would support her she'd get the VP nod but not if it means the election... there is nothing Clinton would sacrifice for the opportunity to be Sec State.. Really, winning is the only way to play in the game, no one finishes second.. and they'd run Jim Trafficant if he'd put them over in '04.

Edit... Clark/Kerrey (of Nebraska)

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clark/Kerry would probably be a more viable ticket than a Clark/Dean Cage Match,
even though Dean has a higher Poll Number than Kerry.

The Double-Up on Military Service Records would serve them well as strong on policy,
and the two alone would provide twide as much Service Record as the entire Bush Administration.
Yes, Rumsfeld <EM>was</EM> in the service - an <EM>Instructor</EM> for the Navy, but George W. Felony Bush went
AWOL during his 'National Guard' stint, and somehow had charges kept from being pressed against him.
I guess having his father as CIA director, and his affiliation with the Nixon & Reagan Administrations
may have had some influence on keeping his records clean so as not to reflect on Daddy B.

I respect Kerry, but there are still to many unresovled questions revolving the incident in Vietnam, I dont think hes likely to invoke a military card, simply because of that. Hes much more of a man than that. I personally like Kerry as a human being, but I dont agree with his politics.

And when former higher ranking people in the military question Clarks integrity and character, I dont think it would really be wise for him to portray himself as a military man. He is not liked by most of the military. I respect him for serving our country but I dislike what he has done when in leadership positions.

 

[LunarRay]

The "incident" in VN was Kerrey of Nebraska MOH winner, not Kerry of Mass. Silver star winner...

 

[Gaard]

<<He is not liked by most of the military.>>

Did you read this somewhere?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: 308nato

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
One of Clark's advantages is that he has personally worked overseas in a multinational setting and I believe has a good grasp of what the UN can and cannot do. He knows the structure and concerns of other countries, especially the Europeans.

Clark (or any Bush replacement) will need to go before the UN and make clear that unilateral pre-emptive policy was an abberation from the Bush administration, and that any future response will be more measured. Making enemies of the world was not a good strategy.

Right....he is the prince of measured response..... and is keenly aware of English sentiment anyway.

Snippet......"The Russians, who played a crucial role in persuading Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to end the war, had expected to police their own sector of Kosovo, independent of Nato.

When they did not get it, they felt double-crossed.

As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first.

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''


Then there is the whole thing of his "early" retirement.

I qoute Retired General H. Hugh Shelton former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Then let's see specifics. If Clark does not deserve the office "bring it on". I can then add him to the list of unworthies, as I have Bush. Until then, I have seen contradictory allegations. He is on the short list for the time being. Perhaps Clark has problems and maybe its Shelton. I am sure as time goes on, the press will dig things up.