Gen. Clark apologized for the "collateral damage" (14 dead) -- NATO term for the killing of innocent civilians

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/20000107natotanj.htm


...a website like most cite around here

BONN -- Frankfurt daily Frankfurter Rundschau carried on the front page of its Thursday issue yet another NATO propaganda machination carried out during last year's aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with aim of convincing the public that the bombing of a passanger train in the Grdelica Ravine on April 12, 1999 was not intentional.

According to the German paper, at a press conference in Berlin held the very next day, NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark ran two video tapes, now proven to be doctored, which led to the preliminary conclusion that the passanger train had suddenly appeared on the bridge, thus making a direct hit unavoidable.

At the press conference Gen. Clark apologized for the "collateral damage" (14 dead) -- NATO term for the killing of innocent civilians, and justified the action by the video footage which was run at three times its normal speed, creating the visual illusion about the sudden appearence of the train, Frankfurter Rundschau said.

"Clark then promised that in the future every effort would be made to avoid 'collateral damage.' However, only a few days later the NATO warplanes bombed a column of refugees killing 80 people," the daily set out.

The fake video scandal emerged several months later but the Brussels spokesman of the U.S. Airforce, which carried out these bombings, said that the Americans "did not consider it useful to go public with this information," the paper said.

 

[Fausto]

Your linking skills are almost as strong as your reasoning skills.

 

[Czar]

omg, whats happening, he posted a thread linking to a story which makes the US look bad :Q

 

[Corn]

omg, whats happening, he posted a thread linking to a story which makes the US look bad

And the leftie's golden boy standing front and center presenting questionable evidence.........wow, sounds familiar.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

omg, whats happening, he posted a thread linking to a story which makes the US look bad

And the leftie's golden boy standing front and center presenting questionable evidence.........wow, sounds familiar.

Is that it? Compared to Bush that seems rather minor.

 

[SuperTool]

bbbbut Red Dawn, did you forget that when it comes to GOP politicians it's "totally different"

 

[Corn]

Is that it? Compared to Bush that seems rather minor.

Of course, presenting what amounts to be falsified evidence to CYA after the fact is really a minor issue, and gives not negative indications regarding the character of this individual.

Has Bush knowingly "lied" to coverup an atrocity he was ultimately responsible for? Scandalous! Why hasn't this hit the papers yet?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

..new thread on more clark lies to follow....White House pressures Clark to lie, so he claimed...at first...stay tuned for more lies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Is that it? Compared to Bush that seems rather minor.

Of course, presenting what amounts to be falsified evidence to CYA after the fact is really a minor issue, and gives not negative indications regarding the character of this individual.

Has Bush knowingly "lied" to coverup an atrocity he was ultimately responsible for? Scandalous! Why hasn't this hit the papers yet?

Where are the WMD's that Bush told us about that were such an immenant threat to America and the rest of the world? You think that if he hadn't of told that lie he would of been able to garner the support from the American People he did for the invasion and ultimately the occupation of Iraq? I doubt I would have supported the Invasion if I had known that I was being lied to by our President. I was willing to wait for them to be found before passing judgement but I have finally come to the conclusion that Bush and his handlers must of felt that the ends justified the means and that the lie was necessary for their agenda. I don't mind being lied to about some fscker getting a Blow Job but I really do mind being lied too for the purpose of swaying my support for a war that not only cost thousands of lives, but damaged our standing as a nation, our economy and the stability of the world.

 

[Corn]

Where are the WMD's that Bush told us about that were such an immenant threat to America and the rest of the world?

Are you, right here and now, telling me that you thind Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMD? Being wrong isn't a lie, and I'm not even yet convinced that Saddam is as innocent as the lefties would have us believe.

Secondly, assuming that what you say is true, that Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion, and that he would so skillfully lie to the public at large, that he (or his handlers) wouldn't have known the eventual truth that Iraq has no WMD and wouldn't therefore manufactured evidence, how come they didn't plan well in advance to cover this lie?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yep, Clark has the Bushies scared.

Now this is funny.

Thanks for drumming up support for him. You are, and I love it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Corn

Where are the WMD's that Bush told us about that were such an immenant threat to America and the rest of the world?

Are you, right here and now, telling me that you thind Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMD? Being wrong isn't a lie, and I'm not even yet convinced that Saddam is as innocent as the lefties would have us believe.

Secondly, assuming that what you say is true, that Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion, and that he would so skillfully lie to the public at large, that he (or his handlers) wouldn't have known the eventual truth that Iraq has no WMD and wouldn't therefore manufactured evidence, well in advance to cover this lie?

Ahh, so Bush didnt lie, he was merely incompetent. Started a war, but didnt take the time to verify his evidence carefully culled to support his view. Not a criminal, merely criminally arrogant and stupid. That makes me feel much better.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Where are the WMD's that Bush told us about that were such an immenant threat to America and the rest of the world?

Are you, right here and now, telling me that you thind Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMD? Being wrong isn't a lie, and I'm not even yet convinced that Saddam is as innocent as the lefties would have us believe.

Secondly, assuming that what you say is true, that Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion, and that he would so skillfully lie to the public at large, that he (or his handlers) wouldn't have known the eventual truth that Iraq has no WMD and wouldn't therefore manufactured evidence, well in advance to cover this lie?

The Buck stops at the top. Hell it's even more damning to Bush that he and his gang where so incompetent that they got us in a war based on false Intel. I guess that's a big whoops on their part huh? No I can't believe that those people were that utterly clueless. What's that say about us as Americans then? That we are so clueless ourselves that we would elect such incompetent Men for our leaders and then still support them the way some of you do?

I'm starting to smell something sinister about this Administration. I hope I am wrong about it though and I hope that they were right about the WMDs but its not looking good for them. I'm sure that like me you guys hope that we weren't hoodwinked but now when all has been said and done things just don't add up...or do they? Hmmmm..the contested elections, the Nomination of Ashcroft, the complete failure of the Intel Community to detect something was up that led to 9/11? Nah that would be to Orwellian.

 

[Corn]

How was Bush incompetant? Was the UN also incopentent at well? There is a reason they drafted SCR 1411 using language such as "material breach".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Nice try Red - Diverting this into a Bush thread is pretty silly. This thread was about Clark...are you a Clark Apologist?
Winston?

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn
How was Bush incompetant? Was the UN also incopentent at well? There is a reason they drafted SCR 1411 using language such as "material breach".

Where are the WMDs then? Do you think that Bush would of had the support he did without telling us of the immanent threat they posed to us and the world?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Nice try Red - Diverting this into a Bush thread is pretty silly. This thread was about Clark...are you a Clark Apologist?
Winston?

CkG

Don't know enough about Clark to be a supporter or not. He's just another Arnold at this time to me.

 

[phillyTIM]

How many tens of thousands of "collateral damage" bush caused and throw in a couple hundred of our military troops for good measure, and clark stacks up to bush HOW?

hmmm... i hear those crickets chirping again! lol

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey if Clark is a buck passer and a bold face liar then it will come out. In my book that doesn't exonerate Bush. Just like when the UC's bring up Clinton. Just because Clinton lied doesn't exonerate Bush from lying. The UC's might be right when they accuse him of having a flawed Character but they are more than willing to overlook Bush and his Adminstrations flaws which seem to be much worse.

 

[Corn]

Hey if Clark is a buck passer and a bold face liar then it will come out. In my book that doesn't exonerate Bush. Just like when the UC's bring up Clinton. Just because Clinton lied doesn't exonerate Bush from lying.

I agree wholeheartedly. As of today, I've not seen one person provide me with any credible proof that Bush lied.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
How many tens of thousands of "collateral damage" bush caused and throw in a couple hundred of our military troops for good measure, and clark stacks up to bush HOW?

hmmm... i hear those crickets chirping again! lol

So that makes it OK? or "less bad"?

Now care to stick to the Subject instead of diverting this into a Bush Bash thread?


Red - Exactly - Clark is just an untried politician who has yet to define his stances(atleast publically). My guess is that he'll try to form himself into "moderate" Bush hater WE'll see how his social policy stances turn out though.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Nice try Red - Diverting this into a Bush thread is pretty silly. This thread was about Clark...are you a Clark Apologist?
Winston?

CkG

It's you rightwinger Bush apologists who bring up Clinton every time to divert attention from Bush's failures.
How many American soliders died under Clark's command in Serbia/Kosovo?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Hey if Clark is a buck passer and a bold face liar then it will come out. In my book that doesn't exonerate Bush. Just like when the UC's bring up Clinton. Just because Clinton lied doesn't exonerate Bush from lying.

I agree wholeheartedly. As of today, I've not seen one person provide me with any credible proof that Bush lied.

OK, where are the WMDs? Was that just an error on his part? I think going to war over an error would be classified as incompetence to the highest degree wouldn't you? Hell if this was Gore or Clinton I would be just as bothered.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
How many tens of thousands of "collateral damage" bush caused and throw in a couple hundred of our military troops for good measure, and clark stacks up to bush HOW?

hmmm... i hear those crickets chirping again! lol

So that makes it OK? or "less bad"?

Now care to stick to the Subject instead of diverting this into a Bush Bash thread?


Red - Exactly - Clark is just an untried politician who has yet to define his stances(atleast publically). My guess is that he'll try to form himself into "moderate" Bush hater WE'll see how his social policy stances turn out though.

CkG

Not that it really matters. I don't think there's any way in hell he, Edwards, etc will get within a stone's throw of the Dem nomination. The lack of political experience is going to put off most voters regardless of their position on the various issues.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
How many tens of thousands of "collateral damage" bush caused and throw in a couple hundred of our military troops for good measure, and clark stacks up to bush HOW?

hmmm... i hear those crickets chirping again! lol

So that makes it OK? or "less bad"?

....
CkG

Yes, dozens of collateral damage deaths is "less bad" than hundreds. Is it hard to understand?
/edit
And no US soldiers killed is "less bad" than hundreds.
And having our NATO allies help us is "less bad" than putting out $100B++
And having an exit strategy is "less bad" than getting stuck in open ended guerilla war.
And Milosevic sitting in the Hague is "less bad" than both Osama and Saddam on the loose.