That's it? You really think he's making this up? I'm pretty sure it's from books he's reading on the subject (i.e. stuff you can't link to) or it's from direct conversations with his professors who'd know much more about the situation than the author of this article. I have no doubt he'll be back later to clarify.
And one of Latin America's most-wanted terrorists resides in Florida, the same state that...let's see, what's his name? oh, yeah...Jeb BUSH is governor. I wish I could remember the guy's name, but I know he walks around freely. Funny that The Weekly Standard jumps on Clark. Are the Republicans afraid of him or something?
It wouldn't be the first time. His 'research' has proved error prone on numerous occasions. I'm pretty sure I've read some books (that I can't link to) that confirm Clark's misdeeds.
What about the second part of my quote? He's currently having conversations with people more in the know than the author of this article.
1. Sir Jackie Chiles, that was one of the best posts I've ever seen. That was classic. 2. I don't really mind seeing these kinds of articiles about candidates. But those that post them shouldn't mind seeing them about presidents and members of his cabinet either. I don't know if the posters are the same, but I keep hearing people dismiss threads and articles against Bush, because 'oh it's just Bush-Hating and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously.' Should people say the same thing about these Clark articles or should we take them all seriously depending on the source and content?
Since you asked. Wasn't the U.S. part of NATO in 1994? Several months before the lunch: <a HREF="http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1994/p94-031.htm">DECISIONS TAKEN AT THE MEETING OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL ON 22ND APRIL 1994 ((1))</a> <a HREF="http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/WR95/HELSINKI-03.htm">BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA</a> <i>............On April 10, as Bosnian Serb troops stood on the verge of overrunning Gorazde, <b>two U.S. jets flying a NATO mission </b>attacked a Serbian command post outside the besieged town. The attack represented not simply the first NATO air strike of the Bosnian war, but the first air strike in NATO history. Bosnian Serb forces briefly halted their offensive, but by the next day they advanced once again. U.S. jets carried out a second mission, this time destroying a Bosnian Serb tank. On the same day, President Clinton announced that NATO would continue to use air power until the advancing forces withdrew from the Gorazde area.........</i> <i>.....On March 2, <b>two U.S. aircraft under NATO command</b> shot down four Serb jets near Banja Luka in northwestern Bosnia. Though an April 1993 U.N. resolution authorized the enforcement of a "no-fly zone" over Bosnia, the downing of the Serb jet represented the first enforcement after nearly 1,400 reported violations. According to an April 22 NATO ultimatum, Bosnian Serb forces were ordered to immediately halt their attack on Gorazde, allow the free passage of displaced persons and relief personnel, and withdraw all troops from the town's center. NATO threatened air strikes against Bosnian Serb heavy weaponry and other military targets found within a 12.4-mile radius of Gorazde's center, and later extended the ultimatum to include the remaining U.N.-declared safe areas of Bihac, Srebrenica, Tuzla, and Zepa. On April 24, when it appeared that Bosnian Serb forces were not complying with NATO demands, then-NATO Secretary-General Manfred Werner asked that the alliance begin conducting air strikes. After the U.N. extended their deadline, the Bosnian Serbs made significant strides in withdrawing its troops from the 1.9- mile zone, and both NATO and U.N. authorities stated that air strikes would not be necessary. NATO and U.N. leaders expressed satisfaction with the withdrawal, but a number of Serbian forces remained within the exclusion zone in violation of NATO's demands. In July, UNPROFOR forces found themselves under increasing attack by Bosnian Serb militias. <b>On August 5, two U.S. war planes under NATO command</b> bombed a Bosnian Serb antitank vehicle near Sarajevo after Serbian soldiers sneaked into a U.N. weapons collection point and removed heavy guns. In the fourth NATO attack in 1994, NATO war planes strafed and bombed an vacant Bosnian Serb tank near Sarajevo in retaliation for a Serb attack on French U.N. peacekeepers............</i> <hr color=green> Mladic wasn't a bad guy until after his meeting with Clark? Clark was unaware of the things that happened during Mladic's command prior to their lunch and cap exchange?</i> Something else? About six weeks before the lunch, the UN appoints Mr. Richard J. Goldstone as Prosecutor of the International Tribunal. <a HREF="http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/279/27/PDF/N9427927.pdf?OpenElement">RESOLUTION 936 (1994)</a> Less than a year after the lunch. <a HREF="http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/kar-ii950724e.htm">THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST RADOVAN KARADZIC RATKO MLADIC</a>
This article debunks Bamma's theory that the U.S. didn't take out any serb hardware because Clark ordered them to fly to high in the sky. It looks like they did a pretty good job.
Mladic wasn't a bad guy until after his meeting with Clark? Clark was unaware of the things that happened during Mladic's command prior to their lunch and cap exchange? Where did you get either of these things? We weren't really involved at this point - we had no troops in the weak UNPROFOR and were specifically avoiding that. We did provide some air cover, of course, as part of NATO. At this point, we were still looking for the diplomatic solution. Clark's job was to evaluate the leaders involved - he visited both the Bosnian and Serb leaders on that trip. That was the entire point of it. I never said the Mladic was a good guy. This was before the Dayton accords, before a peace plan had been established, and before US troops were on the ground with the stronger NATO peace-making contingent. He did the job he was asked to do, and that was to get a better feel for what was really going on down there. Mladic, by the way, had not yet been indicted for war crimes at this point in time. In his own words: <I>"Meeting with Mladic was especially useful. Although the United States had not taken sides officially in the conflict, our concerns were clear. How many people, I reflected at the time, have the opportunity to size up a potential adversary face-to-face? He carried a reputation among the U.N. forces for cunning and forcefullness, I found him coarse and boastful. He knew far less than he thought about NATO, airpower, and the capabilities of the United States." ... <I>"The fact was that I had not received instructions not to visit. Fortunately, I had strong support within the Defense Departmnet, the NSC staff, and at State for having visited both sides to lay the basis for a proper policy analysis. I heard that the President sent a letter back to Congress in my defense, and, after a few meetings with Congressional staffers, the controversy died."</I>
did you read the entire article? "Three days after Shelton took office as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his commitment to the integrity of the military was tested. When U.S. planes in the Iraq no-fly zone were attacked, a member of Congress suggested that perhaps "we" could fly a U-2 spy plane so low over Iraq that it could easily get hit. Then we'd have a reason "to kick Saddam out of Iraq." After Shelton responded that he would order that "just as soon as you are qualified to fly (it)," he was not asked again to compromise his office. "Sometimes people in a position of power lose perspective on right and wrong," Shelton said." you're right, he certainly sounds like a bush-bobblehead...
Your original post was rather vague and I was trying to project what your aim was. I had written: Mladic wasn't a bad guy until after his meeting with Clark? Clark was unaware of the things that happened during Mladic's command prior to their lunch and cap exchange?</i> Something else? Your response left out my final question seeking clarification of your intent. NATO airpower was shooting at Bosnian Serb targets, I view that as being involved. If NATO airpower was targeting <b>both</b> Bosninan Serb and Muslim targets, then it would be possible to view the U.S. as neutral. <a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/05/clinton_arms/">U.S. gave tacit approval for Iran-to-Bosnia arms shipments<a> <i>The Clinton administration gave tacit approval for arms shipments from Iran to the Bosnian army, despite a United Nations embargo against sending weapons into the region. Shipments of small arms, mortars and other light weapons were flown into Croatia in 1994 for the Bosnians, also violating the U.S. administration's official policy of isolating Iran because of that country's alleged support of terrorist activities. A senior administration official told the Los Angeles Times that President Clinton participated in the early 1994 decision to inform Croatian President Franjo Tudjman that the U.S. would not block an Iran-to-Bosnia arms pipeline. Arms shipments also came from at least two other countries -- Turkey and Malaysia -- but the United States did not object. "The United States has always maintained that it upheld the letter of the law and the requirements of the U.N. Security Council resolution," said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry. A White House official told CNN that "the U.N. resolution did not call for an air embargo," adding that the U.S. and its allies did stop arms shipments coming by sea. "I do not support that arms embargo and I never have," President Clinton said during a speech in May 1994. "We worked with all our allies and tried to persuade all of them that we should end it." The U.S. ended its official participation in the embargo in November 1994 under pressure from Congress. </i> When did I argue that Mladic was indicted at the time of the Clark lunch?
