The author loses credibility when he/she praises the Serbs and denies any
massacares on their part in his/her attempt to paint Clark's actions as NATO
commander as dangerous.
Further, I was in Ft. Hood when Clark was 1st Cav. commander and Waco was
going down, so I know a bit how things run in the military. At that time,
there was another division on base, the 2nd Armor, and a base commander
above Clark. That someone who reported to Clark was involved with Janet Reno
is hardly an indictment of Clark's leadership. Does the author seriously
think that members of the military have a choice when the White House askes
for tanks? By what logic Delta Force (based in North Carolina) reports to
Clark when working in Texas is also not clear to me.
The rest of the article is no more logical. The writer goes on and on about
the evils of this and that, but it is not clear what this has to do with
As typical of this angry attack piece, Clark's racial motives are
questioned ("What has Wesley Clark ever done to endear himself to black
voters?") but nothing at all is said about his record.
Interestingly, there is nothing in the whole piece about drugs or the drug
war, despite the title.
The bottom of the piece explains it: this is an simple attack piece by a
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:55 AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: [Trippy-Dippy-Hippies] Wesly Clark -