Author Topic: A thousand words..... (Read 813 times)

Udie · « **Reply #15 on:** September 22, 2003, 12:44:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The "hat incident" was a diplomatic mission. I bet they had drinks together too. Go find something important.

U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol.

This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the "Clark Rule": whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats.

After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat.

After such behavior, Clark was never on the promotion list to full general until he appealed to Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He got his fourth star and became commander in chief of the Southern Command. His last post, as NATO supreme commander, found this infantry officer leading an air war against the Serbs over Kosovo. Clark argued with NATO colleagues by insisting on a ground troops option and complaining about the slowly graduated bombing campaign. He was pushed out abruptly by Defense Secretary William Cohen.

It was? Then why did the Ambasador get fired for it? Why didn't Richard Holebrook want him to do it? Your blinders fit well

muckmaw · « **Reply #16 on:** September 22, 2003, 01:03:02 PM »

Anyone remember that picture of Micahel Bukakis in the Tank with the Helmet on?

Flashback, anyone?

212 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 22, 2003, 01:10:23 PM »

The spiders from mars are eating my skin!

Furious · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2003, 04:39:53 PM »

So where were the spiders while the fly tried to break our balls?

midnight Target · « **Reply #19 on:** September 22, 2003, 04:59:36 PM »

Quote

After berating Clark for several minutes, Mladic abruptly changed tactics and began admiring the U.S. general's uniform. Before the meeting was over the two generals exchanged caps. Mladic also presented Clark with a gift -- a pistol engraved "From General Mladic."

This was, to say the least, a public relations blunder. Mladic was later indicted for wars crimes by the Hague Tribunal and the Washington Post reported, somewhat unfairly, that the cap exchange incident was "like cavorting with Hermann Goering."

Gen. Sir Michael Rose of Great Britain, then commander of the U.N. Protection Force in Bosnia, who was present at the meeting, thought Mladic had made a fool of Clark. "It was horrible to watch," Rose wrote in "Fighting for Peace," his book on Bosnia.

It was a PR blunder, but now please turn a critical eye to the rest of the article Rip posted.

1. Sir Michael Rose was there too. Rose was the NATO commander (over Clark) at the time. So who's idea was it to visit Mladic?

2. "U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters" - I have searched and searched for these "diplomats"... who were they? Why would Rose not be the one warned?

3. The article makes it seem that Richard Holbrooke was trying like hell to hold this wild Clark guy back... read this interview with Holbrooke. What do you think? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/guys/holbrooke.html

There is more of course, just pointing out the ways a media report can be slanted and even contain lies.

Gadfly · « **Reply #20 on:** September 22, 2003, 05:05:31 PM »

How did they slant the Hat?

AKIron · « **Reply #21 on:** September 22, 2003, 05:09:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
They have a KKK senator (shrugs). The Republican party would never be allowed *(by the media and dems) to have a KKK member (or ex-KKK member) as a senator.

They even have Ted Kennedy. They should change their motto to "The end justifies the means."

midnight Target · « **Reply #22 on:** September 22, 2003, 05:16:51 PM »

One more little thing...

The meeting took place on Aug. 26, 1994. The Srebrenica massacre took place in July 1995. Yet the article is written:

Quote

U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians

Makes it sound like Clark knowingly met with a war criminal. Clarks meeting came almost a year before the massacre.

Thats one way to slant the hat.

Gadfly · « **Reply #23 on:** September 22, 2003, 05:55:33 PM »

You got that right.

AKIron · « **Reply #24 on:** September 22, 2003, 05:57:20 PM »

I think you're right about the slant in that article MT. However, I think Mladic was already known for being heavy handed prior to the massacre. One thing you can count on, especially if Clark gets the nomination, the facts, at least the dirty ones, will be revealed.