Replies

Clark is not a star witness - any more than General Naumann was.

He merely adds to the body of evidence against Milosevic on the various counts, and I note that his testimony on the meetings with Milosevic prior to Allied Force corroborates that of General Naumann, who testified in June of '02.

This isn't a topic for those with short attention spans or people looking for knock-out legal blows, it's complicated and requires some effort to appreciate what's happening.

So should General Boykin (a man I admire immensely but whom ,I acknowledge, made himself radioactive) testify in the trial of Saddam? Do you believe there is such a thing as a witness with baggage?

By the way, your comments seem to suggest that he is a non-essential witness-- face it, he was called to bolster his candidacy. Everything he could testify to is not unique to him, and if he is not so fragile, why was he shletered by the judge to such extremes? I think what Mr. Clark learned in the process of his "technically illegal" War should be allowed to be challenged by the accused, and from other posts, it appeared you felt the same way.

Can you imagine being a defendant in a trial where the Chief Investigator declared the investigation to be unconstitutional and the judge prohibited you from pursuing that line of questioning? Clark should never have testified. His present philosophy on dictators and his historic record in the Balkans should have taken him out of the pool of witnesses for the prosecution.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry082603.asp

The above link is interesting. It appears the only think Clark should testify about is abject failure and practical irrelevance. It seems Mr. Short saved Wesley's bacon. The only thing Clark is a witness to is his own moral and tactical incompetence.