Wesley Clark's Ties To Muslim Terrorists

AIM Report ^ | September 17, 2003 | Cliff Kincaid

[Dan2001]

The retired General who had been refusing to declare himself a Democrat or Republican is now declaring himself a Democratic presidential candidate. But more important than his party affiliation is Wesley Clark’s bizarre view on how to fight terrorism. The media refer to Clark’s impressive military credentials but they fail to note that his main accomplishment under President Clinton was presiding over the establishment of a base for radical Islamic terrorism, including Osama bin Laden, in Kosovo. Clark, who has been making headlines by claiming that the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq was a misjudgment based on scanty evidence, ran Clinton’s NATO war against Yugoslavia on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
	Iowa						35.00	2

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Dan2001]

That was perfectly fine. While I have views that are more in line with democrats, I WOULD ANY DAY, and I say that today, vote for Bush over Clark. Any day!

[n.y.muggs]

hell no

[FairOpinion]

Good find.

But we don't need to excerpt AIM articles.

Full text:

---

Wesley Clark's Ties To Muslim Terrorists
By Cliff Kincaid
September 17, 2003


The retired General who had been refusing to declare himself a Democrat or Republican is now declaring himself a Democratic presidential candidate. But more important than his party affiliation is Wesley Clark’s bizarre view on how to fight terrorism. The media refer to Clark’s impressive military credentials but they fail to note that his main accomplishment under President Clinton was presiding over the establishment of a base for radical Islamic terrorism, including Osama bin Laden, in Kosovo.

Clark, who has been making headlines by claiming that the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq was a misjudgment based on scanty evidence, ran Clinton’s NATO war against Yugoslavia on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The House of Representatives failed to authorize the war under the War Powers Act, making it illegal. Thousands of innocent people in Serbia, Yugoslavia’s main province, were killed to stop an alleged "genocide" by Yugoslavia that was not in fact taking place. Investigations determined that a couple thousand had died in the civil war there.

Kosovo was a province of Yugoslavia and the military intervention of the U.S. and NATO, a defensive alliance, was unprecedented. It was far more controversial than the policy of regime change in Iraq, which was a policy of Clinton, Bush and the Congress. Kosovo was never a threat to the U.S., and Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic didn’t even pretend to have weapons of mass destruction.

Clark wrote a Time magazine column, "How to Fight the New War," in which he said we need new tactics and strategies against terrorists. He also said, "We need face-to-face information collection: Who are these people, what are their intentions, and what can be done to disrupt their plans and arrest them?"

For the answer, Clark should ask his old friend, Hashim Thaki, the commander of the KLA. The 1998 State Department human rights report had described the KLA as a group that tortured and abducted people and made others "disappear." Yet a photograph was taken of Clark and Thaki with their hands together in a gesture of solidarity.

The KLA’s ties to Osama bin Laden were also well-known and reported.

An article in the Jerusalem Post at the time of the Kosovo civil war had said, "Diplomats in the region say Bosnia was the first bastion of Islamic power. The autonomous Yugoslav region of Kosovo promises to be the second. During the current rebellion against the Yugoslav army, the ethnic Albanians in the province, most of whom are Moslem, have been provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries. They are being bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters, or Mujahadeen, who infiltrate from nearby Albania and call themselves the Kosovo Liberation Army. U.S. defense officials say the support includes that of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist accused of masterminding the bombings of the U.S. embassies" in Africa.

Another Democratic presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, has tried to prohibit funding for the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), the successor to the KLA now being protected by U.N. troops as a result of the outcome of the conflict. Kucinich said an internal United Nations Report found the KPC responsible for violence, extortion, murder and torture.

After the war, Milosevic was ousted and put on trial, where he has been making the case in his own defense that Serb troops in Kosovo were fighting Muslim terrorists associated with bin Laden. At a hearing before the U.N. court trying him, he brandished an FBI document concerning al Qaeda-backed Muslim fighters in Kosovo.

The FBI document was a congressional statement by J. T. Caruso, the Acting Assistant Director of the CounterTerrorism Division of the FBI, who cited a terrorism problem in Albania, the base for the Muslim terrorists that attacked Serbia forces in Kosovo.

Clark’s presidential decision suggests that he believes the media will not ask him about supporting the same extremist Muslim forces in Kosovo that militarily attacked us on 9/11. He’s right: during interviews on ABC’s Good Morning America and the NBC Today show on September 17, the subject didn’t come up. Clark did say that he would not have gone to war with Iraq, and that he would have turned the matter over to the U.N. There was no "imminent threat" from Iraq, he claimed.

So where was the "imminent threat" to the U.S. from Yugoslavia? And why did the Clinton administration bypass the U.N. on that illegal war? Clark is counting on not hearing those questions from the same media going after Bush on Iraq. They are all worse than hypocrites.

[n.y.muggs]

The idiot Clark has his answer to catching UBL and crew in Afghanistan. He would ask the Saudis to send soldiers to Afghan to cathc bin Laden

The Saudis who have never fought in an organized war and are a desert kingdom, are expected to fight in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan.

[duckln]

Good post! It's the most accurate sumup I've read. Where are our 'pundits'. It seems as if they are an easily manipulated bunch. Except for Pat Buchanan of course. He had it right from the beginning!

First, Clark met Mladic, and exchanged hats. Then he flipped and sucked up to Hashim Thaki.

IMO, of the two, Mladic was the good guy.

BUMP

[bobo1]

It is rather obvious, we had those kind when I was in the military. There were officers that were totally political.

However, the truth was, they couldn't command a toy boat in a bathtub.

I don't really think Clark ever got into the bathtub, in my estimation.

blessings, bobo

[duckln]

What were our pundits saying in 98-99

Why Are We in Kosovo?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
January 22, 1999

And where does President Clinton get the authority to launch air strikes -- acts of war -- against a sovereign nation whose troops are putting down a rebellion on their own soil?. . . . . . If we attack Serbs inside their own country, do Serbs have a right to attack us in ours? Why has Congress not demanded to know where we are going here, before we are ensnared in a war?...

Once again, U.S. air and naval forces are preparing strikes on Serbia's army and police for refusing to stand down in Kosovo. And, once again, Americans are deeply ambivalent about intervention.

"Either we get in there with a NATO force, or we get the hell out," said an exasperated Sen. John Warner after Yugoslav strong man Slobodan Milosevic showed two NATO generals the door.

Warner advocates intervention. But Americans sense that, despite our disgust at the latest massacre and Milosevic's thuggery, no vital U.S. interest exists there. The Serbs do not threaten NATO; they have not attacked Americans; they are fighting to hold onto a province that is the birthplace of Serbian nationhood. Whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital has never been critical to us.

Defense Secretary Bill Cohen asserts that NATO's "credibility remains on the line." But who put it there? Before the 1990s, most Americans had never heard of Kosovo. And where does President Clinton get the authority to launch air strikes -- acts of war -- against a sovereign nation whose troops are putting down a rebellion on their own soil?

If we attack Serbs inside their own country, do Serbs have a right to attack us in ours? Why has Congress not demanded to know where we are going here, before we are ensnared in a war?

As the Kosovo Liberation Army has been accused of terrorism and seeks independence from Belgrade, which the United States opposes, why make our Air Force the air arm of the KLA? The KLA clearly wishes to drag NATO in as its shield against the Serbian army. But why should we accommodate the KLA? What is in it for us?

America's fear is of a Balkan war, and one scenario runs thus: Kosovo, 90 percent Albanian, breaks free of Serbia to unite with Albania. The Albanians in Macedonia then attempt to break free to join them. Macedonia disintegrates; Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria all tear off a chunk. Having lost Kosovo, Serbia seeks to reunite with its kinsmen in Bosnia, smashing the Dayton accords. With Muslims in Bosnia under siege and Greece grabbing territory, Turkey enters the war.

Such a Balkan conflict would be horrific, but Balkan wars broke out in 1912, and again in 1913, without any great power intervening. Only in 1914, when Russia and Austria each saw its "credibility on the line" and clashed over Serbia, did World War I erupt, one of the worst disasters of Western civilization. History's lesson: If you wish peace, stay out of the Balkans.

Before we use air power, that night stick of the New World Order, we should ask: What is it we hope to accomplish? To punish Milosevic? To convince him to send his army back to the barracks?

But if he complies and U.S. intervention brings independence to Kosovo, which then attempts to unite all the Albanians in the Balkans, leading to Macedonia's collapse, do we intervene with U.S. troops to guarantee everyone's territorial integrity?

Air strikes in Kosovo might be like those air strikes in Vietnam in 1965, the first bold step into the Big Muddy.

What is happening in the Balkans today is the continuation of the deconstruction of the Ottoman Empire, the "Sick Man of Europe" of the 19th century, and of the Hapsburg Empire, which collapsed in 1918. The centrifugal force in this struggle is virulent nationalism.

Slovenes wish to be ruled by Slovenes, Croats by Croats, Serbs by Serbs, Muslims by Muslims, Albanians by Albanians. All have shown a willingness to fight, to die and to see their own suffer and die in considerable numbers rather than submit to what they hold to be alien rule, either religious or ethnic. The past decade of atrocities and reprisals has hardened hatreds all around.

But why is this America's conflict? If, as Bismarck observed, the entire Balkans were not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier, why do they justify an American military intervention?

If NATO will commit 100,000 troops to Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia indefinitely, it can probably maintain the status quo. But NATO Europe doesn't have the troops, and Americans don't believe the Balkans are worth that heavy a commitment.

So we arrive at Warner's alternative: Get out, let the Balkan peoples settle their own quarrels, but be there to aid the innocent victims rather than add to their roster with air strikes and murderous sanctions that inflict suffering and death on people who never did us harm.

Of the German squadron pressing him at Manila Bay, Adm. George Dewey said, "They are too pushing and ambitious; they'll overreach themselves someday." They did, and so will we, with our constant compulsion to intervene in every foreign quarrel.

Back to Articles, Letters, and Speeches
Back to Our Home Page

T H E I N T E R N E T B R I G A D E
Established April 1995
47671 Whirlpool Square - Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165

Linda Muller - WebMaster

http://www.buchanan.org

Disclaimer

[bobo1]

Precisely,

All those that would condemn Bush yet declare the greatness of clintoon, should read this, along with those that declare the rightness of the war in Kosovo.

Liberal politics.

blessings, bobo

[ThreePuttinDude]

Slovenes wish to be ruled by Slovenes, Croats by Croats, Serbs by Serbs, Muslims by Muslims, Albanians by Albanians. All have shown a willingness to fight, to die and to see their own suffer and die in considerable numbers rather than submit to what they hold to be alien rule, either religious or ethnic. The past decade of atrocities and reprisals has hardened hatreds all around.


Then why the hell don't the Albanians move back to Albania??
They have been invading Yugoslavia for years, and Clinton backed
and supported these invaders. How about the local population
that have many generations of heritage in that country, but yet
Clark/Clinton/NATO support the invading Muslim Albanians.


This has always been total BS

[genefromjersey]

I don't care for this gentleman much myself,but blaming him for Kosovo seems a bit of a stretch.

The KLA (or its earlier Muslim equivalents) had been duking it out with the "Christians" since the middle ages.Whenever one side got on top, there were atrocities.

Clinton apparently thought it would make the Muslim world happy if he got us mixed up in that mess,and Clark was the military commander on the job.

[duckln]

Clark was a 'judas' goat, and did it with relish.
Now, he wants to president?

[lainde]

I always knew that was a sham war!

[getgoing]

Have you seen a copy of Clarks character reference from Clinton yet? Geeezz, the diarrhea dynasty keeps 'afloating round the pot.

[yoe]

Politics out in the open, do not become little Wesley, he is a behind the scenes manipulator. As strong a patriot and military man as he claims - he would never, never rail with such hatred; such virulent remarks as he has been making about our Commander in Chief in public. He is, as described by many, a little faker.

[ThreePuttinDude]

He is, as described by many, a little faker.


Your right, he is a little "Facker".....oooppss spell check didnt work.

[brothers4thID]

Check out reply #4, here.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Is Clark running?