|
WASHINGTON
-September 18 -
- PETER HART, phart@fair.org, www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
Hart, who works with the media watch group FAIR, said today: "A review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions -- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. 'victory.'"
- ZOLTAN GROSSMAN, zoltan@igc.org, www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/peace.html
Grossman is assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire and author of the recent article "Was Gen. Clark Also 'Unprepared' for the Postwar?" He said today: "Clark waged a war against Yugoslavia that had similarly shaky motives and consequences as the Iraq invasion. Clark has whitewashed the 1999 Kosovo war as a 'humanitarian' campaign to rescue Albanians from 'ethnic cleansing,' even though it actually helped fuel the forced expulsions. NATO bombed Serbian cities, even though Serbian democrats objected that the bombing undermined their ultimate victory over President Milosevic. Clark claims that the NATO occupation brought 'peace' to Kosovo, but he did not lift a finger to stop the 'ethnic cleansing' of Serbs, Gypsies and Jews that took place on his watch."
- KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, kat@thenation.com, www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7
Editor of The Nation magazine, Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote in a recent piece: "It's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in [Clark's] military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the U.S. European Command. Call it Clark's 'High Noon' showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans...."
- CHRIS TOENSING, CATHERINE COOK, ctoensing@merip.org, catherine.cook@merip.org, www.merip.org
Toensing and Cook are with the Middle East Research and Information Project based in Washington. They said today: "Neither Israel nor the U.S. has any right to dictate to the Palestinians who their leader will be. That the U.S. vetoed the UN resolution criticizing Israel's decision to 'remove' Arafat is not surprising, given its history of vetoing resolutions critical of Israel. However, to do so while espousing the rhetoric of building democracy in the Middle East is yet another sign ... of the double-standards in U.S. foreign policy."
- STEPHEN ZUNES, zunes@usfca.edu, www.commondreams.org/views03/0914-04.htm
Associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism, Zunes said today: "Over the past three decades, the United States has used its veto power far more than all other Security Council members combined.... The entire House Democratic leadership has taken the unprecedented step of publicly attacking the 'front-runner' for its party's presidential nomination [Howard Dean] -- even though he has openly declared that he agrees more with AIPAC than Americans for Peace Now -- simply because he suggested that the U.S. should be more even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
###
|
