Saturday, March 03, 2007

Democracy Now--Giving A Platform to Liberal Militarism

Gen. Wesley Clark [retired] was on Democracy Now on Friday. In the hour-long interview there was so much appalling rationalization of why the US needs to use military force around the world, I had to question what Amy Goodman was up to giving him such a platform. I'm hoping it was so that he would discredit himself. At any rate, Clark argued that Lt. Ehren Watada was wrong to refuse deployment to Iraq on the basis that the war was illegal. [By the way, Clark thought it was fine for himself and a bunch of other generals to go ahead and invade Haiti when they knew--as he said- “OK, if you want to invade Haiti, I mean, it's not illegal. It's not the country we'd most like to invade. The opposition there consists of five armored vehicles. But sure, I mean, if the President says to do it, yeah, we're not going resign over it.”] That being said, in the interview Clark justifies his view of Watada's refusal by stating the following:

"But an armed forces has to have discipline. It's a voluntary organization to join. But it's not voluntary unless it's illegal. And you can bring -- the trouble with Iraq is it's not illegal. It was authorized by the United States Congress. It was authorized by the United Nations Security Council resolution. It's an illegitimate war, but not an illegal war."

The above statement that the Security Council authorized the invasion is A FLAT-OUT LIE, yet Amy Goodman did not challenge Clark on it. See the article below on the circumstances surrounding the UN resolutions on Iraq:

FROM WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE entitled 2003 Invasion of Iraq:

In his March 17 , 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay to surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline. [26] This demand was reportedly rejected.[27] Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required. The UN weapons inspectors ( UNMOVIC) headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC). The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA reported a level of compliance by Iraq with the disarmament requirements ( UN Security Council Resolution 1441; IAEA) Hans Blix went on to state the Iraqi government may have been hoping to restart production once sanctions were lifted and inspectors left the country, as speculated by senior Iraqi officials and a prominent defector, Gen. Hussein Kamel.[28] The attempt of the United Kingdom and the United States to obtain a further Resolution authorizing force failed. Thus, the Coalition invasion began without the approval of the United Nations Security Council , which United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan regarded as a violation of the UN Charter. [29] (cf. The UN Security Council and the Iraq war) Several countries protested. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal." [30] Proponents of the war claim that the invasion had implicit approval of the Security Council and was therefore not in violation of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to International Law, it is up to the Secuity Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[31] [32][33]

People in the NY audience for the above interview took many opportunities to applaud Gen. Clark. Even though during parts of the interview he advocated the use of cluster bombs and excused the killing of civilians in the US bombing of Serbia. I'm still not sure why Amy Goodman chose to spend an hour with this man, but here is hoping that enough people will see through his "liberal general" act that he will stop "thinking about running for president every day." Although I guess he is just being more frank than the rest of the presidential candidates who don't usually display their bloodthirstiness in so open a forum.


Here is an article about Gen. Clark, exposing more problematic behaviour:

No comments: