Ann Coulter’s new article rips Clark. As with most Coulter articles, it’s funny if way over the top. She does make a couple of points that are worth remembering:
In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn’t hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn’t even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker…
At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won’t have to worry about any embarrassing “mission accomplished” photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there!
This makes alot of sense. I’d have a difficult time thinking of any criteria by which it would be OK to attack Serbia (an idea supported by DLC Democrats such as Clark) but by which it would not be OK to attack Iraq. Imminent threat? Nope. Humanitarian abuse? Not so much. Support for terrorism? Also no.
Also, don’t forget that the Democrats’ genius general is, well, a really bad general:
Under Clark’s command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors’ residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall.
Of course, Coulter is still kind of a clown. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing – it’s a clown’s job to be funny, and she does her job well.
