9/23/03 WP: Wes Clark outed on TV for selling 5 yr/$245billion occupation

(On 9/23/03 Wesley Clark was outted on live TV by Dennis Kucinich for being one of the authors of the intelligence document stipulating a 5 year-long occupation of Iraq costing a quarter trillion dollars that was used to brief Congress after the invasion. This qualifies, to me, as working for the neo-cons and leaving the American public completely out of the loop on a PNAC project which is destroying our nation's security and economy.-JOM)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true

SEIB: Turning on Iraq to Congressman Kucinich and Reverend Sharpton, you've both been outspoken critics of the war and have said, in fact, you'd bring the troops home. But the fact is that as of now the troops are there, the United States is committed.

Would you vote--will you vote yes or no on the $87 billion? And if the answer is no, what's the message you would send to the troops who are there today?

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate--and I'm the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration's march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.

After a while, we're going to be sacrificing our education, our health care, our housing and the future of this nation.

SEIB: Congressman?

KUCINICH: Bring them home.

I wish it were otherwise but that is a discussion on the table.

and warn the public about them.

He WAS THE FIRST ONE TO ACTUALLY NAME THEM.

You are clueless.

March 23, 2003

(snip)

(Tapper) "Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ... "

(Clark) "I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index_np.html

This is really sad. I have more respect for Clark than I do for his supporters because he doesn't pretend to be anything he isn't but many of you guys are so determined, for some unfathomable reason, to get him in that you spin these unbelievable yarns about what you think he needs to be in order to best sell him. Very bad marketing and that's what killed him in the elections.

If Clark had done it his way, without the DLC orchestrating a charade, he might just have gotten enough Republicans & Moderate/Conservative Democrats behind him because that was the crowd he was appealing to but some slick bozo thought they'd jump on the antiwar bandwagon leaving Clark sputtering in a wave after wave of contradictions.

Big mistake. And you're making it again.

You are exactly right.

and then editorializing about your own cut and paste job.

Tinoire is good at it, but doesn't make her right.

Makes her appearing to be working overtime in the editing room...late at night, working as though an operative of some kind.

Can't get to the rest...cause my cookies aren't loading up just right now to get the one day pass at Salon...but this is a long article, if I remember.....and there is much more than the pieces that you cut and pasted out to make again, your point.

I will read this article in full tomorrow, and I will get back to you as to how you are changing the character of what Clark is saying by taking his words out of context.

It's an old game, but it only makes you look like you have a real agenda. Too bad, for a minute there, I was impressed with your posts!

You're unlikely to hear Clark the candidate speak up on CNN, now that we're in the middle of war. But when Salon spoke to Clark just before Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced, he didn't shy away from criticizing Bush foreign policy. "I don't think the case has been made well," Clark told Salon about a war with Iraq. "It's been made very poorly."

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT W.CLARK. IT IS ABOUT THE PRESENT AND 'WILL WE HAVE A FUTURE?' GET THE BIG PICTURE AND REALIZE WHY WE ALL KNOW OF ELECTION FRAUD AND THE MEDIA...ARE...SILENT. THIS IS RELATED.

I am frantically urging you ALL to learn to look deeper than words and a few critical gestures used to establish having 'taken sides.'

There is a tactic being used by both Repubs and Dems, mostly Repubs, to campaign under a false flag to infiltrate with winners or draw resources away to keep better candidates from winning-
USING...
1)the public's blindly loyal sports team mentality, now with the Red vs Blue-conditioning intentionally being created to further the effect.

2)the CIA, Corporate Invisible Army, which has been running the mainstream media for 60 years now in the service of the 'Grey Men' who run the corporate power that IS the American government.
(that's another thread but must be learned eventually)

WESLEY CLARK IS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF HOW
OUR ENTIRE NATION IS RIGGED AGAINST DEMS AND LIBERALS
BY CORPORATIONS, MEDIA, CIA WORKING TOGETHER TO CREATE ILLUSIONS.

PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE. IT IS LONG AND INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AMERICAN POLITICS. It covers everything. Clark's career, businesses, books, smear against Kerry, the 'Grey Men,' and written by someone conservative enough to sneer at 'Numb Chomsky.'
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=42&num=5107
(Axis of Logic website, Craig B. Hulet-author,
'Understanding the Stalking Horse Wesley Clark')

Hulet details how Clark fronted for an agency specializing in OUTSOURCING JOBS, a data-mining firm which violated its own privacy agreement and gave 2,000,000 records to DOD for airline security research, lobbied for same firm with John Poindexter at DARPA, etc.

This is a classic Military Industrial Neo-con type profile, people.

>snip<

During mid-2002, I informed my client base, through press releases, an article and e-mails, then later at our regular quarterly business roundtables that George Bush Junior was building the American-led empire, just as Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan and Carter before him. This was and is seen as bad enough if you understand what this regime means for liberty, jobs and any hopes for a future living standard somewhat above that of a third-world developing country. But that is not the only threat in the future for Americans.


“I used to say, ‘you think Clinton’s bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.’
And if you think George Bush is the problem, you have not seen what comes after Bush.

Bush is building the Empire. Wait until you see who comes to run the Empire.I’m looking for a 4-star general, retired, that’s looking for a nomination. And believe me, they’re out there.

Whoever runs this Empire will not be of the same ilk as those who build it.”

>snip<

Certainly it matters when this individual “switches party affiliations” (so as to run against that same president he was critical of when he supposedly got fired) out of right-field; certainly it matters a great deal that he runs in the same neo-conservative circles of elites that not only the Clinton’s did, but the “very same” circles Mr. Bush Junior and Mr. Bush Senior did, and still does. It matters.



Background matters



While in the Army Clark was General Alexander Haig’s protege. Deep throat? The month the general retired from the military he was on the board of directors of the Stephens Group, merchant bakers, out of Little Rock, Arkansas as their managing director. The firm’s website states the group’s activities this way:



“Stephens Inc. has been putting its own capital into companies and enterprises since 1933, with investments ranging from small positions in public and private companies to outright acquisitions. Primarily through our parent, Stephens Group Inc., we invest in a wide variety of industries. Many of the companies in which we have invested have become leaders in their industries. Our industry investments include: Oil and gas, Publishing and media, Health care, Financial services, Technology, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retailing and others, the Internet and e-commerce.”



Clark joined Stephens Group, Inc., in July 2000, as I stated, the same month he retired from the Army. He served on the boards of directors of Acxiom Corp. of Little Rock; Entrust Inc. of Dallas; Sirva, Inc. of Westmont, Ill.; and privately held Time Domain Inc. of Huntsville, Ala.



It may be irrelevant that Lady Hillary of WalMart was a Rose Law firm associate in Little Rock as well. But let us take note for historical reasons in any case. Rose Law Firm clients include:



Acxiom, Corporation Alcoa, Inc., Arkansas Business Publishing Group, Arkansas Capital Corporation, Arkansas Development Finance Authority, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Arkansas Gas Consumers, Arkansas-Oklahoma Gas Corp. Aromatique, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., Bank of the Ozarks Baxter, Healthcare Corp., Bombardier, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Bunge Corporation, CIGNA Companies, City of Little Rock AR, Residential Housing and Public Facilities Board, Columbia Chemicals Company, Cooper Communities, Inc., Deltic Timber Corporation, Diamond State Ventures, Donrey Media Group, Inc., The Equitable Life Assurance, Society of The United States Fairfield Communities, Inc., Firstar Bank, N.A., General Electric Capital Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Gulf States Toyota, Inc., John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., HEALTHSCOPE Benefits, Inc., International Paper Co., The Kemper Insurance Group, Lyon College, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Morgan, Keegan & Company, Inc., Mountaire Corporation, Murphy Oil Corporation, New York Life Insurance Co. Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, Panhandle Eastern Corp., Peabody Hotel Group, Plum Creek Timber Company, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pulaski Bank and Trust Company, J.A. Riggs Tractor Company, Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust, Pat Salmon and Sons, Inc., Keith Smith Company, Inc., Sol Alman Company, St. Bernards Regional Medical Center, Stephens Inc., Stephens Group, Inc., Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable Trust, Bank of America, Trustee SunCom, Wireless TeleCorp Communications, Inc., Temple-Inland Forest Products, Tyson Foods, Inc., White River Health Systems, Inc., Wingmead, Inc.

_____________________________________________________

Acxiom Corporation, 1 Information Way, Little Rock, AR 72203

Key Facts

· Number 72 on Fortune’s “Best Companies to Work for” list.

· Serves customers in the government, media, retail, financial services, health care, telecom, automotive, and consumer products markets.

Company Overview

Founded in 1969 to help the Democratic Party improve its mailing lists, Acxiom sells its enormous marketing database to direct marketers and other companies that want to more precisely target their customers. The database contains information about 95 percent of all households in America.

____________________________________________________

One company that Clark sat on the board of Directors and lent his name is SIRVA, Inc.; whose wholly owned company, SIRVA Relocation, has as its main function in over one hundred countries, the relocation of entire firms and industries overseas. In other words, the general, complaining about the deteriorating economic foundations here in America and the attendant job losses (did you remember?) from globalization whereby American workers are abandoned as companies move offshore, was aided and abetted by non-other than general Wesley Clark (retired), who was paid quite well (salary and stock) in seeing that this was done expeditiously, efficiently; or to put it in SIRVA’s own words:



GLOBAL ASSIGNMENT MANAGEMENT

With offices in over 43 countries, Global Certified Partners in over 100 countries and Regional Centers of Excellence in Chicago, London and Hong Kong, SIRVA brings you unprecedented end-to-end control of your global relocation program. "global_locations.asp" for a complete list of countries.... SIRVA Relocation’s comprehensive menu of global services begins with the first visa application and continues through the duration of every assignment. SIRVA’s Global Assignment Management Program recognizes specific needs for handling assignees from any home and host location.



Not to put too fine an edge on my humble presentation but the general may just be the biggest liar to have ever run for public office in American history. Indeed, the general, in this analyst’s humble opinion, is set to protect the American-led Empire from any disruption, any change of course, set out by the present administration of George Bush Junior and his band of elite neo-conservatives.



General Wesley Clark has, for years, circulated in the very same circles as each neo-con holding senior positions in the present Bush administration and has been a board member of the institutions of this American-led empire everywhere he could wriggle his skinny bullock’s way in. On the boards along with Clark are not a group of patriotic America-firsters, a pack of Pat Buchanans or isolationists. Indeed, we find Clark in the company of nearly every significant Republican office holder who has pressed forward the corporate globalization agenda of the U.S. multinational monopoly corporate structure for decades: i.e., Corporatism. His bio off the web states:



General Wesley K. Clark (U.S. Army, Retired) is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a business services and development firm based in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is senior military analyst for Cable News Network (CNN) and is Chairman of the Board of WaveCrest Laboratories, a technology company that specializes in electric propulsion systems that transform electrical energy into mechanical motion. General Clark is a noted speaker presenting key insights on strategic leadership, foreign and military policy and high technology to corporate leaders and other audiences. He serves pro bono as a distinguished senior advisor for the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), as a Director of the Atlantic Council, and as a member of the board of the International Crisis Group, Messer-Griesheim and SIRVA Corporation.

______________________________________________________________

Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS): CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, formerly deputy secretary of defense, who has been president and CEO since April 2000. It is guided by a board of trustees chaired by former senator Sam Nunn. Brent Scowcroft chairs the board of governors; and Zbigniew Brzezinski are listed under “members” and the whole list with some background is included here:



Betty Stanley Beene: United Way

Reginald K. Brack: Time Inc., Time Warner, Inc.

William Brock: 1985 - 1987: United States Secretary of Labor 1981 - 1985: United States Trade Representative 1977 - 1980: Chairman, The Republican National Committee

Harold Brown: Secretary of Defense 1977-81

Zbigniew Brzezinski: 1977 to 1981, National Security Advisor to the President

William Cohen: Secretary of defense, from January 1997 to January 2001

Ralph Cossa: Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies

Douglas N. Draft: Chairman of the board/CEO of The Coca-Cola Company

Richard Fairbanks: Ambassador-at-large under President Reagan, chief U.S. negotiator for the Middle East peace process, and assistant secretary of state for congressional relations. Also served as associate director of the White House Domestic Council

Michael P. Galvin: Assistant secretary of commerce for export administration in the Bush administration,

John J. Hamre: U.S. deputy secretary of defense (1997-1999) and under secretary of defense (comptroller) (1993-1997)

Ben W. Heinemen:

Carla Hills: U.S. Trade Representative from 1989 to 1993. As a member of President; Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Ford administration Bush’s Cabinet,

Ray L. Hunt: Chairman of the board, president, and chief executive officer of Hunt Consolidated, Inc., and chairman of the board and CEO of Hunt Oil Company. Additionally, he serves as a member of the boards of directors of Halliburton Company, PepsiCo, Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corporation, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Security Capital Group Incorporated.

Henry Kissinger: Henry Alfred Kissinger was sworn in on September 22, 1973, as the 56th secretary of state, a position he held until January 20, 1977. He also served as assistant to the president for National Security Affairs from January 20, 1969, until November 3, 1975. In July 1983, he was appointed by President Reagan to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America until it ceased operation in January 1985, and from 1984 to 1990 he served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Kaenneth G. Langhone: Serves on the boards of Choicepoint, Inc.; General Electric; TRICON Global Restaurants; Unifi, Inc.; and the New York Stock Exchange.

Donald B Marron: Chairman and chief executive officer of Paine Webber Group Inc

E. Stanley O’Neil: President and CEO of Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.

Felix G. Rohatyn: U.S. ambassador to France from September 11, 1997, until December 28, 2000. managing director of the investment bank Lazard Freres and Company Board of Governors of the New York Stock Exchange from 1968 to 1972.

Charles A. Sanders: chairman and CEO of Glaxo Inc., spent eight years with Squibb Corp

James Schlesinger: senior adviser to the investment banking firm of Lehman Brothers and as chairman of the Board of Trustees of the MITRE Corporation.Nixon selected him to become chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. He held that post until February 1973 when he was named director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He served in the latter position until July 1973 when he was appointed secretary of defense. He remained at the Defense Department until November 1975.

Brent Scowcroft: Assistant to the president for national security affairs to Presidents Ford and Bush. He also served as military assistant to President Nixon and as deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs to Presidents Ford and Nixon. Prior to joining the Bush administration, General Scowcroft was vice chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc. He serves as director on the boards of Pennzoil-Quaker State and Qualcomm Corporations. He is also on the Board of Advisors of ExpertDriven, Inc.

Murray Weidenbaum:1981 and 1982, Dr. Weidenbaum was President Reagan's first chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. In that capacity, be helped to formulate the economic policy of the Reagan administration and was a key spokesman for the administration on economic and financial issues. From 1983 to 1989, he was a member of the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board.

Dolores D. Wharton: Board of directors of the Capital Bank & Trust Company, Albany, New York. In 1976, Mrs. Wharton was elected the first woman and first black to the board of the Phillips Petroleum Company and served for 18 years until her resignation in 1993. She also pioneered as a former director of the Kellogg Company for 22 years and Gannett Co., Inc. Among her other prior boards are National Public Radio (NPR), COMSAT Corporation, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, the New York Telephone Company, the Michigan National Bank, and Key Bank, Albany.

In the area of the arts, Mrs. Wharton was appointed by President Ford to the National Council on the Arts of the National Endowment for the Arts

Frederick B. Whitmore: Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. Partner in 1967; managing director since 1970, when the firm incorporated; advisory director, January 1989.

director on the following corporate boards: Ecofin Limited, London, England; Partner Reinsurance Company Limited, Bermuda; Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma; Maxcor Financial Group, New York; Sunlife of New York, New York; KOS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Florida; Southern Pacific Petroleum, Australia.

R. James Woolsey: Partner at the law firm of Shea & Gardner in Washington, D.C. He returned to the firm in January 1995 after serving two years as director of the Central Intelligence Agency is presently a member of the boards of directors or boards of managers of: Linsang Partners, LLC; BC International Corporation; Fibersense Technology Corporation; Invicta Networks, Inc.; DIANA, LLC; Agorics, Inc.; and Sun HealthCare Group, Inc. He is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. He has served in the past as a member of the boards of: USF&G; Yurie Systems, Inc.; Martin Marietta; British Aerospace, lnc.; Fairchild Industries; Titan Corporation; and DynCorp. (DynCorp has contracts to train police and military in Iraq)

Amos A. Jordon: Has held the positions of principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, deputy under secretary of state, and acting under secretary of state for security assistance. A former U.S. army brigadier general and a West Point department head, Jordan also served as a member of President Bush's Intelligence Oversight Board.

Leonard Marks: Chairman, U.S. Department of State, International Communications Advisory Committee, 1989-94.

Robert S. Strauss: Corporate lawyer; Chairman of the Board of the U.S.-Russia Business Council January 1993. He is a Partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.

In August 1991, Mr. Strauss was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, he in turn became U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation.



It is veritable who’s who from each Republican administration since Nixon. A sprinkling of Democratic administration officials and a gaggle of corporate board members. Officials from the Carter Administration are less numerous as well and those familiar with Carter‘s global elite will need no further introduction here.

(Source: http://csis.org/about/index.htm#4)

____________________________________________________

Atlantic Council: James A Baker III (and several other notables!) are listed as Honorary Directors -- detailed biographical material is omitted due to a veritable redundancy.

James A. Baker III

Frank C. Carlucci III

Warren Christopher

Harlan Cleveland

Russell E. Dougherty

Gerald R. Ford

Alexander M. Haig, Jr.

Christian A. Herter, Jr.

Robert S. McNamara

Paul H. Nitze

Bernard W. Rogers

Edward L. Rowny

George M. Seignious II

Raymond P. Shafer

George P. Shultz

William H. Webster

John C. Whitehead

(Source:) http://www.acus.org/board/Default.htm



The Bushes are laughing in their hats!



Ring any bells?



It should be noted here as just one instance of the politico/commercial nepotism inherent in these ongoing relationships; I am sure some Noam Chomskian “followers” will make the argument that “so what, this proves nothing.” Standing alone this may be true. But one has to have had some history tracking “all” the activities of “all the men” who make up the various lists, corporate and defense board rooms, NGOs, Foundations and Trusts, and high level government positions of note. And they are far more numerous than one article about one candidate for president could possibly contain.



The Grey Men, was a term first used by an author to describe the men above. Some crackpots that believe anything Clark says thought I was speaking of “little Grey men” from Mars, in the hopes of discrediting my skeptical rebut and painting an uglier picture of me than is even necessary. The Grey Men were described that way because they are indoors all the time, board rooms, meetings at NGOs, dinner at the rainbow room, sipping a white wine at the Council on Foreign Relations’ latest hobnobbing event. And, I must add, it is true, I have met some of them personally, they do take on a certain skin color for being so white and so little time in the sun. In any case to give you one example of the system effects:



Santa Fe International (I know, here he goes again....)



An example might aid the Chomskian neophyte: Take Carla Hills, former Trade Representative in the Bush Senior administration; her husband Roderick Hills sat on the board of directors of Santa Fe International along with Brent Scowcroft, Bush Senior’s National Security advisor and partner of Kissinger Associates, along with former president Gerald Ford, who made George Bush Sr., CIA director at the crucial time of the Cointelpro hearings over the CIA’s illegal domestic black-ops. Santa Fe International is, and was at the time of Persian Gulf I, an American corporation wholly owned by the ruling Al Sabah family of Kuwait. Which some might argue caused some personal concerns over our dispatching ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait? Given that Santa Fe International’s main contribution in the oil exploration field was its “slant drilling technology” which was used to steal oil from Iraq by the Al Sabah families’ Kuwaiti operations, one would have hoped it might have gotten a bit more notice than it did at the time.



But let us get back to our, becoming more discreditable now all the time, general Wesley Clark (Retired) and Democratic hopeful.



In the area of non-commercial enterprises the one which stands out is a Republican Administration initiated, neo-conservative institution only a few would recognize. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Here is a bit of background for the uninitiated.



The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was launched in the early 1980s, premised on the idea that American assistance on behalf of democracy efforts abroad would be good both for the U.S. and for those struggling around the world for freedom and self-government. This is called nation-building, which both Clark and Bush have stated the U.S. military ought not to be doing. Which is what we are presently doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Then President Ronald Reagan proposed an initiative “to foster the infrastructure of democracy--the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities--which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.” He noted that the American Political Foundation would soon begin a study “to determine how the U.S. can best contribute--as a nation--to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force.” Delivered to a packed Parliamentary chamber in Britain’s Westminster Palace, the Reagan speech on the topic would prove to be one of the central contributions to the establishment of a U.S. democracy foundation. ...The American Political Foundation’s study was funded by a $300,000 grant from the Agency for International Development(AID) and it became known as “The Democracy Program.” Its executive board consisted of a broad cross-section of participants in American politics and foreign policy making. The Democracy Program recommended establishment of a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation to be known as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Endowment, though non-governmental, would be funded primarily through annual appropriations and subject to congressional oversight. NED, in turn, would act as a grant-making foundation, distributing funds to private organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy abroad. A much needed investigation would be to look into who received some of these grants and funds over the years. (Ralph Nader’s groups like Public Citizen and right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation would be the place to start.) These private organizations would include those created by the two political parties and the business community, and those in the labor movement already in existence. ...NED’s creation was soon followed by establishment of the "http://www.cipe.org" (CIPE), the "http://www.ndi.org" (NDI), and the "http://www.iri.org" (later renamed the International Republican Institute or “IRI”), which joined the Free Trade Union Institute as the four affiliated institutions of the Endowment. Here is where we find Wesley Clark once again. Here is another group with as many ties to the elite institutions of governance as one could imagine.



NED Executive Board Members:

Vin Weber Chairman, Thomas R. Donahue Vice Chairman, Matthew F. McHugh Secretary, Julie Finley Treasurer, Carl Gershman President,



Board of Directors: Morton Abramowitz Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations Evan Bayh U.S. Senate, Wesley K. Clark U.S. Army Retired The Stephens Group, Inc., Frank Carlucci Chairman of the Carlyle Group, Thomas R. Donahue Senior Fellow Work in America Institute, Esther Dyson Chairman Edventure Holdings, Julie Finley Founder and Board Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, William H. Frist U.S. Senate, Francis Fukuyama Institute of Public Policy George Mason University, Ralph Gerson President & CEO Guardian International Corp., Bob Graham U.S. Senate, Lee Hamilton Director The Woodrow Wilson Center, Antonia Hernandez President Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Richard C. Holbrooke Counselor Council on Foreign Relations, Emmanuel A. Kampouris President and CEO, Retired American Standard, Inc., Jon Kyl U.S. Senate, Leon Lynch Vice President United Steelworkers of America, Matthew F. McHugh Counselor to the President The World Bank, Donald Payne U.S. House of Representatives, Vin Weber Managing Partner Clark & Weinstock, Dante B. Fascell (1917-1998), John Richardson, William E. Brock, Winston Lord, John Brademas Chairmen Emeriti , (Source: NED Annual Report 2000, NED Officers and Directors)



These are names that serious researchers know well. These are names not of liberal progressive thinkers, compassionate do-gooders, but monopoly corporate elites who revolve in and out of each administration, for over five decades now, bringing the American-led empire to fruition. Bringing the American-led military forces into countries uninvited to “build their nations” along lines more compatible to the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Agency for International Development. Sustainable development is one of their useful euphemisms.



This probably doesn’t matter to a Chomskian but Frank Carlucci Chairman of the Carlyle Group, is one name that appears with Wesley Clark often on boards of directors and NGO membership lists. It is, or ought to be at least by now, well-known, Frank Carlucci’s intimate ties to the Bush family for decades.



Circle of Friends they were called in Weimar Germany



And none of this matters to the dewy-eyed Democrats? But we, those of us trying to wrinkle our brain matter, begin to see the revolving door yet again. From the military, to defense firms, to the monopoly corporate board rooms to the White House. The Iron Triangle Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of; from the elite institutions and circle of friends as they have been called since the heady days of Weimar Germany. One man often sitting on up to eighty different boards of directors, institutions both non-governmental and commercial, banking and industry. The elite who’s who; where often as few as 5,000 mostly white males can be seen running everything that matters. I stated this during early 1990-91 in lectures and was duly chastised by the silly-Left as an “obscure conspiracy theorist from the right.” It bothered me none at the time as I knew time would bear it out as too true to deny. We all know now who runs both major parties, who runs the important major institutions, who runs, in their enlightened self-interest everything that matters; everything that doesn’t matter, is left to us to decide, bicker over.



What may be afoot



What I sense is afoot will certainly not make a Democrat grin. My sense of it is from personal, very personal experience; experiential that is to say. I have worked on more than one candidate’s campaign (both D’s and R’s and one Libertarian’s). I have seen first hand what I am about to describe to the reader.



To begin with, the Grey Men exist; it is no more a conspiracy than it is a conspiracy theory. It is neither one nor the other. They are neither left nor right. But they do care very much indeed where our country is going and it’s been going towards Empire for decades. (See this author’s book “The Hydra of Carnage” 2002; in fact see the fifty books currently in print making the argument in one way or another.) These powerful men operate on the fringe of electoral politics, funding it, manning it, backing it, but never themselves running for any elective office as that would be a significant loss of power and critical exposure. Even the president has nothing like the power the power elite (C. Wright Mills’ term, not mine) maintain by being in the background where they never see a background check.



Are these men going to spend “their” collective billions of dollars “for decades” to build their American-led corporate Empire under the tutelage of every president since FDR, and see it frittered away by Howard Dean, John Kerry or anyone else? Have they have gotten a man who has long taken orders from above to switch parties and run as a stalking horse for Mr. Bush Junior, to see Bush is reelected with certainty? What kind of a man, then, is this Wesley Clark? Here is just a slight sampling from the recent past. “His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, “the Supreme Being.” “Clark is smart,” concludes one sarcastically who has monitored his career. “ his whole life has been spent manipulating appearances (e.g. the doctored OPFOR exercise) in the interests of his career.” (Col. David Hackworth)



“A long time ago, the French, tired of war, turned to a short general named Napoleon to lead them to peace and prosperity. Instead, Napoleon seized imperial power and ensured the French would have more war. After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the "anti-war" candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people.” -- Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist.



Retired Colonel David Hackworth says about Clark ... “Some have said that Clark is the way the elites in the Democratic party hope to get rid of Dean who has made a mockery of the elite’s acceptable candidates - i.e., Kerry and Lieberman.

>snip<

so much more...

this document? I find it VERY INTERESTING.

I trust Kucinich above all the other candidates that ran for prez this past year.

I don't see a document. Do you?
I trust my eyes......

And for you to characterize Tinoire as behaving "like an operative" is
becoming a pattern of 'attack the messenger' comments that contradict your ability to produce thoughtful information.

I refrain from commenting about a DU-er preferring to comment on the topic at hand. You go to this tactic rather frequently.

Just noticing.

:shrug: Just asking.

and find large portions of pertinent information being left on the cutting room floor.

My mama didn't raise no fool.

So in this case, considering that Tinoire has already said that she doesn't respect Clark supporters, I'm not quite sure why I should be kissing either one of your asses about the disinformation campaign that I am finding here in this thread.

A document that no one can produce started this damn thread....with your avatar hooked up to it. NOT ME.

So yes, I am attacking the messengers....cause I see that the message is being massaged to make certain points.

It's deceitful, it's propaganda and it's dishonest.

NEXT!

Is that the document you are demanding? Apparently only Dennis Kucinich (who was a good reference for you sometimes) dared to mention it out loud and Wesley Clark did not deny it. It was never spoken of again and is probably classified.

Let me repeat that. On live TV...Wesley Clark...did not deny it.

I don't know what is personally between you and Tinoire and I don't care. I care about the future of this country and how many more dead and wounded we will have in establishing the neo-con Empire.

I care about the long past of Wesley Clark and the corporations he has fronted either in the US military or as a revolving door civilian lobbyist.

I care about the reams of information in the link in my post #103.

I am curious about every bit of information I can find instead of hurling accusations and insults, a transparent obfuscation, I am sorry to say.

What are you interested in besides slamming every door that is opened on the topic of Wesley Clark that does not deify him? Are you so convinced of his olympian virtue that any criticism must be a slur? I don't know anyone that pure, not even Dennis Kucinich.

Only Denis and Sharpton went that route, to my recollection. So a reference to a five-year-plan doesn't "out" anything. Ending the occupation through an orderly transition was his stated policy, not some secret plot. Surely JohnOneillsMemory recalls that this was Kerry's plan, too.

Why people would like to see it is to evaluate his characterization of "pretty much stay the course". The course we are on, it seems, is one of permanent occupation -- is that what the document said? Or was it a five-year-plan for resolving the issues and leaving?

I don't see this as a settled issue, even here on DU. Many call for immediate withdrawal, many say stay to ensure and orderly transition. Many started in the second camp but have been pushed into the first by the ineptness of the occupation. I don't think the latter camps are influenced by their careers as civilian lobbyists.

FrenchieCat is carrying on as if that were the only potential smoking gun, the same way Rather's not even discredited AWOL document was focused on to keep from looking at the rest of the story.

Please read my post #103. It is an eye-opener.

I want information, not cults of personality and tactical obfuscation.

It was his stated policy. Where's the "outing", here?

Lots of Dems who opposed the war did not support immediate withdrawal. Why is such a position so damning? If it is so damning, why aren't you cheering on John O'Neill for keeping a monster who held the same position out of the White House? Or are you?

As for post 103, why do you feel the need to change your attack 100 posts into your own thread? Talk about obfuscation. Suddenly it's not about handling the occupation, but about association with the "Grey Men" of empire and educating "Chomskian neophytes". Not everyone sees the world through those lenses.

pretty damn fast.This is a very hot topic judging by the reaction to it.

I was still reading the story in #103 which is pretty long but had enough info to jog my own memory about that debate incident which I had saved at the time in the WP transcript.

Things are connected here. It isn't just about the occupation or even just about Wesley Clark.

That isn't so complicated, just filled with misconceptions and mistaken identities. Connect the information elucidated in #103 and the debate incident.

The neo-cons may be making mistakes but there is a continuity with the last 100 years of the American government asserting itself fueled by corporate power, colonization, covert destabilization, assassination, propaganda, economic eugenics, etc.

I only seek to understand the game and the players. The only stake I have in this is survival for all of us.

Maybe bacause your tactics are so similar. But not sorry about the rest. Your OP is in fact about Wes Clark and the occupation.

Your post 103 reads like a game of "Six Degrees of Wes Clark". If you want to post about neocons, imperialism and eugenics that is not about occupation or Wes Clark, I suggest you do so in a thread that you have not titled "Wes Clark outed on TV for selling occupation".

I don't connect your post to the debate incident because it does not connect to the debate incident. Clark thought immediate withdrawal was not the best answer to the mess Bush had created, and said so openly. Kucinich had a different position and also said so. There was no peek behind the curtains at the great machinery of empire, as you seem to believe. Just a difference in policy that is still being argued over by Democrats of all stripes today.

and please read closer as to what TINOIRE as to say about Clark supporters. I don't like it....and I ain't kissing no ass tonight to make you happy.

and in answer to your question, it's only flamebait because Clark supporters have already started their "Clark 2008" campaign and all the nasty facts of Clark not being what they want you to believe he is must be dealt with before 2007.

Direct quote from the debate. And notice that not one candidate on that stage said this was incorrect or misleading. In fact, there was a stunned silence in the audience because Kucinich had just dropped the $245 billion bombshell.

Democrats were still reeling from the $87 billion and just learned that $87 BILLION was only the FIRST INSTALLMENT.

The first installment of the cost of the PNAC colonial plans for post-Saddam Iraq drawn up by a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

===
Kucinich: "I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true

Our question is, where is this mysterious document that was never spoken of again, by Dennis or anyone else?

Is it hidden in the bowels of the Vatican, along with proof that Clark is the Anti-Christ?

And this "2008 Campaign" you refer to. A few people have posted that they would like to see Clark run in '08 or that he would be a great nominee.

I don't see this as some great crime, some unbearable insult, some flamebait that must be countered with endless attacks based on accusations of war crimes, "damning" documents that don't exist, rehashing of old, refuted primary smears, and attacks on Clark supporters for having the unmitigated gaul to actually defend Clark when he is bashed up and down. Clark is hardly the only person speculated about for an '08 run and, at present, isn't running for a goddamn thing.

This is just becoming absurd.

LOL

yep.

on that stage, to include Clark himself, complicit in a lie for not saying that the document they were given did not exist? LMAO!

The CSIS is known to have authored a document on the occupation of Iraq. They authored documents on the invasion of Iraq too. What are you trying to white-wash here?


Wesley Clark,

Senior Advisor for the Center for Strategic International Studies, listed under "Who Leads the CSIS" www.csis.org/html/csislead.html

The http://www.csis.org/ is a Right-Wing think tank that has been very close to Bush on matters dealing with Iraq & Afghanistan. They're like a who's who of the whatever neo-cons aren't in government and has a Board of trustees is made up of people who proudly sit on the boards of Halliburton, Hunt Oil, National Petroleum Council, American Petroleum Council, General Electric, special counsellors to Reagan. Media Transparency has quite a run-down on this organization and its very, very, very right-wing funding
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?60

for the rest, one would have to be stone cold blind from birth to miss the Clark2008 campaign going on right here in River City because there's nothing subtle about it.

You can be sure it was written by one of the smartest Generals we have. It was probably an assessment of what it would take and I am sure it included working for more internationalization of the occupation. In fact Clark's position was always very similar to Kucinich. Change the authority from the US to an international board appointed by the UN and keep troups there only long enough to stabilize the situation. But you and your friends don't want to compare his position to the other candidates in an intelligent conversation. Instead you are on some mad mission here.

:shrug:

That I've never seen. But not only do you know it exists, you know the CSIS wrote it (even though Kucinich never said this), you know they all had copies of it, and the fact that Clark didn't answer this particular statement is proof positive that he was hiding something.

You can drag out all your old primary Clark bashing links, it still doesn't show me the document, and isn't proof of anything other than the fact that some people can't move on, already.

Oh, and I don't, and can't, support a "campaign" that only exists in the hopes and dreams of a lot of Clark supporters, but has absolutely no reality, Tinoire. Why does the idea that Clark supporters simply want him to run upset you so very much? Can't wait for him to actually declare he is running for some office to bash him?

everywhere at DU. Most people here couldn't give a rat's ass about Clark or anyone else wanting to run in 2008.

And oh waaaaaaaahhh If you don't call thread after thread after post after post of "Why I admire Wesley Clark" & "Why Welsey Clark would be the bestest President Ever" campaigning, then Lord have mercy, I guess I've never seen campaigning in my life.

Your mileage may vary.

(I know how the rightwing hates free speech.)

when Tinoire does it?

But she did seem to imply that we had a beating coming for the simple reason she didn't like the guy we support and have the nerve post about.

hmmm... I guess you think she has that special kind of free speech that must be met with silent submission.

once in a while, and shouldn't be characterzing the "getting it" part as the other people not respecting their right to free speech.

I don't think Tinoire wants you stop. She just wants equal time for the counterargument.

You want us to shut up and have Tinoire post her attacks on Clark without comment.

If she wants to do this, she is going to have to deal with the consequences, like anyone else.

of this thread, I'm very happy to see both sides of the argument. I'm glad that people are airing out the facts that relate to issues that I actually consider very important.


I'm hoping Tinoire has to deal with the consequences. She has raised some very interesting points and I'm curious to see them get resolved.

Don't even go there.

I'm sorry his very existence vexes you so much.

I'm sorry he has enthusiastic supporters.

Maybe we would make better use of our time tearing to shreds any Democrat whose name appears on this forum. Yes, I think that is a far more productive use of DU.

?

"waaahhhh"?

There is so much there, I pasted in just a little and that is a lot.

There is a much bigger picture than Wesley Clark. He is but a part of it.

AP. But thanks for asking.

Explain why Wesley Clark DID NOT deny what Dennis Kucinich said about him on live TV on 9/23/03 citing a document that "we all received" meaning Congress. No one questioned it in the press. No other Representatives mentioned it. No one called Kucinich a liar and a smear artist for citing "5 years and $245 billion" to occupy Iraq.

Sounds like quite an embarassing silence after a bold act of truth-telling that the American public WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HEAR.

Clark...did...not...deny it. Your knight in shining armor who can do no wrong.

Explain that. Are you going to resort to saying "why believe anything Kucinch says"?

Clark didn't address that one particular statement.

"We don't need no stinkin' evidence your honor, his silence is proof of his guilt, off with his head!"

If such a damning document exists, it mystifies me that it was never produced or commented on anywhere by anyone else, in the heat of a primary campaign in which the Iraq war was such a central issue of controversy.

Perhaps a breach of secret intel no one was willing to talk about? It would have to be pretty important for Kucinich to do that in Wesley Clark's face on live TV.

Consider the cover up of Operation Vigilant Warrior on the morning of 9/11 which Richard Clarke mentioned in ONE SENTENCE in his book narration of that morning's events. Yet Operation Vigilant Warrior was central to how the attack was carried out. Only one tiny AP story which was run on 8/21/02 about that 'wild coincidence' of CIA/NORAD exercises that perfectly mimicked the 9/11 attacks with multiple hijacked planes crashing into buildings, and NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IT.

Does this make any sense whatsoever to you?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/08/21/national1518EDT0686.DTL


Hidden in plain view. Just like the stolen election of 2004 with no comment, just Keith Olberman giving it a little play. NO ONE ELSE TALKING about it in the mainstream media like it didn't exist.

That's why so many of us are turning to the internet as we realize the press is not working for us at all. And neither are most Dems and all Repubs. That's what this Wesley Clark story is about. And FrenchieCat is kicking and screaming to keep us from looking at this remarkable incident between Kucinich and Clark on live TV with no one talking about it ever again. Interesting!

Didn't you wonder how we at DU could know all these things NOT TALKED ABOUT in the mainstream medai? Is it obvious enough? Read these to put a point on your understanding of who tells us what and why:

You do understand that the mainstream media IS the CIA, right?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html
(Operation Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by CIA)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
(The Origins of the Overclass)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm
(ABC and the Rise of Rush Limbaugh)

What's the big "outing"?

Clark was openly against immediate withdrawal, just like Kerry.

If you're going lionize someone for speaking the truth to power, maybe "outing" something that was an open non-secret isn't the best place to start.

And there are more Dems working the same neo-con agenda of global domination and economic gutting of this country.

Wesley Clark fronted a firm that specialized in outsourcing and a data-mining firm working hand-in-hoof with DARPA, all the while speaking noble platitudes of 'jobs and civil liberties.'

And DU is filled with Clarkies running fantasy threads about what an ideal candidate he would be for 2008.

This is something we have to learn to recognize and not support. I have the Dem fighter Boxer and the DINO weasel Feinstein as my Senators.

The Empire has been around longer than Bush** and will be unless we figure out friend from foe a good deal better than we have.

The document that we can't see, or doesn't exist, or the long posts of accusations that I've answered in this thread?

"?" is not an issue.

But Clark said many times he was against immediate withdrawal -- how does this document "out" him?

the stupidity on DU is getting wearisome.

WESLEY CLARK WAS OPENLY WARNING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT THE PNAC PLANS FOR TAKING OVER THE MIDDLE EAST BEFORE DENNIS HAD A CLUE.

WESLEY CLARK WROTE A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT IT.

AND IF DENNIS KNEW ABOUT THIS WHY DIDN'T HE OPEN HIS MOUTH AND TELL US BEFOREHAND?

As the disaster in Iraq unfolds, and threads about the delightful prospect of Clark's 2008 candidacy are all over the place, I thought it appropriate to notice the difference between then and now.

After all, Condi's plans and Clark's participation in promoting their execution mean something to me.

I know, I'm sorry that the old primary antagonisms rear their ugly heads but the consequences of the past are much in evidence.

Clark's first debate...9/23/03...Clark had been in the race one week.

Dennis brings up a document in a debate...that we never hear about again during the entire primaries. Never hear about this document in anymore debates. Where's the damn doggone document? That's what I want to know.

Dennis Kucinich ain't no God now...everything that comes out of his mouth ain't white fucking driven snow. I respect him...but he is still a politician.

Could this have been a "hit and run"....or is the document somewhere for us to see Clark's signature on it?

I WANT TO SEE THE GODDAMN DOCUMENT....AND I WANT TO SEE IT NOW!

Put up or shut the F*ck up!

There was a shocking admission of no exit-plan and enormous cost which, logically, would be classified and not for the American public or Iraqis or Europeans to know about.

Why would Dennis say that? Do you think he is secretly a discible of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove?

Now that assertion would be a quick way to lose credibility here, FrenchieCat.

If you actually care to learn more, read my post #103 and quit swearing at DU-ers. That does not help your 'argument.'

Sorry, I have nothing but respect for DK, and voted for him in our state caucus and was a delegate for him up to our state convention. But you won't elevate him and his principled oposition to the war by trying to demean Clark's.

These attempts to divide people are getting really tiresome and serve only one agenda, and not one that is in the interests of the Democratic party.

My interest is in stopping the neo-cons and those who help them. That is all. I don't care who it is that is with them or against them. I just want to figure out the players, hidden or overt.

If Dennis Kucinich were found out to be a war criminal, so be it.
I am not in love or hate with any of these people.

I want information. I will not be sidetracked by personalizations.

Please,please read my post #103.

It's demeaning to Clark, it's demeaning to you, and it's demeaning to this board. I'm not going to play these stupid games with you.

See the article in post#103. The author does some theatrical dissing of Noam Chomsky but offers tons of information that makes a lot of sense.

What's demeaning is your comparing Clark with Condi Rice and then pretending you were talking about something else. It's a type of behavior that demeans you more than it does the one that it's aimed at.

Meanwhile, why don't you produce the document that Frenchie keeps asking you for? That's what this whole thread was about isn't it?

Edit, OK, I took a look at the link in post #103. All I see is the same stuff that I've been seeing all along. Rumors peddled by Drudge, and Karl Rove talking points. I can't even tell whether that site is extreme right wing or extreme left wing.

Wonderful way to change the subject from your original post though and weasel your way out of producing the document that you refer to.

every Clark smear that ever was and decides he's a Bushbot.

Never mind that other reporters on the scene denied Drudge's charge that Clark attacked Kerry over an intern affair. Never mind that Hugh Shelton backed away from his "character and integrity" charge as "just politics" when he was offered the chance to testify about it under oath in the Hague. Never mind that David Hackworth totally reversed himself on Clark and retracted his earlier charges -- they're still in there. Never mind that Clark never said he was "anti-war", only anti-*this*-war -- he's still a hypocrite for Kosovo. Never mind that Clark was never a registered Republican and voted for Clinton and Gore -- he still "switched parties for the present Presidential race". Never mind that Clark was resolutely against the draft -- his civil service program is still a draft "euphamism". Never mind that in the author's own quote on "New American Patriotism" lists "respect domestic dissent even in wartime and embrace international organizations like the United Nations" as number two and three -- it still proves he's in league with "the Hannity/O’Rielly/Limbaugh media brown shirts". Never mind that George McGovern and Michael Moore endorsed him, this was just part of a plan to make him "look progressive". Doubtless that mind-control device he worked on in the Pentagon subverted the judgement of these two and others. Then we discover he supported the war because a list of people he worked with supported the war, even though some people on the same list opposed the war. Then OMG, what would he do with the PATRIOT act, even though he called for an open review of the act and said that every clause neede both public justification and public acceptance, while opposing PATRIOT II. It was still his fault.

There's tons of "information", but I'm afraid it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In fact, if Bush** did all the things he said, we'd be in decent shape, right? I don't follow other people's endorsements. I think for myself.

I'm stunned by so many people's disconnect from Wesley's entire life working for the American power elite and even being a registered lobbyist for a defense contractor (Acxiom)at the same time that he was a TV commentator for CNN.

He was talking 'jobs and civil liberties' while he was fronting a company that specialized in outsourcing businesses and a DARPA vendor who gave up their database on 2,000,000 JetBlue customers (like me) to a Pentagon contractor.

This is not 'nothing.' The rest is Wesley SAYING things, like Bush**.

I'm not sure why people are resistant to seeing the connection of both his life and candidacy to the police-state empire we are already in that will get worse as the need for it grows stronger.

Here. Try this article about the propaganda preparation for 9/11 using a few key journalists in the CIA/media complex:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html
>snip<
"An infrastructure is being laid out - one that will, finally, provide a dissident-proof totalitarian oligarchy composed of like-minded elites served by an under-class kept under constant surveillance. The edifice of this regime is being constructed, brick by brick, with the mortar of the Office of Homeland Security (to centralize and coordinate an effective police state), the Freedom Corps (to indoctrinate the most idealist - and therefore activist - elements of the populace toward service to the state), and the Patriot Act (to provide the legal basis for subverting long-held rights under the screen of national security). If all of this sounds strangely familiar, if it is redolent of Huxley and Orwell, that is perhaps because Huxley and Orwell were both intimately involved with the elites of their time - in fact, were fully subsumed among them - in ways that made their future projections abundantly prescient, and, in their minds, inevitable. With further refinements in mind control technologies - yes, they do exist - as well as the monopolization of the food supply by way of sterile seed "terminator technology" - the approval for which was granted in the months following 9/11 - the masses may be perpetually culled and exploited by those who hold the keys to this fully managed society.

If this notion of reality strikes you as somewhat dissonant, at odds with your own personal experience, it may be perhaps that we have not quite arrived there yet, and that you have personally not felt the corrosive lash of political corruption and governmental malfeasance. In all likelihood, you have not read the mountain of evidence detailing political and elite deviant behaviour in this country. You may even be dismissive of "conspiracy theories", yet wholly unaware of the well-documented attempts by the CIA and FBI to subvert, surveil, and propagandize the populace through programs such as Project Mockingbird (media infiltration) and MK-Ultra (mind control through chemical, hypnotic, or electro-magnetic means). These programs are effected primarily through "think tanks" that are set up across the United States for the purpose of disseminating information and propaganda under the rubric of "expertise". Moreover, various foundations, such as the Rockefeller or Ford Foundations, are often used as funnels to finance and feed the arteries of these propaganda networks. In the 1970's, a good deal of this structural corruption was officially exposed - in a "limited hang-out" - by way of the Church Commission, as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Thereafter, much of the most damaging revelations were played down or ignored by the mainstream media, and the waters were then muddied by a stream of outlandish conspiracy theories - aliens, Elvis, etc. - that merely served to discredit the information that was most credible. "Muddying the waters", incidentally, is a tried and true staple of the intelligence craft.

It is really just a matter of familiarizing yourself with all the documented anomalies that do not accord with the received, mainstream reality put forth to you by the mainstream media. As a practical guide to begin, you might want to confine your search to strictly "mainstream" sources, as I have sought to do in attempting to construct my case on 9/11. My evidence is by no means exhaustive. In fact, it is merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Yet proceeding in this direction, under my hypothesis, has been most fruitful in analyzing the various anomalies that pop up now and then.

Any simple keyword search of the following terms may be helpful in pointing toward a more substantive understanding of the elites who ultimately guide your fortunes: "Iran-Contra" , "Mena", "BCCI", "Project Paperclip", "Michael Aquino", "Paul Bonacci", "Operation Northwoods", "MK-Ultra". Much of the information on these topics is credible and well-documented. More disturbingly, it highlights behavior committed by the very same elites who are now interpreting the events of 9/11 for you. Read for yourself, and decide, at the end of the day, how much credibility you will continue to accord to those who claim to be the proper trustees of your fate and well-being."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chaim Kupferberg is a freelance researcher and writer. Copyright © Chaim Kupferberg 2002. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html

Shit, that's gonna leave a mark! Too bad, I like(d) Clark, but he's clearly wrong here. Go Dennis!

We haven't seen a thing yet. Accusations are cheap unless there truth that comes with it.

So far I see not document. Nada, Zilch, Null Set, Zero!

A quote dropping references to a document during a debate is not a document.

The 2004 primaries were over last March.
We don't need to relive them.
Thank you.

:boring:

...This isn't about an old horse race. It is about learning who is who, how a game is played we don't even realize is being played, and what we are up against as the Neo-Con Empire of Disaster eats our young and our future.

I swear this is not petty, it is crucial to our survival.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the theory. What you have there is old-style corruption and networking and neocolonial corporations doing what that sort of organizations do- it seems to be news to you, though. I don't buy that W. Clark's role is particularly insidious.

All of it goes back to the pork barrel contracting of the Civil War. It's all charades and mostly disappointments, and one hustler after another. Hasn't changed in 150 years, and won't until the money goes out of the biz.

Either way, I don't want to hear any more about Clark or Kucinich or Dean. By their actions will we judge them.

I too am weary of going around on these characters, like gum with no more flavor that you just don't want to swallow.

But these are the characters still tediously in play and someone has to reckon with them lest they grow on us without any discernment for merely emotional reasons, like our dreaded Emperor and his brownshirt followers.

He said that this war would be a mistake!

Clark's entire platform was that he could fight the war on terror better than anyone else. The elusive war on "terror" that is designed to be a pretext to invade anyplace, anytime.

Terror here, terror there,
terror, terror everywhere.

Axciom to the rescue. The NED to the rescue. The CSIS to the Rescue. Markle Terrorism Task Force to the rescue.

Unbelievable.

Clark didn't look very antiwar at all, or even very anti-Iraq war, when he was a political analyst at CNN. His pre-campaign writing didn't sound antiwar either.

In this piece by Clark, NOT even the title sounds very anti-war. NOT IN THE LEAST. Clark didn't think the war was a mistake until he decided to run for President. His rapid metamorphosis is about as rapid as the metamorphosis of several DU pro-war hawks who suddenly became Doves when they realized how fashionable it was to be, to at least pretend to be, antiwar in 2003.

Not liking Bush's inept management of this war does not constitute being anti-war. And it certainly doesn't qualify one, :snort: for being 'the anti-war candidate' in a sea of other real antiwar candidates.


What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory

April 10, 2003
by General Wesley Clark


Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defence ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

(snip)

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime’s survival.


. . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe.

(snip)

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilise yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-641193,00.html

===
The Associated Press reported:

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.

At the time, Clark was backing Democrat Katrina Swett of New Hampshire in her ultimately unsuccessful bid for election to Congress. The AP quoted Clark as saying that if Swett were in Congress he would advise her to vote for the resolution then before the House.

The AP said Clark did call for a vigorous debate on the resolution, that he questioned the need for immediate military action, and that he said “he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support.”

But the resolution then before Congress – which passed overwhelmingly the day after the AP article appeared – did not require President Bush to get U.N. support before going to war.

Clark ’s remarks to Swett were also reported by James W. Pindell of PoliticsNH.com, a web site devoted to New Hampshire political news. Pindell reported that Clark voiced support for the much-debated war resolution in Congress.”

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html


The former Supreme Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark, today voiced support for the the much-debated war resolution in Congress and the candidacy of Democrat Katrina Swett, who is attempting to unseat Republican Rep. Charlie Bass in the 2nd district.

(snip)

Much of the discussion at a well-attended press conference centered on an impending war on Iraq. Clark, a former Rhodes Scholar, tried to point out in historical terms how America may lose its dominant hegemony with the Bush administration’s latest pre-emptive strike doctrine.

"Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy," Clark said.

(snip)

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/october2002/10_09_02.shtml

at DU. She knows how to cut and paste with a fury to get out her point of view......like Gillespie (RNC Chairman) tried to do to Wes.

HEY TINOIRE, You cut out all of these parts of the first article you posted!

.....in where Clark is giving an analysis of HOW THE WAR IS GOING....NOWHERE DOES HE SAY THAT HE SUPPORTS THIS WAR....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-641193,00.html

THIS IS A STATEMENT OF FACT....BASED ON HOW THE WAR WAS TIMED
If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five,
they certainly made the right call.

TINOIRE HIGHLIGHTED THIS "CERTAINLY MADE THE RIGHT CALL" IN RED AS TO AVERT THE EYES FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE)

HERE IS WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, OF COURSE NOW THAT WE INVADED....BUT IT WASN'T DONE
Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people

HERE CLARK IS SUPPORTING THE TROUPS, NOT THE BUSH ADMIN'S POLICIES...GUESS HE SHOULD HAVE SLAMMED THE SOLDIERS RIGHT ABOUT NOW
It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honoured and remembered.

AND HERE HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS WAR....
As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

HERE'S CLARK'S WARNING TO ALL OF THOSE THINKING IT'S ALL OVER
But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.

HERE'S CLARK STATEMENT OF IRONY....DON'T THINK THIS IS OVER...CAUSE IT'S JUST BEGINNING...AND BY THE WAY, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT WMD...DON'T FORGET THIS IN YOUR GLEE!
As for the political leaders themselves, Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

And how does that fit in with that Perle quote that people are always dragging out...?

The London Times opEd was written after the war was already going on.....

Not before the war started....

That just means that he should have known that we absolutely needed to wait, though we shouldn't have gone at all.

Are you just typing and not reading.

Read on.....<sigh> >((sometimes I have to ask myself what we are dealing with here?) :shrug:

And how does that jive with the Perle quote?

Sorry, but the time difference between when they were said won't get you out of this. It's totally irrelevant.

"Let's wait to attack"
written in on October 10, 2002 http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.ir... /

He said we were right not to wait.

We had already attacked. He said it in October, BEFORE we attacked.

and you are just too confused for words.

One is about waiting for an extra division -- notice the quote does not say, "If the alternative was waiting for the inspectors to do their jobs...". So taking an answer about four versus five divisions and applying it to the question of attack or don't attack doesn't seem particularly honest.

He said we shouldn't wait till we had stronger forces, let alone just wait for the sake of being diplomatic.

I'm not saying he said we should attack- I'm saying that he said we shouldn't wait. And that's what he said.

"He said we shouldn't wait till we had stronger forces, let alone just wait for the sake of being diplomatic. I'm not saying he said we should attack- I'm saying that he said we shouldn't wait. And that's what he said."

It says, "If the alternative...was to wait until late April to attack with five."

That's the question under consideration, not should we attack with four divisions, with five divisions or not at all. You can't just unilaterally decide to expand it by saying "let alone...". That is an entirely different issue and had he been referring to it, he would not have explicitly restricted the discussion to one of four vs. five divisions. This is so obvious that I have trouble believing you don't really see it.

That's why I don't think you're making an honest argument.

He's saying it would have been wrong to wait and attack with five in April- that it was better to go early, than to be a full division stronger. Obviously he thought that we shouldn't wait.

Are you saying that he thought we should have waited? Because he didn't think that, at least from this quote.

not with you.

The answer is right in the quote: If the alternative is four or five divisions, four was a good choice.

There is no answer in the quote about the broader question of the wisdom of invading, except BullGosseLoony's own inventions.

Can we stop the lying, please?

and gone in with FOUR????

I could sworn he said that we SHOULDN'T wait. Not, wait and go in with less forces than we could.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

based on the success of the initial invasion. Which was a success by any military persons analysis that I have heard. The problems with lack of troops began to get accute later when presumably the plan would have been to have them there.

So I don't see what you are even arguing about. He was asked if they made the right decision to go in as it relates to military strategy. It was not an answer to a political question. Comprendee?

that what the hell are you arguing about?

Jesus.

lets not ask him anything else k? ;)

However, I think that that should weigh fairly heavily on his political opinion, as a general.

Why didn't you guys just say that before? Geez.

the article was carefully measured to say "rah rah, what a great victory for our military" and yet warn the civilian leadership that there's a diplomatic challenge ahead.

I said they were two separte questions, and you refused to accept that.

Also, no way should his military opinion serve as the basis for his political opinion. That's like saying since we can militarily remove Saddam Hussein, we should.

Just because, as a General, he knows that we can doesn't mean that politically he thinks we've should. This is wise, and you've tried to paint it as hypocrisy.

Cheap shot.

You were saying it was the answer to only one question- 4 divisions vs. 5 divisions. You even said he thought it was better to go in with only 4 divisions, not 5, regardless of time (which we don't know the truth value of, although I suspect it's wrong). You were just focused on that one question.

The number of divisions is the military question. Do we attack or wait for inspectors is the political question.

Are you now trying to say that 4 vs 5 divisions is not a military question?

I was focused on that question because that is the question the quote was focused on. Makes sense, no? I mean since that quote is what was being discussed...

and the other warmongerers. That's not my idea of being "the antiwar candidate".

Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo sceptics

Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.

<snip>

From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."

<snip>
Praise for Powell

But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm

===

But what he says, and the way he says it, doesn't always endear him to his audience -- especially when he's improvising. Last January, I saw Clark give a 45-minute presentation on how he thought the war in Iraq would unfold. As long as he was up there with his map and light pen, talking about JDAMs and phase lines and whatnot, he was magnificent. But when it came time to answer questions -- to talk with, instead of at, the audience -- Clark bombed.

Part of it was what he said, which was in essence: The U.S. is going to war, the president has made his decision, so you'd better just get used to it. This to a European audience, mind you, one heavily salted with Franco-Germans. Clark actually told them -- I swear I am not making this up -- that they had an obligation to support the war, because "that's the democratic process."

You can imagine how big that went over.
And it wasn't just what he said, it was how he said it. Intentional or not, Clark has that cocky, blunt American attitude that so often grates on the nerves of Europeans (and foreigners in general.) And he made no noticeable effort to tone it down. In fact, it looked to me like Clark irritated the crowd almost as much as Colin Powell, who also spoke at the conference. And that's saying something.

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html


===

Posted 07/02/2003
Titans of Davos: Cutting the Iraqi Oil Pile- Christopher Bollyln - The American Free Press
DAVOS, Switzerland—For 33 years, for one week every January, government leaders and the moguls of global business have convened here in this small ski town high in the Swiss Alps. While the mainstream media describes the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an event with a social focus, they know well that the real business of the conference is the private meetings of the global elite.

<snip>
On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop.

Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group.

<snip>

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=492



Davos still in the surreal world

<snip>

Up in Davos, though, the military-industrial complex was no laughing matter. Alongside leading political figures from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UN security council countries, top executives from BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, and Lukoil were in Davos. So was the architect of the first Gulf war, General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".

While this group gathered in Davos, Friends of the Earth handed out a leaked Deutsche Bank analysts' report, entitled Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq. This frightening document lays out how different oil companies and countries could benefit from the replacement of Saddam's regime, and speculates on how different oil companies might be involved in post-war control of the Iraqi state oil company.

<snip>

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,883944,00.html


Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after Saddam
Mark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003

DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.

Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.

He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."
<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

===

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption
27.01.2003
Annual Meeting 2003

This session on resolving conflicts was one of the few at the Annual Meeting in Davos this year not to be dominated by the prospect of US and allied war with Iraq, noted moderator Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. That did not make it any more optimistic than other discussions. The roundtable discussion brought together Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Board, Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Institute of Europe, Russian Federation, Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Sundeep Waslekar, President, Strategic Foresight Group, India - all experts on flashpoints in their regions. And among the prospects being considered is action by the US against North Korea for building up its nuclear weapons programme in secret.

<snip>

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

Doesn’t that tell North Korea that it has won this game of deterrence? "The military option cannot be taken off the table," Clark responded. But he also underlined that the US policy to North Korea is clear: "We don’t want the government to collapse. We don’t want South Koreans to adopt the North Koreans. We won’t want a war."

<snip>

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202:%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open&event_id=

==

An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion.


http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:rNgU5fvc1kcJ:www.srcf.ucam.org/camsaw/Resources/2003/Moral_war_myth.doc+%22wesley+Clark%22++Davos+powell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

===


If you believe Clark is that great, sell him as what he is because these bull-shit reinventions like being "the antiwar candidate" are not only ludicrous, they're an insult to people's intelligence.

Let's go through these one by one, shall we?

Clark's quote about Powell:

"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

Now, where did he say that he supported that policy and believed that Powell was correct about an imminent threat? Nowhere. Clark has known Powell for many years, and considered him a friend. I'm sure he had hoped it would bring everyone together, at a time when the US was pissing off the Europeans and about to declare unilateral action, what is wrong with that?

Your next link goes to a Dean supporters blog, with no transcript of this "quote" and no proof of his interpretation of the event other than his own statements. Meaningless. "I gotta say: As an insurgent Dem, and a Dean supporter, I still like our chances."

Your next link about Davos:

"On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop."

He's a 4 Star General, why wouldn't they want to hear what he thinks is about to go down, from a military standpoint? He wasn't planning the fucking war, he was speculating on what might happen.

"Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group."

Because that was his only job title.

Next link:

General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".

Same answer. I notice you left in a bit about big oil which was, I can only assume, some attempt to imply that Clark was there on behalf of oil companies or something. Evidence? None.

Your next link doesn't work, and I have no idea whether his statements where in context or not:

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

I would love to see that in context, it is certainly true, though, is it not? Was he commenting on the Bush admin's attitude, a simple fact, or what?

The idea that military options cannot be taken off the table when dealing with hostile states is hardly shocking, it's par for the course. Note that he also states that we don't want war, but of course you didn't put that in bold.


Next:

"An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion."

And?? Did he say that was a happy thought? Or was it a very reasonable assumption?

You guys are going to end up like the Jehovah's Witnesses who have entire encyclopedias to explain that when Jesus said this or that, that's not what He really meant and that He's really the Archangel Michael in disguise.

It's a pity THE antiwar candidate needs so much explaining.

Clark at Davos, touring with no less than WMD Powell, briefing a bunch of neoConservative/neoLiberal transnationals about the benefits of an Iraqi occupation and you, lol, despite all the quotes are going to persist and try to distract from the relevant ones.

Just admit he wasn't THE antiwar candidate, much less AN antiwar candidate or is that TOO hard?

Just ONE direct quote with a link.

We should have a "Hall of Shame" just for your party!

The first item is one sentence from Clark....who knows the context? Don't think I trust anyone with context...(as I saw your work earlier in the thread).

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html
That whole second item is nothing but a blog with a blogger and his herese.

The third item comes...with this part cut out. Who else was in attendance at this conference.....

The former president, Bill Clinton, came to Davos with his daughter and made local headlines when he occupied the suite that had been reserved for Powell in the Belvedere Hotel, where many of the high-level private discussions were held.

On the list of WEF participants are a number of U.S. senators, including: Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.), Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), and Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.).

Phil Gramm, former Republican senator from Texas, attended as vice chairman of UBS Warburg LLC. Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado, and Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, are also on the list.

About a dozen other congressional representatives attended, including: David Dreier (R-Calif.), Jane Harman (D-Calif.) with her husband Sidney, Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), Robert Portman (R-Ohio), and Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.).

Among the notable Americans attending the WEF were: William H. Gates of Microsoft; Thomas L. Fried man of The New York Times; John E. Potter, postmaster general of USPS; H. Ross Perot, Jr. of Perot Systems, Corp.; Lawrence H. Summers, president of Harvard University; Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution; and David J. Stern, commissioner of the National Basketball Association.

BUT THIS WAS THE TIP OFF ON YOUR SOURCE....

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force. Soros is a long-time Bilderberg luminary.
-----------------
NOW ON TO THE NEXT ITEM...
When asked whether he would run for president, Clark demurred. But he went on to give a well-informed analysis of the German election last fall, in which Chancellor Gerhard Schroder eked out a victory, in part on the popularity of his opposition to a war.
.
"He was extremely articulate," said Amy Salzhauer, a venture capitalist from Boston. "I could see him as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, if he's not ready to run for president."
.
YOU FORGOT THIS PART TINOIRE WHEN YOU PULL THE CLARK PART OUT FOR SHOW AND TELL .....Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate.

People jostled outside the party, pleading to be admitted. Inside, Clinton served Champagne and pigs-in-the-blanket to football fans like David Stern, commissioner of the National Basketball Association, and Julia Ormond, the actress.

THE SAD PART OF ALL OF THIS, IS THAT WHEN TINOIRE POSTS, MAKE SURE TO GO TO THE LINKS....AND READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. IT'S HARD AND MAKES ONE TIRED TO HAVE TO CONTINUALLY BE VIGILANTE LIKE THIS!

Efforts to discredit Tinoire for engaging in criticism and sharing information as some kind of devious manipulation smacks of exactly what you accuse Tinoire of, FrenchieCat.

Have you heard of something called 'projection?'

Stick to the topic and leave the scorning personal accusations out, please.

and you are right, Condi is good at it as well.

Again, cutting and pasting to get the desired result and MEANS THAT I HAVE TO CALL someone out about it and it is not my idea of getting "Personal"....it's an idea of hypocracy, to attempt to manipulate someone else's words to discredit them.

The Right and the media does it all of the time, and I see that the EXTREME left does it too.

It's sick and make y'all look just as bad as those who are currently in power.

Or is that story the kryptonite you can't go near without weakening?

It's going to be a long 3+ years of vigilance but those are the disadvantages of starting to campaign a little too early.

But you know, I can't wait to read "Waging Modern War". Sigh... So many quotes... So little time :(

All these contortions about being an anti-war, sorry, the antiwar candidate, are just plain silly.

It's going to be a long fucking three years for Clark supporters having to deal with attack threads on Clark every other fucking day, even though he's not even running for anything. It's that or we must never mention his name again, for fear that it might offend delicate sensibilites. Or so some people hope.

I'm sure you will have fun. Make room in your calendar.

CLARKÕS CONSISTENCY OF VIEWS ON IRAQ

If you will take the trouble to read Clark's books (especially pages 456-461 of Waging Modern War) and you will see that his statements have not changed before, during, or after the war.

The Clark-hating truthtwisting zealots can't go as far back as Feb. 9, 2001, can they?

I can!

Please read his article "An Army of One?"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

He said it was better that we went in in March, unprepared, rather than waiting and having more troops together.

What am I missing, here?

I don't know what you are talking about. And your implication is incorrect.

You seem to only "reply" to those commenting to you. But by being that myopic, you're missing what's going on in the rest of the thread...where you questions are being answered.

Answer the question, or don't.

If you absolutely have to, you can always point me to another post.

Obviously, reading comprehension was not your forte in school. Unfortunately, it's showing for all the world to see.

Clark is discussing the strategy that the military took....in context with his analysis of the war...

"IF the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

DO YOU REMEMBER LEARNING ABOUT IF IN SCHOOL?.....about "IF....THEN"

Bet you still don't get it, uh....doh!

Yea I think he understands basic If..then logic. lol.

IF they had a CHOICE between WAITING and GOING IN A DIVISION STRONGER, and NOT WAITING, they did the right thing by NOT WAITING.

Man, you are trying SO HARD to twist his words. How's that coming?

Before you were comparing it to the Perle quote about waiting, which was clearly the strategic question of invasion.

Here you're talking about the operational decision of four vs. five divisions, which is not the same question.

By earlier trying "twist his words", now seeming to retreat after you've been exposed, it is you who are the problem here. Go shout at yourself, if you're that upset.

were a military commentator on CNN.

So you're saying that his political view was different than his military view?

whew! :)

From his April 10th, 2003 editorial (in post #19):

"Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defence ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. ***If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."***

In other words, it was good that we didn't wait, even if we would have gone in stronger.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-641193,00.html

See ya.

of that article.

A correct summary in my view would be: "Rah, rah, sis boom bah, our troops are great, we did it, victory, the regime is gone! Now, while we're celebrating, and not to take anything away from that mind you, there's still this problem about diplomacy that needs to be reckoned with... If we aren't careful, this could really become a huge mess... The British and American soldiers really did their job wonderfully, and yet... let's be careful that the dazzle of military success doesn't blind our leaders to the fact that diplomacy is still an issue here."

THAT is what he was saying in that article.

He's celebrating a great victory. And saying it was good that we didn't wait- at least with that particular paragraph.

May I suggest you read the whole thing and consider that paragraph not only in the context of the whole, but also in the context of TIME and political purpose and possible influence?

I mean, Clark-bashers are the first to say "He's not a politician!!" Yet every citation that shows how careful he is in being measured in his words and influence (yet still far more strong and direct than your average politician thank you!) he's criticized for not stating it more strongly...?

Please read the totality of what he said in its CONTEXT IN TIME. None of these people were mindreaders!! What he said was absolutely appropriate, pointed, tactful, and yet powerful exactly how and when he said it.

the right thing- militarily.

That could, of course, still be argued the other way.

"While we're celebrating this great military victory, let's remember there's a diplomatic side to this that's really important."

That's it in a nutshell.

Prior to the invasion, he argued forcefully against it before Congress; but once the military is ordered by civilian leadership to do something, he will explain and cheer the military's success in fulfilling its duty along WITH his criticism of the orders themselves.

It's really not so hard to understand the distinction.

I believe that would be the "Rah, rah," followed then by the "sis boom bah," as I've stated.

Put it all in context -- in terms of the entire article, in terms of the newspaper in which it was published, in terms of the time when it was written and published, in terms of the political situation and the position of our young military personnel....

Put it in context.

Now, I'm not making any accusations, here.

It sounds like a statement reflecting the sentiment of that time and that place, preceding a point that goes further.

I opposed the war, but still felt the best response to the fall of Baghdad was to put pre-war divisions behind us and form a broad international effort to get on with the cleaning up.

Well, Bush declined that opportunity, too, but I can't blame Clark for trying to patch things up.

and

as to which was better for the troops' safety, in hindsight.

That is not the same as saying he approved of the war in the first place.

Thanks for the quote. Good question.

I'm lost as to what minutiae we're even debating here. Perle said Clark said "we need to wait" -- let inspections continue, let diplomacy work, let the UN do their job... Is this in dispute?

I'm still waiting for that DOCUMENT!

Where is that DOCUMENT THAT STARTED THIS DAMN THREAD?

On the Dean web site, Howard Dean specifically states, "I opposed President BushÕs war in Iraq from the beginning."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign

From the beginning?

As far back as September 4, 2002, a full month before the vote in Congress, Dean was cautioning the president about going to war. "' Bush needs to first make the case and he has not done that,' Dean said. 'He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.'"

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/52530.htm

In fact, just after September 4, 2002, in anticipation of the joint resolution scheduled for five weeks later, the Bush administration ramped up an aggressive disinformation campaign designed to do exactly what Howard Dean said they needed to do: make the case that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear threat. Quite clearly, over the next month, the Bush administration did everything they could to convince America that another 9/11 could happen, only this time involving Iraqi nuclear weapons. Just as clearly, this horrific possibility is being squarely aimed at the Senators and Representatives who will be voting on the upcoming joint resolution, and at the American people they represent.

But can't we safely assume that Howard Dean saw through all of these lies? As noted, on September 4, 2002 Dean seems on the record as being against the possibility of war with Iraq, so isn't it safe to assume that he never changed his mind after that fact?

The problem is that Dean did change his mind, stepping back noticeably from the opposition to war he was claiming on September 4. More importantly, Dean was also clearly unable to see through the withering stream of lies coming from the Bush administration during the month of September.

How do we know all this? Because of Howard Dean's appearance on Face the Nation on September 30, 2002 - only a DOZEN DAYS or so before the vote in Congress on the joint resolution:

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

So Howard Dean is totally against war with Iraq on September 4, and then, by September 30, he is NOT totally against a war with Iraq. In fact, he is fully admitting that he may have to trust the president, and that there may be valid reasons for disarming Iraq by force.

Raise your hand if you really believe:
a) That Dean's position has been consistent;
b) That the Bush campaign won't use this against Dean, nullifying one of the strengths of his campaign.
*not raising hand*
c) Dean would *never* have voted for the war.

"I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it." - Dean, September 30 2002

please delete yourself

and just bringing up an example of another candidate and his statements.

What's wrong with that? Shall this become another DU thread, you think?

Shall I call it, "The Antiwar Candidate? Please!" in honor of Tinoire's eloquence?

how poisoned the atmosphere has been recently and how this tactic needlessly contributes to it.

Don't blame the victims, please. The time for enabling is over. Besides, the facts are the facts. No use hiding them out of fear of angering the Clark hating bullies.

:shrug:

This is about spinning for Clark not Dean.

And let me clue you in on something. There's not a Dean supporter here who won't tell you that I didn't bash Dean big time over this very thing. I pulled out every inconsistent statement Dean had ever made on the issue and people who backed Dean went in with their eyes open. But this thread isn't about Dean so the intended distraction won't work. It's about Clark. It's about many of his supporters trying to sell people a load of bull either by writing a bunch of bull, jumping in to derail discussions or by complicit silence when their comrades do it. It's about ludicrous statements like "Clark was THE anti-war candidate" that we had earlier in this thread.

someone you are obviously actively working to discredit.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Clark's September 26, 2002, testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he states:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...

...in the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action.

This hardly fits with your assertion that Clark vigorously supported the resolution

What a shame you take Clark's remarks out of context to convey the false impression!

What happened to his editorial..."Let's wait to attack"? written in on October 10, 2002? Why didn't you post that one...in which Clark states: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.

You also neglected to mention the USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them. Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.

And here's to clarify Clark's statements to the Associated Press on October 9, 2002:
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race. He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate...The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.

Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support the resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as is."

Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.

It is very disturbing that you would be in possession of some of Clark's statements that contradict your thesis but blatantly choose to misrepresent them. Perhaps you should Clark supporters more credit for being informed.

It's really difficult to choose only four paragraphs from the dazzle-with-BS citations to provide context and still comply with copyright requirement, but mine would include:

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

(snip)

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

In your next quote, you choose an analysis that splits a hair -- one that's been debated for over a year now -- regarding differing versions of a bill. Somebody at the AP said Clark said Swett should vote yes on ONE of the resolutions. AP says it was one resolution before the House at that time; Clark was referring to another. It's absurd. ALL of his testimony to Congress, his public statements, his writings, etc. are clear: he did NOT support the IWR that ended up passing; he DID support UN approval and/or return to Congress before an authorization of force. That's clear in the transcript of his testimony that you yourself have quoted here, although you quote the RNC/Drudge hatchet-edit job rather than pasting consecutive text.

Your third quote is from the esteemed JAMES W. PINDELL of PoliticsNH.com: "Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy." Out of context, what does that mean?!? Possibly it means "let's bomb those bastards" but in light of everything else he'd said, written, testified, commented on TV, etc., why some sudden confession of "let's bomb the bastards" in support of Swett in New Hampshire?

Is it possible that what that sentence meant is, "They're making a case for pre-emptive action as prevention, but it's not one that should be written into a bill and endorsed by Congress"? However, "A version that requires the president to return to Congress for authorization of force would be acceptable?" I mean, could it be that simple??

Nah, this ONE quote against all other documents and transcripts and articles and books and documents MUST mean he's a warmongering bloodthirsty zealot of some sort.

And we complain about the media.

Making an accusation is not the same as fact.

Congressman Moonbeam has been smoking the wacky weed again.

It was meant to be. As you can see it makes the case.

of his own. Wasn't he originally Pro Life, then switched just before the Primaries to Pro Choice? I've always wondered about that. Still, I like Dennis very much. And I really love Clark. I hate it when 2 good men are pitted against one another.

but we are not allowed to talk about that...cause it would tarnish his image as the "Boy Wonder".

I'm still looking for this document. Has anyone seen it?

Can you provide a link to this security document? No? Didn't think so.

Many people who were against the war see an abrupt exit as a disaster. The argument "if it was bad then, how can it be good now?" is spurious -- it's not good now. It's just a problem that wasn't there before GWB invented it.

Many people who were against the war also wonder what Dennis is talking about when he says he wants the UN in and the US out -- the UN and what army? Nobody wants to be in the position the US is in now, and blackmailing them into going by threatening to light up the middle east doesn't strike me as being so diplomatic.

So boo on Wes, I guess, for not running for president of fantasy land.

Do you have any link to that "document that was release in July," supposedly co-authored by Clark?

I love Dennis. But he IS a politician. And that WAS a political debate.

(People deride Clark for NOT being a politician, and this is one example of where there is indeed a distinction. Much as I do love Dennis...)

he probably authored it while he was working at the CSIS.

Since it was a political debate on national TV, I would hope that if Kucinich were lying or gaga, Clark would have said something. He didn't. He didn't say a single word and stood there with the wind blown out of him because all the candidates up there had that document in their hands.

Seem like the "document" would have hit the campaign trail...since all of the candidates had it in their hot little hands on September 23, 2003, on national TeeVee during a debate....a week after Wes Clark announced.

Seems like a journalist digging dirt on Wes would have published it.

Was Wes working at CSIS in July of 2003...when he allegedly signed the document....according to the Great One?

I know that the those "He's a Lobbyst" sheets hit the streets....why not that document, Tinoire?

Where is the document? I want to see it!

I'd guess that's the document in Rumsfeld's unctuous little hands.

$87 Billion - first intstallment.
$80 Billion - second installment.

How much did Dennis say? $245 Billion? Guess that means the next installment will be $78 Billion.

Try asking Rumsfeld for it. Tell him you're a friend of one of his old friends and colleagues ;)

He'll probably fork it over right then and there. If that doesn't work, put your hands on your hips, stomp your feet a few times and hold your breath til you turn blue in the face. That just could do it!

Or you could just ask Clark to share it with you :shrug:

I heard about a document proving that Kucinich is a pedophile.

Sorry, I can't produce it.

Maybe you should ask Nader.

Or Dennis.

:shrug:

that if in the middle of a debate about sexual immorality, one of the candidates stated that:

And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue. Because we were each provided with a video, a videotape, of adults having sex with children. Matter of fact, uh, Dennis Kucinich was one of the performers in that video that was released in July.

And not one candidate blinked, contested it, acted surprised and Kucinich himself said not one word, then lol, I'd find that very damning & I wouldn't be spinning Kucinich as THE guardian of virtue. As a matter of fact, I'd drop him like a hot potato. I'm not emotionally invested in any of them. They're politicians who want the job of representing us and you can be damn sure that regardless of the smooth words, regardless of the smile, I'm going to examine them through a microscope. Too many people are dead and dying to indulge in faith-based voting or the cult of the personality.


On edit: It's been fun. Going to bed now. Going to dream of the type of peace that doesn't need so much 'splaining.

Bomb the hell out of a country, destabilize it, bring in tens of thousands of terrorists, then LEAVE. Good thinking.

"<Clark> seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... ÊSo I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

~ Richard Perle, Iraq war-mongerer, before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002

The shit-stirrers around here definitely need to come up with some new material.

I'm fucking sick of this shit

there's a lot of that going around too.

Lets tear our party to shreds yippee!

ridiculous.

And bashers, and flamebait going on around here.

But we are talking about cut and pastes, smears, and mysterious documents that disappear as mysteriously as they appear.

WE MAY HAVE FOUND THE TIP OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE

In the zone where the left meets the right....that little piece in political space that scares the sh*t out of 97.555% of the population, with good reason.

All this Clark furor. This is what happens when a man who has worn many hats in public service speaks on various topics with expertise. Ask him about strategy, he will respond as a strategist. Ask him about diplomacy, he will respond as a diplomat. Ask him about the notorious resolution and he will tell you he would have voted for it, 'cause in the high stakes poker that was being played that was the right thing to do from a strategic viewpoint. The alternative was to bind the President's hands ... and alas Bush's madness and hubris was not completely apparent at the time. (This was the guy who campaigned on a "no-nation-building platform", remember?)

Ask him if he thought these idiots would charge off and blunder into a quagmire and he would have said "No." Fine distinction. Voting for the resolution does not equal voting for a premature attack. Hussein was cooperating with the UN. Blix tried to tell Bush. Ritter tried to tell Bush. Everyone was trying to tell Bush. He countered with gussied up intelligence analysis.

Look, Bush lied to us all ... including Clark,Kerry and Kucinich. (Good on Dennis ... he never trusted the bastard with that much power.) Had Clark, Kerry, Kucinich or Dean been handed that resolution as President the inspections would have gone on and the swords would have been kept rattling in their sheaths. Hussein may (or may not) have stayed in power ... but I think the people of Iraq would have eventually had their own revolution. And it would have been better that way.

Take Clark out of context and you miss him. You have to detect from which perspective/knowledge base he is speaking at the time. This is partly his fault ... its OK for him to talk as a strategist but now that he is involved in politics he can't let it stop there.

News to me.

I consider this highly disruptive. I see no reason to dig up a two-year old story, unless your intent is to deliberately re-ignite the primary wars.

Unbelievable.