Clark: * invaded Iraq to cover up the command negligence that led to 9/11

Clark Brings Texas Democratic Convention to It's Feet with Rousing Speech by linking 9/11 to Iraq.

Clark spends several minutes blasting Bush for "command negligence" which he says led to 9/11, then culminates with this:

"Now why am I going back over ancient history? Because it's not ancient, because WE WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ TO COVER UP THE COMMAND NEGLIGENCE THAT LED TO 9/11 (crowd rises to it's feet in standing ovation at this point), and it was a war we didn't have to fight.. That's the truth, and I hope, (crowd going wild at this point) I hope every Democrat around the country sees you all on your feet aknowleging the reality of the world we are living in today thanks to the misleadership of this Republican administration. I've been in war, I don't believe in it, and you don't do it unless there is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely no alternative."

This is a great speech to watch in it's entirety, including a splendid introduction to Clark by a Texas supporter. It was about 18 minutes into the speech that Clark brought the crowd to it's feet by linking the 9/11 command negligence cover-up with Iraq. The rest of the speech is also very good, covering education, health care, the importance of science, and the corruption of scientists for political puposes..."That's not America, we could be so much more."

Video link (includes introduction to Clark)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JpMV2G3TajA&search=wesley%20clark

But we brought down hell on their country. I'll never forget the 13 year old boy who lost his arms in W's shock and awe campaign on a third world country who was never a threat to us. W and the bushbots might try to sweep it under the rug but history and legacy writers won't.

In Las Vegas. Very riveting conversation!

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2006/6/9/144548/6073

The Texas Dems seem to be really pulling it together. It must be tough to be a Dem in BushCoLand, but it sounds like enough has really become enough. This year's state convention had thousands of Dems attend, I read Ft. Worth was in a state of shock, a big change from recent years.

GO TEXAS DEMS :yourock:

Great video and great news.

All 50 states. :)

give them each an hour, and the whole bunch combined couldn`t do what Wes Clark can do in ten minutes. Clark doesn`t seem to weigh every word and hold his finger to the wind before decides what to say. His courage and integrity are exactly what we need. He truly is from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Hope he runs in `08.

I have a dial up, but it takes FOREVER (even though it is well worth it).

P.S. PROUD to cast the 5th vote!

And yet, he came out of it looking like some kind of hero. I'm glad somebody's trying to set the record straight in this regard.

Seems that a bull-horn can work wonders.

blow my mind! However, I've been told that his speech before the Science Panel at Yearly Kos, was the best he's ever given. I've not seen it, and may never will. Unfortunately, AARs link didn't work for me. Can it get much better than this?

Thank you!!!

:hug:

WES Clark took Bushco to task!!! HE had the TEXAS DEMS on their FEET...WOW...he layed out the Dems platform...War, Education, Economics, and healthcare...ALL OF IT> Please WATCH...even if you support another candidate....PLEEEEEZE....
He was NOT campaigning for himself, but for 2006....."HAD ENOUGH" was his mantra...and the audience was chanting.....WATCH its well worth it for all!!

He is a very powerful and effective orator.

Well done, indeed!

:toast:

You gotta love an Alpha Democrat who tells the plain, unvarnished truth. Go cat go!

Negligent Genocide!
:applause:

Becoming a member is fast and useful

that led to 9-11 is the most baffling mystery of this age. Just maybe this was the price all too many were/are willing to pay to have an extreme right PNAC agenda implemented including suppressing freedom at home. If this thesis has merit, Americans, as a lot, are even stupider than the idiotic sheriff in the movie "Silver Streak."

9/11 was the excuse and Iraq served as the cover-up.

9/11 was allowed to happen....and it was the pretext used to go into Iraq...and Iraq served the purpose of distracting us via confusion as to who and why 9/11 occurred.

That is what Clark has said, and Clark is right, and you are wrong to make things as simplistic as you are making them.

The Bush admin and the Neocons were itching to go into Iraq based on their PNAC plan. However, the White House couldn't just march up into Iraq willy nilly, without the approval of congress and public support. 9/11 did that. It gave them the green light.

Was 9/11 just a coincidence? Wes Clark is saying that it wasn't...that it was command negligence. They knew that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S., and they ignored all that the prior administration had warned them about. They ignored it because they needed their Pearl Harbor.

yes the plans were laid..and clinton stopped the insanity by these assholes..

but they retaliated against clinton ..didn't they??...

fly

Not sure what that point is about. Can you come again?

written under the supervision of Wolfowitz. Almost certainly a bit before that even.

As soon as the old Soviet Union fell, these folks who now make up the * admin wanted to go on the offensive - starting w/ Iraq, and expanding from there.

Whether WKC runs or not in 2008, he is out there fighting for 2006!!! He is truly a Leader and a Warrior (the good Kind) fighting for our Freedom and our Constitution our forFather put their pen too. He is brillient...speaks from the heart and is truly not the "quote" inside beltway politician....He speaks wisdom, intelligence, and makes it understandable for all!!!!

when he says "WE WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ TO COVER UP THE COMMAND NEGLIGENCE THAT LED TO 9/11"

Isn't it pretty well established that Bush and the neocons were dead set on invading Iraq before 9/11?

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

to support the dollar the same way we did with Saudi Arabia after '73 (we force oil producers to use all their petrodollars to buy goods and services from the US to keep up an OK ballance of trade).

And 9/11 was used to justify it (and to justify EVERYTHING the Republicans have done since).

The prior statement was about BUSH going on vacation, when he recieved the memo...Bin Laden to Attack America. BUSH made a BIG mistake, and went to war to cover up his negligence in the leadup to 9/11. Again devirsion....NO ONE wants to mention PNAC and Wes came as close as anyone could in his remark. We are just smart enough to know what Wes meant....wasn't a mistake...just clever....!! Pegged the Congress to give Bush authority to invade Iraq and Afganistan, was also a mistake....but Dems have NO POWER!!!That is why we have to make the change in 2006, before we even think about President. Welll we can think, but 2006 is the focus...

Clark shouldn't have to speak in code that only a small percentage of the well-informed can understand. We're not the ones that need convincing. While covering up 9/11 incompetency and LIHOP may have been fringe benefits of invading Iraq, I think it's a mistake to assert it was the primary motivation when we all know damn well they were hell bent on invasion prior to 9/11.

If you're going to make an accusation like the one Clark just made, you better have the facts on your side. I think it's a lot easier making the PNAC case because PNAC issued policy papers advocating the invasion that were signed by Bush policymakers. "Rebuilding Amertica's Defenses" became official US policy under the so-called "Bush Doctrine."

What I'd like to see Clark and every other Democratic leader bring up is the Bush sifning statement that blocked congressionally-mandated oversight of the billions of dollars the Pentagon disappeared in Iraq.

It's too much to take in. It is too much evil to believe. People hold tight to the values that america is good. They just have to reject pnac for emotional reasons.

We're just starting to incorporate the concept that the election was rigged. That's taken years.

He was right not to invoek PNAC right there at that public moment.

war was for oil.Why advance a tangential theory that takes the focus off the primary reason.

So true. I've never heard them mentioned by the MSM. A well read friend of mine told me about 4 months ago that he'd never heard of them. Why is everyone afraid to stand up to those evil bastards? Do they command that much power?

They seen it and they took it. Clark was one of the first Dems to say so out loud. Clark is adding to that, though, by pointing up the humiliation of command failure as an associate reason, something to take the folks minds off 9/11. This is very important for American voters to understand. I'm no conspiracy freak, but LIHOP it certainly was, and I'm glad he's saying it.

They exploited a national tragedy and betrayed the trust that too many Americans placed in them. The lies and the betrayal are what need to be made evident.

Having heard Clark speak about this aspect, I would now like to hear him discuss PNAC, too. I'll be paying attention...

Please pay attention:










Gen. Wes Clark layed out the PNAC mentality in a long article.

Here's some excerpts from Clark's article, "Broken Engagement"

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the foreign and defense policies of the Bush administration, but Winning Modern Wars would have us believe that the president dangerously derailed the nation’s security policy and diverted resources from the war on terrorism to the dead-end enterprise in Iraq. He blames Bush for everything he believes has gone wrong, and gives him no credit for anything that has gone right, including major steps toward transforming the US military from a Cold War force to one more suited to the current and likely future security environment.

In Clark’s world, vulnerability to terrorism is all George Bush’s fault. Of course, Bush had only been in office for eight months when Al Qaida struck on 9/11. The threat had been incubating during the Clinton years, but that administration had done little or nothing to address it. The most Clark can say about the Clinton administration’s inattention to the emerging terrorist threat is that "in retrospect, it clear that he could have done more."

Clark is a member in good standing of the "Bush lied" school - an outlook based on the claim that the president and his advisers had intended to invade Iraq from the very beginning, and knowingly deceived Congress and the American people in order to drag them into this unnecessary war. As evidence for this, he cites a 1998 letter from an organization called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) calling on president Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Those who signed the letter included Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/04/clark.html

More Wesley Clark speaking up about the PNAC plan being reported here...
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1160usplans.html

going after Al Queda. It's a matter of public record now, but they didn't go tooting their horn about it all the time, because that just gives the terrorists more air time. Clinton's administration took treats seriously and responded swiftly to the first attack on the World Trade Center. Clinton didn't use it as an excuse to make war on another country either.

The terrorists didn't get into a US based flight school on Clinton's watch and it wasn't Clinton who let Bin Laden's family fly away before any American with their own private plane could take off.

*************************
In Clark’s world, vulnerability to terrorism is all George Bush’s fault. Of course, Bush had only been in office for eight months when Al Qaida struck on 9/11. The threat had been incubating during the Clinton years, but that administration had done little or nothing to address it. The most Clark can say about the Clinton administration’s inattention to the emerging terrorist threat is that "in retrospect, it clear that he could have done more."
**************************

AND ACCORDING TO SNOPES.COM THE LACK OF ACTIVITY ON CLINTON'S PART IS..

AN "URBAN LEGEND" (It deals with several other terrorist attacks and what Clinton did or attempted to do, which all are a lot more to the point than anything *ush has done so far.)


http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.

Status: False.

<snip>

After the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.


<snip>
On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

Bush wanted his war with Iraq, but he needed the country behind him... so he let the ticking time bomb that was Al Queda go off, kill 3000 people..so he could bring the nation together in grief and anger. He started down the road after Bin Laden and then just moseyed on over to Iraq since he was in the neighborhood.

It's kind of like a drunk setting up for his binge while keeping it under wraps until he's got it all scoped out."Yeah, that lawn needs mowing.. guess I'll go get some gas for the mower." The gas station and bar being right next door being part of the plan all along.

There are multiple angles and none of them good, but in this case sacrificing the lives of Americans so he could pursue his war in Iraq while the country was grief stricken and enraged is the worst part of it. Clark calls it "command negligence" I say it's treason against the American people.

But by Gawd, it's a tonic to hear a nationally known Democrat bluntly and without reservation lay 911 and the subsequent horrorshow at Dubya's feet, where it fucking belongs. It hasn't happened too often, which is just disgusting. It's long past time guys, cut the namby-pamby genteel shit and tell the goddamned truth.

Good on you General. Good on you.

he invaded iraq because that is the neoCON plan to cope with peak oil in order to preserve OUR WAY OF LIFE.

Always remember, that prior to the end of the Cold War, The U.S. couldn't just do what it wanted to do in the world.....because there was a counterweight in the U.S.S.R as an equally strong superpower.

As Wes Clark explains it in his Young Turks Interview in Las Vegas on Friday, The NeoCons realized after the Cold War that there would only be a short window of opportunity for the U.S. to "Clean up" and do what they wanted to in the Middle East while the U.S. remained the only superpower with no balancing other power. With China and India quickly on the rise, that opportunity is starting to close. They invaded Iraq for a myriad of reason, none good--Whether to show the world our military might; to gain control of the Iraqi oil, and therefore rule the world economically (china has no oil); and to coverup their total failure at preventing 9/11......They found so many reasons to choose this elective war (of course none of the reasons they gave us were the real reasons) until there was no talking them out of it.

Clark's Young Turks Interview-- http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2006/6/9/144548/6073

The negligence of the Bush administration was absolutely essential to the
success of the attacks. Why the Demds didn't raise this as a campaign issue
in 2004 I can't explain.

Instead he went on CNN and played general-pundit along with the rest of them.

I do give him credit for being one of the few who urged caution, but if this was how he saw it back then, that would have been the brave time to say so. Speaking up after it all falls apart and the polls show Americans disapprove of the handling of the war is hardly the action of the bold and the brave.

in an address to the Center For American Progress' New American Strategies for Security and Peace Conference, he laid the responsibility for 9/11 at Bush's feet and everyone, Democrats included, were aghast. How could he say such a thing! No one else dared say it at the time, yet there are many who would agree now, no?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. There have been a lot of timid Democrats since 9/11. Wes Clark has never been one of them.

He DID stand up and say "he saw NO reason for us going into Iraq"!!! He said it over and over, until the big wigs, tried to silence him. I watched, during the build up to the war, because I was not for this war from the beginning....and Wes was the only voice OUT there giving negatives to the on set!!! He knew, but could only say so much or we wouldn't have had ANY negative voice out there and he wanted to reach the people.
Look, its not about running for President right now, or who any of us support, its about TRUTH!~!! Yes, Wes is my pick, but its to early....we have so many problems...we have to focus on 2006. Whether you support Edwards, Kerry, Hillary, Fingold, Warner, Clark, Kucinish, or whoever, WE MUST COME TOGETHER....RIGHT NOW...RIGHT HERE...AND FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY BACK...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!

He was the one who testified in Congress against Perle before the IWR vote. He convinced Paul Wellstone to vote against the war, and Wellstone cited Clark's testimony as the most convincing. Kennedy stated that Clark convinced him to vote against the war also. The people who voted against the war did so because they took Clark's advice.

He was so against the war that he ultimately lost his job at CNN, and there were stories about him being banned on Lou Dobbs for daring to be against the war during the run up.

Clark warned about the PNAC agenda and was called "kooky" and in "la la land" for buying into conspiracy theories. He was the very first to take Bush to task for 9/11 when all the other candidates were still afraid of that sacred cow, and Gephardt had only started to dip his toe into the "miserable failure" bit. Though other candidates criticized Bush for Iraq, none of them dared criticize Bush's handling of 911 except Clark. He caught a lot of flack for it, and no other candidates dared match his position until Clark had absorbed all the dart throwing.

He warned them not to give Bush a blank check, and revealed he was lobbying Capitol Hill against the war until Daschle told him late at night that Gephardt had caved. Clark published an op-ed on the very night before the IWR vote, warning them against the rush to war.

Considering the fact that Clark is not an elected official, he did a hell of a lot more than those who didn't listen to him and ended up voting for the Iraq War. Clark has never been anything except brave and bold in his stances and has the media darts in his hide to prove it.

Is the guy introducing Clark doing a pretty good Clinton impersonation?

One of the leaders of the Texas Hispanic Caucus. A rising star in Texas politics.

Ranting against the war while the troops were on the screen doing what they were told to do was not going to change anything at that point.

You folks weren't listening :shrug: Don't blame him for that.

So maybe I am doing a disservice to Clark to suggest he was too namby pamby in his comments during the lead up to this war. He did speak out much more than many others but obviously not enough. I'm glad he's speaking out again.

You can speak out all you want, but, obviously...as is evidenced by your comments here...you can't MAKE people listen. More's the pity that so few cared to listen to and really hear what this brave and wise man was out there saying.

People say they listen, but do NOT HEAR. However, the Bushco had everyone in a turmoil.....Shock and Awe....grrrrrr

At the end, he was prescient about it all....
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
More.....



:eyes:


:eyes:


:eyes:

----------
Wellstone, Kennedy and Levin all quoted Wes Clark in their senate floor speech they gave prior to voting "NO".

Hillary, Edwards and Kerry did not.

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King a few weeks ago....


and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and here's what Clark said on 9/16/02 (one month before the vote)...

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?"

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

Clark opposed the Bush Administration's ill-advised war in Iraq, often citing its inability to involve allies and properly plan for post-war reconstruction:

On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions."

August 29, 2002--Clark said there is "War Fever Out There Right Now in Some Quarters of the Leadership Elements in this Country...Where is That Coming From?"

On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French."

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone."

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons.

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one."

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world."

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions."
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

On September 25, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "If we go in there, this government will be displaced, and there will be a new government put in place. But what about the humanitarian issues? What about the economic development? What about the energy? What about the opening of commerce? What about tariffs? What about taxes? What about police? What about public order? All those issues, we should be working on now, because they will help us do a better job of reducing the adverse, potentially adverse, impact of the war on terror if we have to do what we might have to do?"

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed."

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now.....You need the cover of legitimacy, and afterwards, you're going to need allies and other people to help share the burdens of peacekeeping."
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

I like Clark.

What a great line! I like how the general encourages the troops.

He could work on his "fear" think, IMO. Its a lovely part of the
speech, but it just felt askew. The only thing we have to fear is
fear itself. Dividing americans based on our differences over
uniting us for our commonality, our liberty, our freedom and
our democracy.... those are my words... i'm just freeworking
around how i'd tune that speech a bit on that fear section.

He's a brilliant man, Mr. Clark. I think a lotta poeple believe in a
"return to clintonism" and i'd be wary of that thinking. We're returned
to pre-WW1 world of distrusting competing empires staging for an endgame
over energy resources, water and global warming. He means leading,
i appreciate over bullying, good statement that!! good language.

Texas troops need the fire, 2006 and god bless Wesley Clark on fighting
thie good fight, for all decent peoples on this planet.

That was great to watch!

9/11 offered an opportunity they had been waiting for for years. They wouldn't go to those lengths to cover up anything.

I'm watching it now.

"cover-up" like he was thinking ... should I say it?
I'm at the standing O right now.

Wes is not afraid to speak out....but, does use his words wisely....its getting good...right now...

Glad I was a Clark delegate now more than ever.
I'd give the General a standing ovation too.
:applause: :woohoo:

"Cover up" - music to my ears.
Off topic- Why are democrats so much better looking than Rethugs? He is mighty fine .

... and we can go back to living our lives again.

I especially liked the way he pointed out you can no longer trust government agencies like the FDA, NASA, etc., because the Bush Administration filters out the truth. All this tax money going into helping Americans making the right health decisions, tracking the world's health, etc., and it is all corrupted by unnacountable Bushian hacks.

I tend to think a permanant deterioration of our lives is coming in many ways.

I would LOVE to trade some 'standard of living' for getting to participate in long-term solutions to problems that right now are LOOMING over us -- ecological disaster, economic disaster, the way in which 95% of the world hates what we have done in over 250 military and CIA interventions since WWII...

Right now, it seems to me that we are living in an exceptionally dysfunctional US family in which we pretend to feel safer ignoring issues that are really causing us to feel outrageous levels of fear --

Facing these problems means changing our very way of life -- and I am for it.

The sooner we make these changes, the less the change in 'standard of living' will feel negative.

Live simply so that others may simply live.

:toast: :hi:

And I KNOW that I have never taught military history, so y'all will likely to be quick to dismiss me...

Also, I know that this is a celebrate Wes thread - and so far I LIKE a LOT of what he has said. Truly gutsy of him to say aloud that Iraq was an attack to cover up incompetence - to ask why can't we lead other nations instead of just bullying -- GREAT STUFF.

I want him to tell the unvarnished truth about the US military --

He said that we fought to prevent communist expansion in Vietnam. I disagree - the motives included making the defense industry richer, Kennedy showing that he was powerful after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Johnson & Kissinger's idiocy, McNamara's incompetence...

:eyes:

I believe that North Vietnam was a proxy to China in this war......If I recall.

Vietnam started before JFK.

there was no fixed beginning for the U.S. war in Vietnam. The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

911 would not have happened if the repugs were doing their job.

President Gore would not have allowed it to happen.

the war on iraq was planned well in advance of 9/11..so that aspect is bullshit..and here is proof...

from Clark himself..

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

this administration failed yes..but they did one of two things..they let it happen or made it happen..nothing in between..

and they knew it was coming..and they planned to use 9/11 for their war..it was not a cover up of their failure..as they planned to fail or let the failure happen ..or they made it happen..

for their war...

period..

fly..a now retired flt crew of one of the airlines involved in 9/11 ..ny base..

What more is there to say. I find it hard to believe that Clark, with access to intelligence far more sensitive than we have, doesn't know this. So, why the 'play along'?

When will the truth be a winnable position. Why isn't it now? Who sas it isn't?

You are not pointing out mutually exclusive povs here. It abso-frickin-lutely WAS command negligence.

Clark gets a phone call..tie it in with saddam??

please....


my co-workers were burning to death..and Clark gets a call like that..oh please...

fly

Yes, it was part of a long-range plan, and 9/11 provided to opportunity to set the plan in motion by capitalizing on fear. Iraq also provided an opportunity for Bush to look tough, rally the country, and make it very difficult for people to question his command competence (since we were at war, it would "embolden the enemy," etc., etc.)

I guess I'm just grateful that he is bringing it out in the open. My hope is to get a democrat in who will have this admin investigated,under the auspice of incompetence,then let the chips fall where they may.

The whole theme of 9/11 was NEGLIGENCE on the administration's part and perhaps worse (having seen photos of what appear to be explosions below the floors that were collapsing).

Wes is so right to hammer that home. Republicans are under the delusion that Bush's term started 9/12/01.

usually I ignore Clark threads, because if Wes Clark sneezes it makes it to the DU Greatest Page.

WTG, Clark!

The primary motivation for Iraq was related to energy and oil. The absolute unwillingness of Cheney to release the talks with oil companies just confirmed that. The additional motive of compensating for the 911 inadequacies was there and you obviously paid more attention to it. I'm just glad he made the statement. It's powerful...and it is absolutely devastating, particularly considering the source.