Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gen. Wesley Clark: Pentagon Had Plan in 2001 to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:48 AM
Original message
Gen. Wesley Clark: Pentagon Had Plan in 2001 to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 10:50 AM by kpete
Gen. Wesley Clark Says Pentagon Had Plan in 2001 to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-03-04

This is an excerpt of Gen. Wesley Clark in a Democracy Now interview with Amy Goodman:

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/144...
via:http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19200
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. one word....
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 10:51 AM by mike_c
PNAC

This has been a neocon wet dream for decades. Can you say Fourth Reich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blashyrkh Donating Member (816 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
110. I can, I usually get shouted down a tin-foil-wearing lunatic with no grasp of reality.
And people still think 19 Arabs carried out 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
120. Read the Mother Jones article in this thread >
with the quote, "It's the Kissinger plan!" Decades is right. These wormy little neocons have been plotting since the 70's. They wanted to prove how smart they were. Well, they proved it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. 9/20/01 ..... we're going to war with Iraq
Can we impeach these shit now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
109. The problem is going to be deprogramming all those Republicans who
drank the Kool-Aid. They really believe that the only good Muslim, is a dead Muslim. So, heaven forbid that we ever get attacked on our soil by Al Qaeda because they'll blame the liberals for not pre-emptively going through with the PNAC plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. Part of this is somewhat funny - Bush even failed in his conquest strategery!
Guess that whole Iraq thing wasn't quite the cakewalk he expected, eh? I wonder, did he really expect that we would just be able to steamroll through each of these countries with minimal opposition? Sounds like a very Hitler-like plan of conquest - except only this time, the Polish fought back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Reality and Gravity were the only things to stop him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rebel with a cause Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
100. Perhaps those other six countries decided
To follow georgie's selling point for Iraq, they decided to fight us there, so they wouldn't have to fight us at home. If this is the case, for them it seems to be working.

I say - Impeach them if we can, contain them if we can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Gauger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
132. The Polish fought back.
Their entire military was completely destroyed. They didn't just throw up their hands and surrender. A famous incidenct occurred in Warsaw where the Polish ceremonial guard faced German Panzers on horseback because every other member of the Polish military had been killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. I've heard Clark talk about the Iraq invasion story, but this 7 country invasion is new to me.
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 10:56 AM by in_cog_ni_to
These people truly ARE insane. Their arrogance has caught up to them though. Iraqis didn't throw flowers or open their arms to us. They had their arrogance shoved down their throats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I remembered it as 5 countries in 2003
But his memory is probably better than mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
133. I heard it verbatim in a speech he gave in Iowa back in October
He's been saying it far and wide. It just doesn't get anybody interested. Since the PNAC controls the media, they opt to ignore it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. How does a third recount sound now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. LOL they never even finished the first one in Florida n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
6. I hope this gets international distribution.
K and R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepCAblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
10. Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.
Yup...in perfect accord with the PNAC plan of world domination, beginning with the Middle East. And with Israel's urgings, blessings and full blood-letting support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
11. Demcracy player rules.
http://www.getdemocracy.com /

Tough interview with Clark. She really asks him some tough questions. First channel I signed up for was Democracy Now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
88. Hey, Seldona....
That is too cool...I didn't know about that player....Thanks for the tip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #88
118. My pleasure.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
12. Thanks for waiting 5+ years to tell us.
ASSHOLE!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Clark brought this stuff up a long time ago. Watch this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. So, we're not as bad as HItler yet how?
I know the genocide but clearly we wanted the world domination thing. At least 10 million would die in that maelstrom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. This is good.
And about as far as a mainstream public figure could go in lambasting B*shco: i.e. their incompetance/indifference/negligence which is born out by the facts.

(What isn't born out by the facts just yet is Bushco's motivation for ignoring all warnings about al-Qaeda...).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. He still won't get my vote.
I don't consider him a patriot. He would have to sacrifice more to get that information out.

He didn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. He DID
He can't help it if the news media was too busy covering some missing white woman to bother with this.

He DID bring it up.

YOU are negligent in not realizing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
80. The poster above
has no interest in the truth. Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Clark was attacked by FOX news when he brought this stuff up
during the campaign. It may be what caused Clark the election because it was his word against the Administrations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #27
131. Brit Hume and Fred Barnes mocked Clark for that statement.
Edited on Mon Mar-05-07 09:08 AM by NCarolinawoman
I remember channel surfing right after Clark got into the primary campaign, and there were the "Beltway Boys" rolling their eyes. If you attack a General you make subtle implications from the movie "Dr. StrangeLove". (It was obvious that is what they were doing).

Trouble is, it's the chickenhawk civilian cheerleaders who have no concept of the REALITIES of the cost of war who are the authentic Dr. StrangeLoves---- chickenhawks like "The Beltway Boys" who still believe in THIS war; not to mention Bill Cristol (PNAC man of the perpetual smile) who is cheerleading for yet another war---war with Iran.
Doctor Strangelove, indeed. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
64. Wes Clark is very much a patriot
When he helped run the NATO intervention against the serbs
who were killing muslims he got the job done, won a lasting
peace and did not lose 1 American.

He has taught @ West Point and is a combat vet. Wes tried many
times to get the info but was stoned by a compliant media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #64
89. Thank you, Botany!
:hug:

I was much too hormonal to be on this thread earlier today, but I've since had some cherry pie filling and feel much better. LOL! (pregnancy cravings are the BEST - you can eat cherry pie filling straight out of the can and no one looks at you funny!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
123. I read the OP and thought
someone hopefully loaded my 7 minute edited vid, so thank you! I was mesmorized by his words...

I've been off the net for a couple days and it's good to see people like kpete and yourself are on the ball. DU is awesome.

This truly shoulda been big news, but because we have no real media anymore unless the owners of the media turn on bush, this never got out as much as it should've.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- New 08 stickers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Clark DID NOT wait 5+ years to talk about this....
He WAS talking about his conversation in the Pentagon, about the PNAC plan and about the bush cabal's intent to attack Iraq years ago. Sadly, very few were paying attention at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. Why wouldn't he go to TOP papers and state this?
Has he not enough power to get this on the front page? Someone with his credentials wouldn't be taken seriously? I'd think if I were a reporter looking for THE scoop... this would've been it! Imagine this on front headlines when it actually came out? Is this system at ALL anything OTHER than a shell? If someone like him can have this kind of information and not have the ability to do be effectively informing the public, then what makes any of us think ANYTHING can be controlled? So if he found out Bush murdered someone once a day, on the floor of the White House, with his morning tequila, would this not get out either? Would he REALLY not be able to inform the public? Where there is a will there is a way, no?

I'm not really directing this at you.. I realize I could've posted this reply to OP... it's just thinking out loud, with a lot of unanswered questions....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. He DID.
Damnit to hell.

NOW do you understand why Clarkies are constantly saying the news media ignored him? Do you fucking get it, yet?

Clark talked about this in 2001, in 2002, in 2003 and was either ignored or called insane for bringing it up.

He DID talk to reporters about this.

He DID try to get coverage.

But, THEY failed - derelict in their duty - to report on it - and when they DID report on it, they called him insane.

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.


http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clar...

Is November 2001 not fucking early enough for you people?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. I appreciate your information.
I asked these questions, because obviously I didn't know. This is why people ask questions. Your cursing at me is nasty and quite frankly would intimidate others to ask questions in the future for fear of being treated like a piece of garbage for not knowing EVERYTHING that YOU know.

Now at least I have the answers to give someone else when they ask. Hopefully, they will not care if they have to be cursed at in order to get information, because the information is what is most important.

Have a nice day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. It wasn't just you.
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 11:54 AM by Clark2008
I apologize - but it just gets under the skin of Clarkies when we constantly have to do the news media's job in covering him because they won't.

Look at the posts above yours where someone called him an asshole for, well, as it turns out, nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
70. Oh don't miss the next post
The person who hasn't been paying attention and thus blames Wes Clark, has decided that Wes Clark isn't a patriot.

It wasn't/isn't just the MSM that is f'ked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
106. I'm Glad You Got The Information
You seem to be someone, while hesitant on Clark, you want to know more. Glad to have you here :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. thank you
I do want to know as much as I can get my hands on. I like everything about DU.. even though it's rough sometimes, I've learned it's worth it. It's like taking class at a university here. I joke with my husband sometimes and say DU Democratic University... and when he says I'm playing on the computer, I shoosh him and say, no talking in class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #108
119. DU: Democratic University. I Like That : )
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. They called him a "crackpot"
called his charges against PNAC a "conspiracy theory."

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #44
85. You could tell he was telling the truth...
before the war began, Bob Dole had steam coming out of his ears and Eagleburger and the rest of the neocons started showing up all over the television and tried to downplay what Clark was saying...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ladyhawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. Just a thought...
He may have actually helped to prevent it from happening by opening his "big mouth." :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. I don't know what you are reading in my post but,
that is precisely what he was doing and they didn't like it. At that time no one would listen to anything but freedom fries, Don't say anything against YOUR commander and thief, and hate anyone who has a different opinion than the YOUR president...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #93
103. You are describing exactly what my family did..
they parroted the "against your president" stuff to me. I knew the America I was taught about was one who was unique BECAUSE of the right to dissent, it was essentially American to do so if you didn't agree. That's when I really stopped listening to those whom I thought knew better than me, and to find out information for myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
124. I remember Clark: "Bush drew his sword and now has to attack Iraq" quote(s)
...during that unpleasant period four years ago as bush was sending our army to the Arab land. I was chatting *a lot* on this message board and don't recall the conversations you cite. They certainly did not make it into the newspapers or TV "news".

My position was that any time was a good time to deescalate.

Of course, "just because it did not make it to DU" does not mean that it did not happen, but it was certainly not the "message" that I was getting from Wesley Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #21
30. Is Meet the Press okay? CNN?
The Washington Post? He said it many, many times to the press. NOBODY wanted to fucking hear it. He was called a conspiracy nut. There are still DUers to this day who call Clark "unreliable" or "unbalanced" or whatever crazy thing directly originating with the neocon response to his talking about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. You're welcome nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. I just have to ask....
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 12:05 PM by windbreeze
what is it that people do NOT understand about the media in this country being controlled??????????????????????????????????????????????and that IF the ones who CONTROL the media, decide a person, or what he/she says IS going to be ignored...THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS....what I find interesting...is how people are blaming Clark for NOT telling what he knew...when in actuality, he most certainly DID exactly that, and has been doing so for years now...isn't it funny how..now it comes out again..and the response from some people is, that he's NO PATRIOT...and he won't get my vote...why couldn't he get this the attention it needed, etc., etc.,....that it's HIS fault no one paid attention...GEE, wonder if they are still afraid he'll run for office???
This begins to get fucking disgusting...period..!!
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
72. And how about this:
He also talked to those "yes" voting Democrats behind closed doors. Think about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
98. So many questions, so little time
If you read the responses I got from Clark2008 (or close to it) you'd understand I'd asked because I didn't know. That's usually what people do when they want to find an answer. They usually ask for the purpose of becoming informed. What did you do, to get to where you know what YOU know? I bet you asked. I hope someone answered you more nicely. By the way, Clark2008, gave me information that helped me learn, albeit no so nicely, but then apologized. I don't see any information in your post that helps. Sorry you are so mad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #98
121. uh uh...not mad
Edited on Mon Mar-05-07 01:02 AM by windbreeze
disgusted, because we've gone through this same thing over and over for about 4 years now, and my hide is getting worn just a little thin...perhaps I best leave the defense of Clark to those who still have thicker skin than I do...the man has been talking since 2003, and basically you weren't the one I meant to refer too...sorry I nettled you..
wb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
42. He tried but, with the media cheer leading the war....
what he had to say was not what they wanted to hear OR print. From the time he testified in the House in 2002, before the Iraq attack, to today, he has worked very hard to get the facts out. It is only now that Iraq has turned into the quagmire he warned about is the media even touching upon what he has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #42
99. thanks.
Everything that I have so far learned about Clark, I like. I'm trying to get as much information about politics.. I'm a late starter and I have a lot of catching up to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #99
136. You got caught in some crossfire
We're sorry :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
94. Clark was talking about what was planned for the future,
how were the masses going to believe something so enormous and unbelievable? The masses were busy being patriotic just like Congress. It was up to those that saw the documents or could have been able to Prove this plan to speak out.

I'm still waiting for documents to be provided. Dana Priest is making progress with the media letting people know what this admin. is and is not doing. It will happen eventually, let's hope not too many more will die fighting bush's war before that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #94
102. You are right about people...
it's so enormous and unbelievable... hard to wrap your head around it. It's like some of the soldier's families that "have" to believe the war is purposeful, so their family member didn't die for a lie.

The more I learn about the media's part in this, the more upsetting it is, because the crimes become even more wide-scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. He was playing POLITICIAN not PATRIOT. SHAME ON HIM!!
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 11:31 AM by dkofos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
39. Quite the opposite, he was trying to warn the public
Unfortunately, the public, via the media who were, by and large, cheer leading the war, were unable to hear him. I heard him all the way from Canada but only because I knew from when he was SACEUR, he was someone worth listening to when it came to issues such as this and when he re-appeared as a guest commentator on CNN, I listened closely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
73. It wasn't just Clark they ignored. They even ignored the
weapons inspectors who said there were no WMD's, no nuclear program, no unmanned aircraft that can fly to the US and drop poison gas on us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Yes, very true, they ignored everyone and everything that called
into question the propaganda being spewed by the White House and regurgitated by the corporate media. If they could not ignore them, they ridiculed and belittled both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. In Wilson's (Plame) case, they were willing to endanger her and her
contacts to get their way. They may have put the US in greater danger, just to harm a critic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #81
96. I have believed, and still do, that outing Valerie Plame and
Brewster-Jennings was the main "event" and the excuse was Ambassador Wilson's op-ed. If anything, my belief has been strengthened, rather than diminished, in recent days due to the ratcheting up of the Iran rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #96
112. We need to try bush and his junta for crimes against humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
62. Yes, And They IGNORED Him, And If They Continue To Ignore Him On Iran,
we will have another (potentially) avoidable tragedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. I read about Clark mentioning this years ago.
It's not new, but then again it's not something he talks about all the time.

However, how many other politicians have mentioned the PNAC plans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Beat me to it...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. I was. And yes I am an ASSHOLE
I just didn't care to support A DLC'er.

And now that I know he played politician instead of PATRIOT in 06,
I won't pay attention to him in 08 either.

And I will remind everyone of the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. Wow, you're TOTALLY misinformed, aren't you?
DLCer?

Clark has never belonged to the DLC. That would be Edwards. And Kerry. And Clinton...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
87. It really is funny how...
some would rather believe some draft dodging, warmongering chicken hawks than someone who has fought the fight and knows more than these liars who don't know shit, and have been wrong at every turn...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
53. So, you make a ridiculous statement....
get called out and proven wrong on it...and compound the foolishness with another ridiculous statement...

OhhhhKaay....I guess that's strategy of some sort....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
63. He Was A Tireless Warrior For The Dems In 2006 (& Before)
And when he dropped out in 2004, he went to work for Kerry IMMEDIATELY.
Maybe that's what you mean by "playing politician"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
114. Maybe you weren't paying attention.....
maybe that's the problem!

Maybe that's why we are still in deep doo-doo now....cause not enough of youse were paying attention listening......maybe too busy running the mouth and making pronouncements as though you had a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
38. Funny - seems like we're standing up to you.
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 12:22 PM by Clark2008
Editing my message since the other was deleted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
69. Absolutely disgusting and uncalled for!
Wes Clark has been telling this story for 4+ years. He told it, and the oh-so-smart political writers made fun of him. And now this shit...you calling a truth teller an "asshole" just because you hate Clark so much that YOU'VE failed to listen to him. Wes Clark has stood up for us time and time again. He's used his hard-earned stars to try to stop this war, and now, to stop the next war. And what thanks does he get? You calling him names. How clever. How astute. Blaming Wes Clark for your personal failure is a sure sign intellectual dishonesty. Disgusting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
113. He's been mentioning for a long time....it's even in his book.....
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 08:49 PM by FrenchieCat
written in 2002-2003!

You know what happened when he mentioned it on MTP back in June of '03?

Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

6/20/03

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.

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."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842


They discounted his words since he had no proof, and instead called him crazy.....


General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a bizarre, crackpot attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.

In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration,in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy promoted by the Project for a New American Century much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=Ol...



Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.

by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0...




Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan
Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece.
Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003



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

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

During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events.
snip
Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence.
snip
Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy.....
snip
As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their "Project for a New American Century" seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.
snip
September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

And the neoconservative goal was more ambitious than merely toppling dictators: By creating a democracy in Iraq, our success would, in the president's words, "send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran--that freedom can be the future of every nation," and Iraq's democracy would serve as a beacon that would ignite liberation movements and a "forward strategy of freedom" around the Middle East.

The neoconservative rhetoric glosses over this truth and much else. Even aside from the administration's obvious preference for confronting terrorism's alleged host states rather than the terrorists themselves, it was a huge leap to believe that establishing democracies by force of Western arms in old Soviet surrogate states like Syria and Iraq would really affect a terrorist movement drawing support from anti-Western sentiment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.cla...



Apparently for the neoconservative civilians who are running the Iraq campaign, 9-11 was that catalyzing eventfor they are now operating at full speed toward multiple, simultaneous wars. The PNAC documents can be found online at newamericancentury.org.

his new book, Winning Modern Wars, retired general Wesley Clarkcandidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, offered a window into the Bush serial-war planning. He writes that serious planning for the Iraq war had already begun only two months after the 9-11 attack, and adds:

I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. . . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

A five-year military campaign. Seven countries. How far has the White House taken this plan? And how long can the president keep the nation in the dark, emerging from his White House cocoon only to speak to us in slogans and the sterile language of pep rallies?
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1...


Was David Brooks careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic? David Brooks was careful, all right. You can see how careful he was in the passage which slimed Wesley Clark:

BROOKS: The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles.
Wed sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting,
but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010904.shtml



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 nations 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 Clarks world, vulnerability to terrorism is all George Bushs 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 administrations 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.ht...



EXCERPTS FROM HARDBALL INTERVIEW 12/17/04

CLARK: ...I think, you know, a guy like Bill Kristol, what he sees is that Secretary Rumsfelds plan is not unfolding the way that the neocons thought it should unfold in the Middle East. This was supposed to be like a scaffold. You know, you just go in there and carve out Saddam Hussein, boom, the people are liberated. And theyre all democratic. And then the Syrians jump on board and say, hey, by golly, come and save us too. And then the Iranians and the Lebanese.

It hasnt worked that way, because what the neocons didnt understand is, that you dont get the kind of Democratic reform you want in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun. And theyre holding Rumsfeld responsible for that. But really, its a flawed conception.

MATTHEWS: Thats interesting. Youre the first person Ive heard say that, general. Because a lot of people look at it much more narrowly and they say the reason were getting criticism of the general is there arent enough troops there. He said he had enough troops, when really in reality, it was the conception that justified the low troop level. Is that your point? That you did not need a lot of troops, because you werent going to face much of an insurgency.

CLARK: .....One is the point of the neocons, which is not military at all. It is the point of the operation and the fact that you could sort of go in there and lance the boil of Saddam Hussein, get him out of there and everything would turn out OK. And it hasnt.
http://securingamerica.com/node/60


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

Wes Clark really is the man for the job to clean up the shitstorm we are now facing. He knows where all of the bodies are buried. Only Nixon could go to China....and so, it goes!




The front page story in the Sun takes Clark to task for this passage in the interview ?

Clinton administration: broad minded, visionary, lots of engagement. Did a lot of work. Had difficulty with two houses in congress that didn't control. And in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy -- promoted by the Project for a New American Century -- much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.
The piece in the Sun doesn't just disagree with Clark's point. They portray it as some bizarre or even unhinged misunderstanding of the main currents US foreign policy.

The author, Ira Stoll, got Bill Kristol to say "It's really a little bit crackpot. I don't think Clinton was really following the PNAC script. We called for regime change. Last I looked, Saddam was still there when Clinton left. Maybe he got confused."

Stoll also got Randy Scheunemann --- less publicly known, but an important neocon voice in DC --- to say Clark's comments were "bizarre."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_...



Andrew Sullivan--HOW LOOPY IS CLARK? The answer, I fear, is that he's Ross Perot without the emotional stability.




The backdrop to the Clark-bashing from the White House and its helpers. This from Charlie Cook's weekly newsletter "Off To The Races" ...
For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible. President Bush now has a 40 percent disapproval rating on "handling foreign policy and terrorism." That is without a Democrat with any credibility in national security having thrown a punch. A credible Clark could inflict some very serious damage on this president, particularly after Bush's admission last week that there was no direct connection between the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Saddam Hussein. That was news to 69 percent of Americans, who told Washington Post pollsters in August they thought a connection was likely. The Bush campaign cannot afford to have a credible Clark throwing fastballs at them for the next 15 months, whether he is the nominee, running mate or sitting on the sidelines.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_...


October 21, 2003
The one they're afraid of
Posted by Mark Kleiman
Nick Confessore at Tapped reports that the Republican strategists he talks to think that Wesley Clark would be the toughest candidate for Bush to handle. That helps explain the rough ride he's been getting in the media lately.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/10...

September 27, 2003
Spinsanity Takes on the Spin Machine
Posted by Mark Kleiman

There's nothing more boring than the game of pin-the-lie-on-the-liar, but Spinsanity does a good job on a couple of stray slanders against Wesley Clark. Don't understimate the importance of this stuff: if the public can be convinced that Clark is somehow untrustworthy, that will put a big hole in his ability to make the "character" issue against Bush.

Remember the punchline of Lyndon Johnson's story: you don't have to prove your opponent has sex with pigs, you just have to make him deny it. It worked against Al Gore.

So far, it doesn't seem to be working against Clark, at least among Democrats; Clark's favorable/unfavorable among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters stands at 49/11 in the latest Newsweek poll. <*> But the Bush forces and their media allies are clearly more scared of Clark than of any other candidate, so expect the slanders to keep coming.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/09...


Gene Lyons, Political Columnist and Co-Author of "Hunting of the President," Chats with BuzzFlash About General Wesley Clark
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
127. Thanks for being an ignorant.
Kinda like the Senators voting for IWR (he told them too)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
22. Ha ha----they did not count on a civil war!! IDIOTS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
40. New Yorker 11/17/03


Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan

Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.

Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_War_+_Peace...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
43. Rolling Stone September 25, 2003

I went to the Pentagon nine days after the attacks and called on a man with three stars who used to work for me. He said, "Sir, I have to ask you, have you heard the joke going through the halls?" I said, "No, what is it?" He said, "It goes like this: If Saddam Hussein didn't do 9/11, too bad. He should have, 'cause we're going to get him anyway." He looked at me, and I looked at him, and we both knew that it would be a classic mistake if we did that.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5937568?rnd...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
58. New York Times 7/15/03
Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from people around the White House urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11, which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.


http://tinyurl.com/ljxz2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
45. Talking Points Memo October 2, 2003


When I interviewed Clark that passage was the one that struck me most and the one that stood out in my mind. The analogy hadnt occurred to me before. But its extremely apt. And the backroom politicking over Iraq is something I know a bit about.

Why it stuck in my mind was that it showed not only a deep grasp of foreign policy issues but an equally canny sense of the informal and extra-governmental ways policy gets hashed out in Washington. More than anything it signaled an understanding that what weve been seeing for the last two years is part of a much longer history stretching back into the late 1960s.

The point is that the CPD and PNAC advocacy were both cases in which outside pressure groups groups of neoconservatives basically B-teamed the given administration, getting around their flank by working congress and the media to force the administrations hand or make certain policy options politically unviable.

With Iraq policy this involved getting the Clinton administration off its policy of dual containment and toward one which, on paper at least, embraced the principle of regime change as American policy. This in fact was what happened with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in late 1998. The embryonic PNAC and other prominent neoconservatives worked the press, lobbied in congress, coordinated with the INC, and the then-weapons inspectors to push for a harder line against Iraq. And in significant ways they succeeded.

-snip

The details of all this are too complicated to go into at the moment. But Clarks point isnt crackpot or bizarre. Hes got it exactly right. The analogy to the late Carter administration is quite apt. And Kristol, Schhuenemann Stoll each know it. Indeed, they were each in their own way part of it.

Theres nothing untoward about this. This is what democracys about organizing people, pressuring elected leaders, shaping opinion, and so forth.

But when you see these slashing words from the neocons against Clark, its not because hes confused about anything. Its because hes got their number. And they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. Open Democracy 4/22/04
After the deceptively easy victory in Afghanistan, Bush at war returned in the shape of the campaign against Iraq. In fact, as Bob Woodward recounts, Paul Wolfowitz had already proposed on 15 September 2001 to attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan because this seemed to him a more feasible objective. The former treasury secretary, Paul ONeill, and General Wesley Clark have confirmed that the idea of attacking Iraq was the goal of President Bushs praetorian guard since the beginning of his tenure; Saddam Husseins dictatorial grip on power represented for them a permanent checkmate of the United States.


http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-103-1868...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Daily Standard 12/1/03
Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Washington Monthly, May 2004
President Bush's approach to Iraq and to the Middle East in general has been greatly influenced by a group of foreign-policy thinkers whose defining experience was as hawkish advisors to President Reagan and the first President Bush, and who in the last few years have made an explicit comparison between Middle Eastern regimes and the Soviet Union. These neoconservatives looked at the nest of problems caused by Middle East tyranny and argued that a morally unequivocal stance and tough military action could topple those regimes and transform the region as surely as they believed that Reagan's aggressive rhetoric and military posture brought down the Soviet Union.

-snip

As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their Project for a New American Century seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.

September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.cla...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. University of Alabama 10/13/06
So, when 9/11 happened, we didnt have a national strategy. The American people werent engaged, and what happened is that we went to war in Afghanistan. We had to, but this administration determined shortly after 9/11, perhaps on the same day, that they would invade Iraq and settle an old score and move into that strategy that Paul Wolfowitz had described to me in 1991. There was no public debate. There was no discussion of what this meant. There was obfuscation. I went through the Pentagon a week after 9/11. One of the Generals called me in, and he said, Sir, he said, come in here in my office. Id gone in to see Secretary Rumsfeld, because after youve been in the uniform for 35 years, when youre suddenly on CNN, and you know the people who are in, and you feel like youre still part of the Army. I kept looking at my suit and looking for that big black stripe that you wear around your sleeve and looking, my, my shoulder was bare, and I was in a blue suit, not a green one, and I wasnt Air Force either. (laughter) And so, I had to go back and touch base, you know, to the Pentagon.

So, the General calls me after Id seen Rumsfeld. He said, Sir, come in here. He said, Sir, were going to invade Iraq. I said, Were going to invade Iraq!?! Why? And he said, Because, he says, I dont know why. Really, he said, It doesnt make a whole lot of sense, but, he said, I guess they dont know what to do about the problem of terrorism, and if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail. He said, We dont know what to do about terrorists, but we can take down governments. So, I guess theyre looking for a government to take down. Meanwhile we started bombing in Afghanistan. So well, I came back to see the same General in early November. I said, Are we still going to invade Iraq? He said, Yes, Sir, he said, but its worse than that. I said, How do you mean? He held up this piece of paper. He said, I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. Its a, its a five-year plan. Were going to take down seven countries in five years. Were going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, were going to come back and get Iran in five years. I said, Is that classified, that paper? He said, Yes Sir. I said, Well, dont show it to me, because I want to be able to talk about it. And I begin to see what wasnt being explained to the American people, which was the overall drift of where the policy was. We still didnt have a strategy, but we were driven to take action.




http://securingamerica.com/printready/Univ_Alabama_0610...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
71. Clark podcast, 9/11/06
Could we have possibly imagined five years ago, that we would have done so poorly?

Well the truth is, yes! We did imagine it, because right after 9/11 we saw all the indicators of an administration that was tragically mistaken in the way it approached national security, and mixed national security with politics. Its approach to national security was colored by the "Project for a New American Century" and some prejudices brought in by Administration members from a time far distant in the evolution of the Post-Cold War world. A determination to smash regimes by force in the Middle East. And a determination to strike governments rather than go after terrorists organizations themselves.

Yes, we saw that. We saw it in the refusal to deal with the terrorists before 9/11 and the president's dereliction of duty. We saw it afterwards in the hasty decision to invade Iraq no matter what. And I saw it when I went through the Pentagon in November of 2001 when a senior officer waved a memo in front of me that purported to explain the administration's plans to take down, first Iraq, then Syria, then Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and then go after Iran - all in five years.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #71
86. Al Franken Show 5/2/06
Al Franken: And its, its one thing for somebody who voted for this war saying, you know, You have to assume the Presidents telling the truth. You cant assume a President is lying. But then on the other hand, the American people want someone whos a better BS detector than they are. And, and you know, I think I would have voted for the use of force, because I wouldve believed, I believed Colin Powell. I didnt have any reason to think that I couldnt believe Colin Powell. I didnt have a reason to believe that the administration would be misleading us, and they did.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I didnt, I didnt believe it because I went through the Pentagon a few days after 9/11, and the Generals in the Pentagon told me, Hey sir, they said, These guys have made the decision to invade Iraq.

Al Franken: Right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This was like, the 20th of September. I said, They have. He said, Oh, yes sir. Theyve already decided. I went back a couple of months later, and said, Are they still going to invade Iraq? This is like, November. Said, Oh, yes sir. In fact theres even a plan to- After they finish with Iraq, theyre going to take on Syria and Lebanon. Eventually theyre going to end up in Iran. This is a whole five-year campaign plan to go from country to country kicking out dictators and taking over and imposing Democracy.

Al Franken: Now I know youre a Four-Star General, and, and so the guys at the Pentagon would say, Sir, theyre planning (laughs) to invade Iraq. But how did, how did the Senators on the Intelligence Committee not hear that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a lot of them did, because I told a lot of them.

Al Franken: Uh huh. And, and, and did, did they believe you. I mean non-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They may have believed me, but you know, theres a lot of different shades of truth in Washington. And its, I mean, I told people about the five-year plan, and people would say, Well you know, yeah, there may be somebody who wrote that, but maybe they wont do that.

Al Franken: Right, right, right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You know, weve got politics to worry about. Can we afford to be on the wrong side of President Bush on this.

Al Franken: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Hes going to turn the American people against us. Look what happened in 1990.

Al Franken: Okay, but thats not, thats. I understand why. Yeah, anybody who voted against the first Gulf War was, was, was not considered to be on the ticket.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly.


http://www.airamericaradio.com/alfrankenshow /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #59
83. AntiWar.com 6/17/04
9/11 Panel Denies Al-Qaeda-Iraq Links

WASHINGTON In a direct challenge to recent assertions by both President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the special bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon has found no credible evidence of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.-snip

The commissions conclusion on the absence of ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda is also certain to further discredit the so-called neoconservatives both inside and outside the administration who led the march to war. Many of them were behind what appeared to be an orchestrated campaign to implicate Hussein in the 9/11 attacks themselves.

-snip

A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with 9/11 and al-Qaeda surfaced one year ago in a televised interview of General Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs program, Meet the Press. In answer to a question, Clark asserted, 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.

It came from the White House, it came from other 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.


http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2828
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
47. Why didn't he speak up on this before the vote in October 2002.
How many lives would have been saved?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Wow, I suspect it wouldn't matter when he spoke up, you
would still hold him responsible for "not speaking up sooner" and hold him more responsible than others who STILL have not spoken up about PNAC, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. I hold anyone who knew Iraq was not a threat to be responsible...
and that includes the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. It might help if you read General Clark's opening statement
when he testified before the House in September of 2002, BEFORE the Iraq invasion:

snip

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

snip

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. 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. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

snip

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

more

http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs/openingstatement...

Even more interesting was the question and answer period that followed his opening statement. Unfortunately I have, as yet, been unable to find the transcript of that portion of his testimony, hopefully someone else might.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Here's a link to the Q&A session:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Thank you! It is well worth reading, especially the difference
between Perle's responses versus General Clark's. I have bookmarked this link so I won't lose it. Thanks again, much appreciated!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. He did.
In November 2001. In August 2002. In September 2002.

But, you know, he was ignored by John Edwards...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #47
75. Please read
If you'd been reading all along then you may not have indulged your Clark haterd with your foolishly ill informed post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
115. Without proof? I'm sure he spoke of it to many in congress......
Which is why many who voted "NO" on the IWR quoted Wes Clark...like Sen. Conrad, Boxer, Kennedy, Levin and Wellstone (I have the links, if evidence is needed).

No one who co-sponsored the IWR or/and voted FOR it quoted the good General.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/what_wes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
60. Clark on Gonzales
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 01:13 PM by BushDespiser12
Instead of attacking each other here, would it not be more effective to get this information out to the people?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, Id like to see what the evidence is against Rumsfeld. I do know this, that there was a lot of pressure put on the men and women in uniform to come up with intelligence. I remember -- I think it was either General Sanchez or General Abizaid, who stated that we don't need more troops -- this is the fall of 2003 -- we just need better information. Well, to me, that was immediate code words that we were really trying to soak these people for information.

And it's only a short step from there to all the kinds of mistreatment that occur at places like Abu Ghraib. So we know that Al Gonzales wrote a couple of really -- or authored, or his people authored and he approved, a couple of outrageous memos that attempted to define torture as deliberately inflicted pain, the equivalent of the loss of a major bodily organ or limb, which is -- it's not an adequate definition of torture. And we know that he authorized, to some degree, some coercive methods, which we have -- and we know President Bush himself accepted implicitly in a signing statement to a 2005 act on military detainees that he would use whatever methods were appropriate or necessary. So there's been some official condoning of these actions.

I think it's a violation of international law and a violation of American law and a violation of the principles of good government in America. There have always been evidences of mistreatment of prisoners. Every army has probably done it in history. But our country hasn't ever done it as a matter of deliberate policy. George Washington told his soldiers, when they captured the Hessians and the men wanted to run them through, because the Hessians were brutal and ruthless, he said, No, treat them well. He said, They'll join our side. And many of them did. It was a smart policy, not only the right thing to do, but a smart policy to treat the enemy well. Weve made countless enemies in that part of the world by the way we've treated people and disregarded them. It's bad, bad policy.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/144...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. An by using torture you get them to say what you want to hear
then deliver it to congress its that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Our AG rewriting the definition of torture in memos. How wrong is that?
We are being stripped of all decency within our own eyes, and the eyes of the world. Damn these traitorous bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
61. He's been saying the same thing for a long time now...
yet for a lot of people, it's the first time they are hearing it. The woman sitting next to me at the Y event Tuesday night gasped and shook her head in disbelief when he said it and I, who have heard Wes talk about this over and over again, shook my head in disbelief that this was the first time this woman had heard of it. Seems like she's not the only one.

An account from a New Hampshirite who was at the fundraiser that General Clark attended for Carol Shea-Porter Friday night lamented today on Clark's blog how he spoke at length on Friday night about the possible coming invasion and even the local newspapers barely reported a word of it.

No doubt, a few years down the pike, when we're mired in another mess with Iran, the same folks who are here decrying that Wes never spoke of this before will be crying that he never spoke out against attacking Iran while there was still time to stop it....

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
65. It's obvious now. Damnation.
They have this ultra-twisted view of national security, one in which Oil is King. A free, prosperous, and democratic Middle East is dangerous to Oil because the emergence of a middle class in the MidEast would threaten the stability of the governments there, like it did in the US during the late 60's and early 70's. Social change, civil rights, gender rights, protests, labor unions, etc. And if the governments are threatened by internal instability, so is the oil supply.

So we have to destroy democracy in the Middle East and support authoritarian rule in order to keep the supply of oil pumping to the world.

I guess that's more critial than selling our industrial base overseas, but it perfectly explains Iraq. In their twisted view, the 3100+ dead and 30,000 horribly mangled Americans ARE defending the US!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #65
82. I hope more people will take StopIranWar.com more seriously now
Here is the direct link:

http://www.stopiranwar.com /

This is what Wes Clark is working on now rather than running around the country kissing babies. I wonder how many of those who act surprised that Clark has been blowing the whistle on PNAC's plans for years now also haven't paid attention to this push to prevent war with Iran RIGHT NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. But, he'll have to kiss my baby!
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 04:00 PM by Clark2008
I have another Clarkie on the way!

:hi:

And my baby already has a Onesie that says, "I'm already smarter than the president!" Which, is probably true. Sadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
67. A 5 year plan in 2001 hmm
more evidence they stole 04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #67
78. The first version of the plan
was written long before PNAC. Bamford writes that it was formulated shortly after Gulf War I. Powell was part of that cabal of writers. The plan then morphed into "Clean Break," although Israel at the time rejected the idea. The masters-of-dumb have been practicing their act for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
74. A kick for WesDem's incredible
posts! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #74
105. I got tired
There is so much more :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #105
111. Then....


You did GREAT!

(Sometimes the nasty posts are worth it just for the great info included in the Clarkies responses!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #105
125. All that work for 1 or 2 knuckleheads in this thread...
LOL---Great effort though. There's always one or two in threads like these.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #125
129. It was only one knucklehead
But as you can see from the deleted posts, I had to resort to a different form of communication lest DU kick my ass out of here :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
77. Iran, Syria and Lebanon...straight from the Israeli shopping list
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. I'll follow ya till ya start dumping on Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #79
90. OK - we'll clarify by saying "the current and recent past Israeli
leadership" when discussing their connections to the PNAC.

No one's saying Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself - what we're saying is that it doesn't have the right to pick fights and drag America along with it.

Better?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Totally agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #92
97. Cool.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
104. By the way I support Clark fully.
Please let him run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #97
107.  Just a note. I favor instant condemnation for ANY party in
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 06:26 PM by eagler
the Middle East who would start another war and condemnation for any party that refuses to stop fighting if a war starts. I also favor taking Jerusalem out of both Israeli and Arab control and making it an International city,self run, along the lines of ,say, the Vatican or Singapore, accountable to only the UN. It is much too diverse to be otherwise. All religions would then have freedom to worship and to traverse as they please. It would be defended by UN forces or some international force.The Palestinians definitely need a united homeland and Israel needs to be recognized as part of the world community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
95. Too bad they lost two wars before the shooting even started. Go for
the Trifecta, you Rumsfeldian avatars. Iran will make three wars you've lost, almost without firing a single shot :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
101. Thanks for posting this. I forgot to record it!
:( :(

I wish I had that to show a few folks....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
116. No surprise. I looked at a map back in 2002 and could see what they were up to.
Edited on Sun Mar-04-07 09:47 PM by Hissyspit
And talked about it to my students in class. Iran in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan and gotta deal with Syria, too.

Plan not going so well, hunh?

And, oh, by the way, I, too, remember him talking about this. He was much attacked and ignored. He and Dean were my candidates in 2004.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
117. Too bad the plan wasn't workable,
thank God the administration realized it was a futile endeavor, and too bad they had to actually try it out before realizing that it wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brettdale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
122. yeppers
Thats a bit scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
126. It was in his book at the time - and on DU too...some attacked him as...PNACer
(if he knew them things, he must've been one of them). I am glad that it comes back to attention - Clark never stopped blowing the whistle on PNAC since he heard. (one of the reasons for the media blackout on him, BTW)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jelly Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
128. Why is this not on the front page of the NY Times?!?!!?!
I am so fed up with this crap. Those idiots have to be held accountable. They just have to be. After living for 33 years on this planet Earth, I have lost much of my former idealism. The rest of it will go up in smoke if they are not held accountable. That would just confirm that the world is a heartless, evil place where there is no justice and the rich and powerful can get away with murder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #128
130. Judith Miller was always going after Clark.
I wish I could remember the specifics. Of course that other guy from the NYT tried to tank Clark's campaign early on, by saying he would have supported the IRW resolution, when in actuality he was saying he would have supported the Levin Amendment. Clark's supporters all knew what he was talking about; but to this day, people use this to say Clark supported the war.

The NYT was not his friend back then. Chalibi, "Curveball", and Judith Miller were their people.

Maybe they are ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
134. anyone surprised at this has not been listening
its in his book, he's been saying it for years...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-05-07 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
135. Normally I would bitch about needing more proof
Even if something like this wouldn't suprise me coming from this neocon admin.

However, we are talking about Wes Clark here. He is a man of integrity and a man of honor. So far he has been proven right on too many issues to ignore this. If these cowards that we elected don't take action soon it will be all over for this country and for this world. Bush will attack Iran, its not a matter of if but a matter of when. How can democrats sit by and do nothing about this again. WTF is wrong with them? Nancy, Harry, Barack, Hillary, any of you chicken shit "leaders" going to stand up to these evil pricks or are your political futures more important than the future of this country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC