General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeneral Wes Clark reminded us of PNAC plan to destabilize the Middle East. Video.
We have done a heck of a job, haven't we?
He actually told us about this plan during the 2003/2004 campaign. This video is dated 2007, but he spoke of it much earlier.
He told of a plan to attack 7 countries in 5 years.
Yes, we know this already. But I think as the 2016 campaign gets started, it's time to remember.
There are some words spoken in the past by candidates that are going to be hard to forget, hard for the candidates to back away from.
She seems to really believe we gave Iraqis "the gift of freedom."
I am supporting Bernie Sanders in the primary, but in spite of reservations I will vote for the Democrat rather than this bunch of Republicans in the clown car.
However I won't be able to forget these words about Iraq. From 2008
"In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'
More:
In Pittsburgh.
"And I believe that at the same time that we have to make clear to the Iraqis that they have been given the greatest gift that a human being can give another human being the gift of freedom. And it is up to them to decide how they will use that precious gift that has been paid for with the blood and sacrifice and treasure of the United States of America."
Andrew Gumbel spoke out when Hillary used these words again in Austin, Texas.
In Austin, Texas.
There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin. "The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles.
Andrew Gumbel at Huffington Post
Thanks to General Clark for speaking up about these plans that quietly and behind the scenes hijacked our foreign policy.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)what has he done lately? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.
But he did glare at someone who asked him about his previous statement- and said "America is a force for good":
Wesley "Evil Eye" Clark
People should remember that this Clark character commanded the very first PNAC war and almost started WW3 with the Russians
http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm
John Pilger tells the truth about Wesley's bombing of Yugoslavia
http://johnpilger.com/articles/don-t-forget-yugoslavia
elleng
(130,974 posts)and many ignored the warning.
More recently, General Wesley Clark:
Remember Rwanda. Arm Ukraine. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/02/26/wesley-clark-balkans-putin-aggression-ukriane-us-role-column/23953497/
Exclusive Briefing from Ukraines Front Lines
US, Russia heading to another arms race.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/13/lead-intv-clark-russia-tensions.cnn?iid=ob_videoleaf_organicfooter&iref=obnetwork
Gen. Wesley Clark on ISIS: Whats next?
http://www.msnbc.com/the-reid-report/watch/gen.-wesley-clark-on-isis--what-s-next--401052227908
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Decision of ordering the invasion of Iraq squarely on Bush. All of the other statements attempting to say others allows Bush to escape his responsibility of his decision. Give this to Bush, it is his.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)It's about those who made the invasion he wanted possible.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)that makes perfect sense
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)How does it make sense to protect Bush? As you say when someone lies about something then I do not want it to be my fault because believing a lie does not make sense, ergo Bush has the invasion of Iraq on him since he did not follow the IWR. Not my fault.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)and that target right now is Hillary
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)BERKELEY Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.
Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Invade. The IWR said Bush should exhaust all means before invading, Bush pushed the invasion, the decision is on Bush.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)a lot of people were misled by the lies the Bushies put out
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)that she and millions of other Americans who were suckered in by the lies and they should apologize for what the Bushies did?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)in May 2003, nearly 80% in a Gallup poll thought the war was justified
September 2004 a CBS poll showed that dropped to 54% but it was still up from the previous poll in July 2004
let's not forget that Bush won the 2004 election so there must have been more than a few people who supported his positions
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and since when do great leaders go by polls?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)In either case it makes her unfit to hold public office.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and I was not alone. Lot's of us knew it was fixed.
Another example was the Patriot Act which was plopped on the desks of those about to vote on it the next day. Wow ...they really put some time into those important decisions.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)We have a history here and we need to keep repeating all we have learned through these years before we VOTE in the next Election.
Need to hold "Officials" accountable when they "Tell the Truth" and when they "Back Track" because they are compromised.
It's well worth the watch! Even though Wes often contradicts himself after a "Truth Telling."
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)when the PNAC pages were still online the plan was right there for each section of the world around us.. There is still some of it at the Wayback machine and Information Clearing House.
I am not a big fan of Clark, but all too often we go into denial and attack the messenger than look at the message.
elleng
(130,974 posts)I AM a big fan of Wes Clark. He should have been president or held major positions in every administration since 2004.
elleng
(130,974 posts)Unfortunately the 'professional' democrats wouldn't pay attention.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Remember the horrible Clark/Dean primary wars here? It was awful.
The professionals did not pay attention because it was likely a done deal.
elleng
(130,974 posts)Clarkie friends said this place was hostile, so I didn't sign on until it was over.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Hope it doesn't get that way this time.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Both Dean and Clark were and are honorable people sincerely trying to do what's best for our country and our people within the realm of what they deem possible. I think the same holds true for Clinton and Sanders. Supporters of candidates for office can and should disagree passionately here on which Democrats they support and why, but it was/is also obvious that there are those who lurk on political discussion boards trying to stir up trouble among us by using character assassination tactics regarding the candidates we are drawn to. We should not tolerate that regardless of who we support.
Good as always to see you here Mad. Thanks for digging up this clip and related documentation. It is crucial not to forget.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Like old times. You are right about so much there.
You put it well, and we should remember:
You said
Supporters of candidates for office can and should disagree passionately here on which Democrats they support and why, but it was/is also obvious that there are those who lurk on political discussion boards trying to stir up trouble among us by using character assassination tactics regarding the candidates we are drawn to. We should not tolerate that regardless of who we support.
elleng
(130,974 posts)ALWAYS good to hear from you!
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)
It seems he's more referring to that time period. I agree, though, the democrats during that time period should have stood up to Cheney more, but he was a buzzsaw, and they were threatened with being traitors.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Best wishes on Memorial Day
Adelante
(28,394 posts)So it's nice to see you acknowledge Gen. Clark. Good for you, MF. For me, he'll always be one of the finest of men.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)It is quite long, and the specific goals for repositioning our troops around the world start around page 11. Hard reading, but well worth it.
The PNAC took down their website years ago, but some is there at other places.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
And if you have not read Jay Bookman's great column from 2002 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, you need to.
Iraq intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire.
The president's real goal in Iraq
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
johnnyreb
(915 posts)Just to set the stage a bit more:
O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11
January 9 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)He spoke out quite a bit on this. Thanks for the link.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)They should be a warning of what we are in for if she becomes POTUS.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)you only have to want to see them. Yep they hate us for our freedom.