Black Commentator: Wesley Clark: Dishonest to the Core...

[drfemoe]

http://www.blackcommentator.com/59/59_cover_clark.html#

"As 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." – Wesley Clark, page 130, Winning Modern Wars.

If Wesley Clark is to be believed, he kept this Pentagon conversation – and his deep concerns – to himself for nearly two years, going public only when it suited his purposes as a purveyor of books and newly-hatched Democratic candidate for President. There is something – no, there are many things – very, very wrong, here.

Clark’s version of the truth is that he didn’t want to know the truth. “I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear,” he claims to recall. “And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either.”

Yet for at least a year Clark said and did nothing to indicate that his brain contained the dreadful knowledge of seven impending wars on the national horizon. Instead, he shopped himself as the hero of Kosovo, telling everyone within elbow grabbing distance that he’d like to run for high office sometime soon, on some party’s ticket. Clark does not claim to have been conflicted by concerns to protect the confidences of his buddies at the Pentagon. “Nothing in this book is derived from classified material nor have I written anything that could compromise national security," reads the introduction to Winning Modern Wars, released in late September.

>> continued http://www.blackcommentator.com/59/59_cover_clark.html#

[KittyWampus]

1. This The Same Low Life Who Called Carol Mosley-Braun

A Barbarian?

[Tinoire]

15. Was he wrong?

(Candidate Carol Moseley-Braun favors single-payer national health care, but reveals her barbaric side in other matters – casting doubt on the moral grounding of all her positions, as we will explain, below.)

Possibly hoping to somehow escape from marginality, Carol Mosley-Braun revealed that in the final analysis she, too, is a creature of barbarism. Moseley-Braun has opposed the war for nearly as long and as fervently as Kucinich and Sharpton but, like Lot’s wife, at the critical moment she looks back – and is lost.

Braun: “…it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run…” In the end, the former U.S. Senator cannot escape the imperatives of Manifest Destiny. By her moral compass, demonstrations of U.S. resolve are more important than other people’s national sovereignty. The Black woman from Chicago cannot imagine that she is talking like a barbarian, that such patterns of thought are the principal threats to the survival of the human race – in short, that she is warring against civilization.

Seconds later, Moseley-Braun waged war against English as a coherent language: “…it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.” It’s not so much Moseley-Braun’s fault that this sentence makes no sense. The logic of barbarism does not mesh with the realities of an inter-dependent globe. It becomes difficult to communicate in civilized company – the essence of George Bush’s problem at the UN, last month.

<snip>

http://blackcommentator.com/58/58_cover_dems.html

[Egnever]

43. Dead wrong

Carol is no barbarian

[Skwmom]

2. Total crap. Some people will sell their soul for a buck.

Boy, Rove is working overtime.

[beanball]

38. Selling their souls

there are some black newspersons that are so brainwashed they turn my stomach,to mention a few, Tom Sowell,and those two Williams clowns,Harry Belafonte had a name for them"the H.N.'s.

[gully]

3. OMG

*gasp* This is frightening! The facts are documented in MR. Clarks book as well.

This is gonna be one helluva tough pill to swallow.

[Catch22Dem]

4. It is?

[gully]

5. YEP!

It is...

[KittyWampus]

11. You Knew He Also Called Dean, Kerry & Gephardt

Barbarians, Right?

[gully]

24. Who's he?

Sorry, I'm outta the loop ;)
Nevermind, I saw it. Thanks. The article still raises interesting questions however.

I expect someone will address this ?

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. What is his position on the Patriot act and Guantanamo Bay?

I haven't been able to find much about this on his website.

[cprise]

7. His lobbyist days For Axciom attest that he likes the Patriot Act

He has his own Haliburton waiting for action in the "consumer information" field.

[KittyWampus]

9. He No Longer Has Anything To Do With Axciom

A Data Mining Company

[cprise]

13. His proclivities on 'security' have been demonstrated

And I would not rule out the possibility of a future seat on the board of directors, if he's a good little public servant.

[Tinoire]

27. Too funny for words! Yeah- no longer as of effective yesterday

Up until yesterday, Clark's photo was proudly displayed on their Board of Director's page...

Clark is busily creating an acceptable persona as he runs! Guess Fabiani told him Acxiom was becoming a dangerous liability so her resigned yesterday. What a joke! Next month I guess he'll resign from Markle Foundation since they're even worse than Axciom- just less known.
---

October 09, 2003 05:02 PM US Eastern Timezone

Wesley Clark Resigns from Acxiom Board of Directors

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 9, 2003--Acxiom(R) Corporation (Nasdaq:ACXM) today announced that retired U.S. Army General Wesley K. Clark has resigned from the Acxiom Board of Directors, effectively immediately. The Company said Clark originally had hoped to fulfill his duties as a Company Director but that the growing demands of seeking the U.S. presidency had made that impractical.
Acxiom Chairman Charles D. Morgan offered deep gratitude to Clark for his many contributions to the board. Clark had resigned his role as a consultant for Acxiom the day he announced his presidential campaign.

Clark had been a member of the Acxiom board since December 2001.

About Acxiom

Acxiom Corporation (Nasdaq:ACXM) integrates data, services, and technology to create and deliver customer and information management solutions for many of the largest, most respected companies in the world. The core components of Acxiom's innovative solutions are Customer Data Integration (CDI) technology, data, database services, IT outsourcing, consulting and analytics, and privacy leadership. Founded in 1969, Acxiom is headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, with locations throughout the United States, and in the United Kingdom, France, Australia and Japan. For more information, visit www.acxiom.com

Acxiom is a registered trademark of Acxiom Corporation.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20031009005750&newsLang=en

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clark resigns from boards of two companies

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark has resigned from the board of two companies -- Acxiom Corp. and Entrust Inc.

In mid-2001, the retired Army general had joined the Stephens Group, the parent company of a privately held family financial concern in Little Rock, Ark., as a managing director for merchant banking. That December, Acxiom Inc., a Little Rock data analysis company, signed a $300,000 contract with Stephens to obtain Clark's help in lobbying the government for homeland security business.

Clark joined Acxiom's board at the same time, and after leaving Stephens earlier this year, he signed another, $150,000 consulting agreement with the company. That contract was terminated when he announced for president last month, according to Acxiom, but he had remained a paid board member.

A privacy group has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Acxiom and JetBlue Airways Corp., which has acknowledged that, in violation of its own privacy policy, it had given information from about 5 million passenger records to a Defense Department contractor.

<snip>

AP-ES-10-09-03 2205EDT


http://wvgazette.com/section/APNews/News/ap0826n

[eileen_d]

16. Whoa - that's a "long jump" to a conclusion

if I ever saw one. Glad you found something to cling onto in the ripe world of Clark-bashing though. Did you hear he voted for Republicans? He was also employed by the U.S. military. And there are several unanswered questions about dead puppies.

[Padraig18]

52. And I heard...

... that he dances naked in an oak grove every full moon, and scarifices virgins. /sarcasm off :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

8. Clark On Patriot Act

What is Clark's position on...

“The PATRIOT Act ought to be pulled out and given a
full sunshine review… You’re not going to win the war
on terrorism if you destroy who we are as Americans
and take away our rights and liberties.”



America's role in the world “One of the things about the war on terror that I am
disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended
habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been
done once in American history and then only for a very
brief period.

When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which
the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a
reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law
renforcement agencies will always chafe at any
estriction whatsoever when they're in the business of
trying to get their job done. But in practice we've
always balanced the need for law enforcement with our
own protection of our constitutional rights and that's
a balance that will need to be reviewed.”


“We have to be very careful of the PATRIOT Act. It was
passed at a time of enormous perception of threat in
The International Criminal this country. It was passed without full legislative
analysis and review. It’s been in place, a number of
people have been arrested, a number of people have
been deported. I think the PATRIOT Act needs a good,
open air, public review, in the sunshine, before we
retain it or modify it, or add to it.”

“ Act] without a thorough review of where we are right
now with the current PATRIOT Act. I think one of the
risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving
up some of the essentials of what it is in America to
have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think
you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge
those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I
think that needs to be carefully looked at.”

[cprise]

10. You could get Ashcroft to say that

What a bunch of blah blah blah.

Maybe he would like it revised to name Axciom specifically.

[KittyWampus]

14. Could Get Ashcroft To Say What Specifically?

What would he like to have revised to name Axcion specifically?

What is your point specifically, except to smear a Democratic Candidate who said during several debates that the Patriot Act should be held to Judicial Review and that the AMerican People should be made aware of whta it contains.

And while you try and create boogiemen out of various issues....

it just comes off as pathetic.

[cprise]

35. Such Brave Words

...from the Clarkster:


“The PATRIOT Act ought to be pulled out..."

Oooooooooo. Dilated eyes, here we come. :loveya:


"...and given a full sunshine review..." :shrug:

"...it begs for a reconsideration and review." :eyes:


It's meaningless sentiment. We already know where he has put his money.

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. Thanks! Can you give me a url for his position on Guantanamo?

I am coming up blank for all the candidates on that one.

[KittyWampus]

28. Let's Get DU'ers Into All The Candidate's Town Hall Venues

So we can cask them their positions on:

BBV
PNAC
Guantanamo

Feel free to add topics... no more softballs for the candidates!!!

[Tinoire]

33. Keep reading here. One candidate did speak out and long ago

Conyers-Kucinich Bill Challenges Bush on Unconstitutional Military Tribunals
24-Mar-02

Military Tribunals

John Conyers (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, have introduced the "Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2002" to bring Bush's unconstitutional military tribunals within the framework of the Constitution. "Most seriously, the regulations would still severely limit judicial review. For example, if convicted, a defendant could not go to a regular appeals court or the Supreme Court, the defendant would be forced to go to a special review panel of three judges, one of whom is a military judge... non-citizens in the United States could be tried before a military tribunal. Nor have we heard that the regulations are in any way limited to terrorism or the events of September 11... The regulations will continue to permit detention of suspects in secret without public scrutiny or monitoring. And would continue to permit indefinitely detaining suspects without access to the judicial system."

http://www.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Military%20Tribunals

=====================================================================
April 16, 2002

Statement of Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Before Government Reform Subcommittee Hearing
on the Axis of Evil:
Multilateral Containment or Unilateral Confrontation

<snip>

What about the Administration’s refusal to negotiate in good faith towards an enforcement mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention? The propriety interests of American pharmaceuticals may be safe, but will Americans be safe if other countries are able to develop bioweapons programs without fear of discovery?

Will the burgeoning small arms trade that the Administration has refused to help control continue to play a part in the death of civilians and Americans at the hands of terrorists? Will land mines, which the U.S. has refused to renounce, one day maim American servicemen? Will an American POW one day be mistreated because our government has refused to fully grant the Guantanamo Bay prisoners their Geneva Convention rights?

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-041602-axisofevil.htm


=================================================================
Speech By Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)
To The Southern California Americans for Democratic Action.
February 17, 2002
Los Angeles, California

A Prayer for America

(to be sung as an overture for America)


"My country 'tis of thee. Sweet land of liberty of thee I sing. . . . From every mountainside, let freedom ring. . . . Long may our land be bright. With freedom's
holy light. . . ."

"Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave. O'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave?"

"America, America, God shed grace on thee. And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea. . . . "


I offer these brief remarks today as a prayer for our country, with love of democracy, as a celebration of our country. With love for our country. With hope for our country. With a belief that the light of freedom cannot be extinguished as long as it is inside of us. With a belief that freedom rings resoundingly in a democracy each time we speak freely. With the understanding that freedom stirs the human heart and fear stills it. With the belief that a free people cannot walk in fear and faith at the same time.

With the understanding that there is a deeper truth expressed in the unity of the United States. That implicit in the union of our country is the union of all people. That all people are essentially one. That the world is interconnected not only on the material level of economics, trade, communication, and transportation, but innerconnected through human consciousness, through the human heart, through the heart of the world, through the simply expressed impulse and yearning to be and to breathe free.

I offer this prayer for America.

Let us pray that our nation will remember that the unfolding of the promise of democracy in our nation paralleled the striving for civil rights. That is why we must challenge the rationale of the Patriot Act. We must ask why should America put aside guarantees of constitutional justice?

How can we justify in effect canceling the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?

We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it.

We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant.

We cannot justify giving the Attorney General the ability to designate domestic terror groups.

We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data which may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records.

We cannot justify giving the CIA the ability to target people in this country for intelligence surveillance.

We cannot justify a government which takes from the people our right to privacy and then assumes for its own operations a right to total secrecy.

The Attorney General recently covered up a statue of Lady Justice showing her bosom as if to underscore there is no danger of justice exposing herself at this time, before this administration.

Let us pray that our nation's leaders will not be overcome with fear. Because today there is great fear in our great Capitol. And this must be understood before we can ask about the shortcomings of Congress in the current environment. The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail.

It continued when the Attorney General declared a nationwide terror alert and then the Administration brought the destructive Patriot Bill to the floor of the House.

It continued in the release of the bin Laden tapes at the same time the President was announcing the withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

It remains present in the cordoning off of the Capitol. It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote.

The trappings of a state of siege trap us in a state of fear, ill-equipped to deal with the Patriot Games, the Mind Games, the War Games of an unelected President and his undetected Vice President.

Let us pray that our country will stop this war. "To provide for the common defense" is one of the formational principles of America.

Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September 11. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September 11th. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.

Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere,anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy.

Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion.

Consider that the Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the items it purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need.

Yet the defense budget grows with more money for weapons systems to fight a cold war which ended, weapon systems in search of new enemies to create new wars. This has nothing to do with fighting terror.

This has everything to do with fueling a military industrial machine with the treasure of our nation, risking the future of our nation, risking democracy itself with the militarization of thought which follows the militarization of the budget.

Let us pray for our children.

Our children deserve a world without end. Not a war without end. Our children deserve a world free of the terror of hunger, free of the terror of poor health care, free of the terror of homelessness, free of the terror of ignorance, free of the terror of hopelessness, free of the terror of policies which are committed to a world view which is not appropriate for the survival of a free people, not appropriate for the survival of democratic values, not appropriate for the survival of our nation, and not appropriate for the survival of the world.

Let us pray that we have the courage and the will as a people and as a nation to shore ourselves up, to reclaim from the ruins of September 11th our democratic traditions.

Let us declare our love for democracy. Let us declare our intent for peace.

Let us work to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our own society.

Let us recommit ourselves to the slow and painstaking work of statecraft, which sees peace, not war as being inevitable.

Let us work for a world where someday war becomes archaic.

That is the vision which the proposal to create a Department of Peace envisions. Forty-three members of Congress are now cosponsoring the legislation. Let us work for a world where nuclear disarmament is an imperative. That is why we must begin by insisting on the commitments of the ABM treaty. That is why we must be steadfast for nonproliferation.

Let us work for a world where America can lead the day in banning weapons of mass destruction not only from our land and sea and sky but from outer space itself. That is the vision of HR 3616: A universe free of fear. Where we can look up at God's creation in the stars and imagine infinite wisdom, infinite peace, infinite possibilities, not infinite war, because we are taught that the kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven. Let us pray that we have the courage to replace the images of death which haunt us, the layers of images of September 11th, faded into images of patriotism, spliced into images of military mobilization, jump-cut into images of our secular celebrations of the World Series, New Year's Eve, the Superbowl, the Olympics, the strobic flashes which touch our deepest fears, let us replace those images with the work of human relations, reaching out to people, helping our own citizens here at home, lifting the plight of the poor everywhere.

That is the America which has the ability to rally the support of the world.

That is the America which stands not in pursuit of an axis of evil, but which is itself at the axis of hope and faith and peace and freedom. America, America. God shed grace on thee. Crown thy good, America.

Not with weapons of mass destruction. Not with invocations of an axis of evil. Not through breaking international treaties. Not through establishing America as king of a unipolar world. Crown thy good America. America, America. Let us pray for our country. Let us love our country. Let us defend our country not only from the threats without but from the threats within.

Crown thy good, America. Crown thy good with brotherhood, and sisterhood. And crown thy good with compassion and restraint and forbearance and a commitment to peace, to democracy, to economic justice here at home and throughout the world.

Crown thy good, America. Crown thy good America. Crown thy good.

Thank you.


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/sp-020217-prayer.htm

[DuctapeFatwa]

39. Thanks! but that's just 1. There are 10. Why so silent on an issue

of this importance, an issue that impacts directly on the national security of the United States.

Whatever their positions may be, I would have thought that all would be eager to make their views known.

[snoochie]

41. Because they're politicians?

Seems to me it's the nature of a politician to be ever so careful not to offend anyone who might do them a favor or offer them a vote someday, to the point that they are hesitant to take strong stands.

That's one thing I love about Dennis -- he says what he means, and clearly. No 'reviewing' the patriot act for him... he's already submitted a bill to repeal the parts which infringe on liberties. All the Dennis-haters even fault him for this though! With dismissive comments like 'it'll never pass' -- but he has brought the issue up and dealt with it officially through his office as a Representative and that's obviously more than most have.

Go Dennis!!!!

[eileen_d]

12. This is a poorly made argument

- as arguments based on conjecture about why someone DIDN'T do something usually are. Clark was a RETIRED general from a Democratic administration. What the hell was he supposed to do with his knowledge -- sabotage his former employer, the U.S. military? Start assassinating members of the Bush administration? All based on a single hallway conversation in the Pentagon? Give me a break.

[cprise]

17. No. Cash-in on Homeland Security.

Too bad the lobbyist position didn't cut it for him and Rove turned him down for a position.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[bread_and_roses]

18. To those of you dismissing this analysis

...what in it is inaccurate? (Whatever your feelings about the source, or disagreements with that source's estimation of CMB). I had paid no attention to Clark at all till the quote on the dangers of preemtive war from the debate caught my eye. Since I don't watch TV news, I hadn't even been aware that he was a network commentator. And to my shame, Kosovo seems so long ago that I havn't even tried to reconstruct whatever I might have thought of his role there. So I am pretty much a blank slate when it comes to him, other than an automatic mistrust of Generals. So, why are these points not problematic?

[eileen_d]

22. "Dishonest to the core" is what's problematic to me

There is no evidence of Clark LYING in the article - just not speaking up. I honestly don't understand what they expected him to do.

[drfemoe]

30. Paid Spokesman

I have a lot of problems with him and since I care about "what happens", I feel compelled to share my concerns.

He has been making a living as a paid political/war speaker, including his tv career. Nothing wrong with that.

Last night (debate) he said he spoke at a republican fundraiser because he was bipartisan at that time.

I still see him as a bipartisan paid political speaker.

Is he combining his book tour with his run for the highest office of the land?

[KittyWampus]

31. Like Presidential Candidates Don't Ever Have Books Out?

OMG What a riot! :D

[Tinoire]

34. As if the problem is that he wrote a book

:eyes:

[eileen_d]

32. So you fault him for making a living?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't understand what issue you are raising in your post. It's not like the Republican (or the Democratic) party paid him to write the book.

[democracyindanger]

42. Correct yourself

He said he was nonpartisan, not bipartisan.

Why should the difference be pointed out?

1) Because if you're going to say a candidate said something, get it right;

2) Look up the definitions between the two. It's not just nuance.

[LizW]

19. Well. That certainly lays it out there

in pretty harsh terms.

While I take exception to the parts that call Clark a "loon" (I don't think he's crazy at all, quite the contrary), this article does point out things that have made me uneasy for some time now.

Clark has now twice stated plainly that he knew the neo-con plan long before it became clear to the public. First he said on Russert's show that he knew as early as Sept. 11 that the White House was going to try to connect the 9/11 attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Now in his book he claims that he knew the whole horrible scope of the plan even before that.

Why didn't he expose it? As the article points out, he had the ear of the public, and he claims that he was very troubled by the things he knew. He was in a position to wield influence, or at the least expose the evil plans of the neo-cons at a time when it might have made a difference.

I am afraid that it ties in with the story in Newsweek that stated that Clark wanted a job in the Bush administration once the war against Iraq started. I can only judge this man as a candidate for President by what he has done in the past. What he has done is in contrast to the things he now says he believes.

He worries me. A lot.

[eileen_d]

21. You are judging him by what he FAILED to do, not by what he did

What kind of influence do you think he could have wielded? He was not a Washington insider. I doubt he had all the facts at his disposal. Would speaking out have done anything? He worked for the Clinton administration - they would have smeared his ass in a heartbeat.

[LizW]

25. Yes I am

He claims that he was privy to plans for a five-year war against seven countries that had not attacked or threatened the United States. He knew this was very, very bad. He says he "didn't want to hear about it." I think that if he had revealed this while he was a commentator on CNN, someone would have taken notice. The whole WMD argument would have looked different in the context of a long-term plan to take over large parts of the Middle East and Africa.

You're right, I am concerned about what he didn't do, and why he didn't do it.

[eileen_d]

29. Well, I was responding to what you said in your post

I can only judge this man as a candidate for President by what he has done in the past.

Yet this article doesn't talk about what he did in the past, but draws unsupportable conclusions about what he didn't do from a book excerpt. So really, I don't fault you for wondering why he didn't do something - but the article itself skips that steps and goes straight to condemning him as "dishonest." And that's why I criticized it.

Someone should ask Clark the question "Why didn't you do anything" - it's a good question, I'd be interested in the answer myself. But I'm not inclined to condemn him for NOT doing anything, because it is hard for me to believe that he was in a position to do anything. He was a CNN commentator hired for a specific purpose -- it's not like CNN gave him a platform to to address the American public about any topic he felt like.

[mikehiggins]

60. what did he know and when did he know it?

In July Bob Novak outed a CIA operative.

This was well known to those of us who pay attention to such things, but was largely ignored by the rest of the world. It hasn't been until September that anyone took notice.

The neocons plans for the Mid-East were widely known among those who pay attention to such things. They made no effort to hide them, and in fact the plans were first officially broached during the first Bush administration. George I apparently beleived they were loony.

CLark was a commentator, not an investigative reporter. To go on the air and baldly announce that the US policy towards Iraq was part of a larger plan to overthrow any number of regimes would have been laughed out of court, like the FOX lawsuit against Franken.

I'm sorry you have doubts about Wes Clark. It might be my advancing age, or my decades of toiling in the vineyards of politics, but I have no doubts about his ability to accomplish the job at hand, which is to remove George Bush from the WHite House. If you want to debate any other issue you are free to do so.

To me, Job One is Job One. Everything else is bull.

[LizW]

62. I wish it was that simple

I agree with you on Job One. Getting rid of Bush is a crucial first step. And I have never, ever said I would not vote for Clark if he is the nominee. However, I have lots of misgivings about the job Clark will do if he's elected President.

Would he be better than Bush? Absolutely. Immeasurably.

But I'm not prepared, during the primary campaign, to overlook some very concerning (to me, anyway) issues about Clark.

Frankly, I think by the time the election comes, most of the nine Democrats would beat Bush in an honest election (no rigged machines, no fraud in the voter rolls, no intervention by the courts). But whoever wins inherits a huge mess and perhaps a Republican Congress. It's not going to be easy, and I remain adamant that beating Bush in only the first step in saving American Democracy. The job after that is just as important, and I want the very best Democrat we can get to take on that job.

Because of Clark's inexperience in politics, and his dubious connections to the MIC, I don't think he's the one.

[mikehiggins]

63. ABB

I beleive you are wrong in thinking Bush will be easy to beat. No matter who we nominate we are going to face a hard scrabble, fight to the last man battle to pry these people loose. The Republican party will be fighting from the precinct level on up to get Bush another shot, and we will be seeing disgruntled democrats deciding our candidate isn't pure enough to deserve their efforts.

That was a mistake a lot of democrats made in 2000 and thousands of people have died as a result, as well as opening our society to a right wing gutting that nobody would have beleived conceivable, let alone possible at the hands of the Dunce-in-Chief.

This time we have to pick the single candidate most likely to be able to BEAT Bush, no matter what. No matter what happens, our candidate has to be better for this country than four more years of this.

It is that simple.

[DemDogs]

64. He should be judged that way

by what he does and what he chooses not to do.

I find Eileen's post really sad, because the Clark supporters clearly wanted him to be be the complete candidate, and it would have been great, really great, for the party if he had been. But he has turned out to be a collection of problems, non-answers, troubling actions, and even more troubling inaction. And the Clark supporters don't seem to able to let go. Take a tip from Donnie Fowler: it's time to let go.

[eileen_d]

65. don't cry for me, argentina

You're putting words in my mouth, and I really resent that. I *am* disappointed in Clark. I thought he could have come out of the gate a lot better. My disappointment in Clark has actually led me to look closer at Dean - but I guess that destroys your fantasy that all Clark supporters are blind followers, so it'll be tough for you swallow.

I'm NOT disappointed in Clark for choosing NOT to take on the Bush administration when he overheard about the administration's war plans. I fail to see what he could have done, and nothing I have seen in this thread convinces me otherwise. Certainly nothing in that article, which IMO is a piece of crap.

Incredible how easy it is to paint anyone who cares to defend Clark on specific issues as a blind sheep. The same could be said of ANYONE on this board who defends ANY candidate. Thanks for turning me off DU for the rest of today.

[KittyWampus]

23. The Story About Clark Wanting A Bush Job

Was spread by two friends of Rove. That's the fact of the matter.

Please prove that "Clark has now twice stated plainly that he knew the neo-con plan long before it became clear to the public."

I've been paying pretty close attention to what he has said and written...

[mmonk]

36. A lot of people knew of the neocons and

their plan especially concerning Iraq as a first step scenario. They've published their views and democrats and republicans know them. You people worry me alot. And all the democrats who voted for this war should have known and some I bet DID.

[mikehiggins]

61. knowledge vs beleif

Once again we see the old disconnect.

We KNOW something but we just CAN'T beleive it.

The neocon's master plan was well known to all sorts of people.

Most people simply COULD NOT beleive they would ever actually do something as crazy as that.

How many Jews beleived there were death camps until they walked through the gates? (no, I'm not clasifying the neos as nazis; I'm just pointing out that even in life-and-death situations it is hard to accept things that are so far beyond what we think possible or sane)

Nobody thought the neos would subvert the war on terror into a jingoistic exercise in regime change and nation building, but here it is.

At this point all of us should be working to stop this program, which requires a total regime change here at home (not only at 1600 Pennsylvania but in Congress as well). To me, Wes Clark is the person who can buy us the time we need to heal the insanity. Even if his political ideas are riddled with holes and inconsistencies, he at least represents a return to normalcy and sanity in our relations with other nations.

Reclaiming this nation is Job One and right now Clark seems to be the best candidate we have to do just that.

There are those who would rather lose with purity than compromise in order to achieve the greater good. Usually, we call those people well-intentioned. Unfortunately we know where the road paved with good intentions leads.

It leads to four more years for George Bush and I don't think this nation can stomach that.

[Demobrat]

37. Jaw, meet floor.

He knew, and said nothing? That's it. I have been ABB up until this moment, but if Clark is nominated I'm writing in Dean.

[mmonk]

40. Good

and while you are at it, maybe you can join the anti-Clark push polling going on in New Hampshire right now.

[Egnever]

44. Sounds like a good idea where do I sign up?

[catforclark2004]

45. The Lincoln Day Speech

Many have made much about him speaking at a "Republican" Fundraiser. However, when you actually read the speech, you realize that his words are being taken out of context. See for yourself.

on re-reading clark's lincoln day speech:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the frist paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience.
also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE! obviously they have failed in holding europe to our cause.
also notice how the core of his new american patriotism is taking shape with the "be all you can be" remark.

in the next two paragraphs he further defines the european challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.
Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.

[Bread and Circus]

46. Any idiot knows Bush's intentions...

all you have to do is read the PNAC website
and you would have all the plans.

Clark has the been the only one to say anything
about it...in his book...at last night's debate.

The rest are curiously silent or inforgively
ignorant. Take your pick.

[snoochie]

47. Yeah yeah PNAC plans and all...

But he was talking about people at the Pentagon, saying it was 'in stone'...

Am I the only one that sees a difference here?

[Kool Kitty]

48. What was he supposed to do with the information?

Buy half-an-hour on C-SPAN? What could he have done?

[Demobrat]

54. He was a CNN military commentator, right?

Gee...I don't know...maybe mention it? Sure, lots of people "knew", but how many had the forum and credibility to bring it to the average TV viewer's attention? This man is a Bush enabler who switched sides when W looked vulnerable.

[Andromeda]

49. Some people here seem uneasy...

because Clark is a military man I think all the anti-Clark remarks stem from a mistrust of this fact. All military people are supposed to be apolital, at least publicly. If he said he didn't belong to either party, he was telling the truth. The kind of position he was in required him to be on good terms with the brass at the Pentagon and other higher-ups so if he had a few conversations with neocons that doesn't taint him for life. If that was true then you'd have to blackball most of the politicians in Washington.

Some of you want a perfect candidate. You want somebody who is "pure" in thought, deed and idealogy. Your overly-idealistic requirements for a candidate are as impossible as getting Peter Pan to be Secretary of State.

If Clark wins the nomination I think the Democratic party would be fortunate to have such a candidate to run against Bush. What we need now is to have a viable candidate who can BEAT Bush.

Of course, if you want to remain the minority party then be my guest and bash away at Clark or whomever you feel is not perfect and pure as white driven snow. We may lose, but, by golly, we'd still have our principles wouldn't we?

[bread_and_roses]

50. The question right now

is not Clark vs. Bush. It is Clark vs. the other candidates. It is perfectly legitimate to question any one of their records or positions, and especially world-view. Some of us even think that a candidate who can speak to a vision of a country not hated around the globe for its' death dealing profiteering and oppression might have the best chance of rallying people against the evil cabal in power. And you can't oppose with legitimacy what you are in bed with. If the public is given a choice between war, unemployment, no health care, AND taxes or war, unemployment, no health care, and the (false)promise of NO taxes which will they choose? Better to question the candidates now, and try to get someone up there who offers a real choice. Because as we have seen in California, the same old same old doesn't have much appeal. We should ask every question we can think of at this stage of the game.

[mmonk]

51. If it were questioning, that's one thing,

but I've seen innuendo, falsehood, and dirty politics from the followers of the other candidates. And that's a truthful opinion (based on what I've seen so far). To make that part of it as innocent questions seeking answers is humorous.

[mmonk]

53. Also,

"What was done to Gen. Clark last night was a Democratic disgrace",

-Al Sharpton speaking @ the NAACP forum in Charlotte last night concerning the Phoenix debates.

[Padraig18]

56. I agree on both counts!

I am sick and tired of the seemingly HUGE importance some Clark detractors (not simply dean supporters, either) place on non-issues, and become quite angry at their repeated demands for 'explanations', especially when it is crystal-clear that they have *no interest whatsoever* IN those same explanations already provided over and over and over again. The constant flames, slander and innuendo against Gen. Clark turn my stomach!

I am ready to 'move on' to REAL issues and policy differences with the Clark campaign and leaves these nit-picky, dumbshit red herrings in the dust!

Note to Dean other supporters: He SAYS he's a Democrat, there is NO proof that he is not, so.... GET THE FUCK OVER IT! :grr:

[lastliberalintexas]

57. Did you read this thread at all?

This thread hasn't been about whether he voted for Nixon and Reagan or was even a registered Dem. It IS about policy differences!!

I have yet to see any Clark supporters offer information that this article is false. Yes, it has a misleading title- but is the substance correct? Was he in fact privy to that conversation yet kept quiet about it for almost 2 years?

Asking for real information here people, not just a criticism of the source. I take everything bad about any of our candidates with a grain of salt, considering the state of the media today.

[Padraig18]

58. Yes, I read it. Did you read the post above mine?

That's what I was responding to.

[bread_and_roses]

55. And what I've seen

is that almost everyone regards the questions directed at THEIR candidate as "innuendo, falsehood, and dirty politics."

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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