Wes, you've got some 'splainin' to do.

[madfloridian]

What the General Never Told Us About the Bush Plan for Serial War

SNIP...."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." Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

He never disclosed anything like this information in any of his CNN commentaries or in the opinion columns he wrote for print media at the time. If Americans had known such things, and if the information is accurate, would they have supported the White House’s march to war? Would Congress have passed the war resolution the White House asked for?....."END SNIP

[gully]

1. This is an excellent point overall. I wonder if he'll be asked to answer

any of these questions at the debates?

[leetrisck]

2. We know it now anyway and Americans

choose not to believe it so why would they have believed it then - "Slimy Shrub" would've continued down the same road and Americans would still love him to death - "hero in a flight suit" ya know. Think I'll take Wes Clark

[BeatleBoot]

3. Yeah, I wonder if they'll ask him about this when

he's debating Bush next October.

What would Bush say?

It will be interesting, indeed.

[TacticalPeek]

7. "Pretty dumb to believe me, weren't you, General?"

:)

[AWD]

14. Why?

Why would the third-place finisher in the primaries debate Bush next October?

[Demobrat]

4. Revealing the information back then may have slowed down the rush to war,

but would it have done him any good personally? Of course not, he would have been labeled unpatriotic. So why do it? He had nothing to gain.

[Cha]

5. This I don't like...

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"

Because those two world class assholes have Nothing to be proud of..

[dfong63]

9. yes, that was inexcusable

[childslibrarian]

6. I doubt the information was given to him "on the record"

But more as one colleague to another, off the record. If he had disclosed it they would have denied it...

[dfong63]

8. i've thought about this,

... and i'm not sure what Clark should have done. it's easy to say, with hindsight, "He should have shouted this from the rooftops," but what would that have really accomplished? he probably would have been dismissed as a kook, a conspiracy theorist. just like everyone else who has "gone public" with such knowledge. Clark would not have been the first to blow the whistle.

besides that, the info would have probably come in part from conversations that were considered confidential or even top secret. Clark would have taken heat for violating people's confidences, at the very least. of course, he might have been justified in doing so, in cases where the nation was being misled. but i think it would have been hard for him to make that judgment, in his position, at the time. he had enough info to be deeply concerned, but not necessarily enough information to make a significant dent in their plans.

so although i don't give Clark a pass on many things, i'm leaning toward giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. any other Clark critics care to weigh in?

[StephNW4Clark]

10. Or...

...we could have paid more attention to that whole "Axis of Evil" part of the Bush speech, where he pretty much said: "Hey, after Iraq, we're going after Iran, North Korea and Syria."

But then, we'd have never thought Bush would be insane enough to do it...

[TacticalPeek]

11. "I was just joking when I said 'F**K Saddam, we're taking him out!'."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:evilgrin:

[Kool Kitty]

12. Wasn't there a thread on this about a week ago?

Lots of good answers on it. I just wonder what would have actually happened if he had released this info. I would bet that he wouldn't be in any condition to run for Prez, or run at all. Either he would have had an *ahem* accident, or it would have been all the talk for a week, and then the media would get around to what it usually does best, destroy the messenger and let the story die. I don't know how I would have handled it if I were him. That's not an excuse, I just don't know if there is any easy answer.

[Bread and Circus]

13. News flash....Clark did fess up......

This notion that Clark has spoken too late is
a farce.

1.) He has spoken up, the other candidates are/were
well aware of Bush's PNAC's intentions, yet they
remained silent. Even with Clark's leak, they remain
silent. You think Kucinich didn't know what Bush was
up to?

2.) Clark has not "missed the deadline" for speaking
up. Frankly, we all knew Bush was going to invade
Iraq. Was this news to anyone? That's a moot issue.
But on to Syria and the other countries, have we invaded them?
NO! Of course not. So what deadline has passed?

3.) Do you think anyone would have believed Clark
had he stated what he has now released before everything
went sour in Iraq? I mean, the guy hasn't even been believed
by his adversaries when he says he was never a Republican,
a personal and immutable fact. Shit, at the time Clark
heard about this stuff, Bush had sky high ratings and everything
was draped in Old Glory. Who would have donned a tinfoil hat
and joined Clark? Even now I don't hear any other candidate
echo this charge even though we all at DU accept it as fact. So
how can Clark catch a break? Even by blowing the whistle,
when others have failed to do so, he is getting the "you
blew it too late" business. Too late for what? What would
have been different had he said anything sooner than he did?
That's what the detractors have to prove. And you know what
I hear....crickets. That's what I heard at the Arizona debate
when he reminded everyone of Bush's ominous intentions.

Frankly, this is just another baseless charge among the
many other baseless charges that people throw at Clark in
hopes it betters their candidates' chances to win.

The original post is part of the negative spin campaign that is raping and killing lady liberty on a daily basis.

My advice, stick with Clark being an inexperienced politician and no
track record on domestic legislation. At least that mode of attack is
defensible. What you post here is a retread of BS you read
on the internet.

Clark is going to make our country a better place for all
Americans. That's my "faith based" initiative.

[MrPeepers]

15. Amen to that.

"The original post is part of the negative spin campaign that is raping and killing lady liberty on a daily basis."

I think that sums things up very well. Welcome to the world of the Howard-Deanites negative spin attacks. Now that Clark is in, and eating away at Dean's support base, we Kerry supporters arn't the only getting these candidate bashing threads from the Deanies! Clark is hovering around 2 or 3 for me, so good luck to you guys!

Peepers

[Kahuna]

16. How do you know that he "never" said this? Have you heard..

EVERY word he has said? I don't think so. So don't ASSume to know what he has or hasn't said.

FYI, he said on MTP that the bushies were making the case for war on Iraq before 9/11. So get over yourself. :P