DU's own Editorialist Plaid Adder expresses doubts about Clark and the SOA

[Hoppin_Mad]

-edit spelling - added one sentence

I offer my sincere thanks to The Adder and DU !

This brand new article was ranked NUMBER TWO in Google News for ' Wesley Clark + School of the Americas' ! It will be of great importance in helping educate voters about this extremely important issue.

A very well written piece.

Bravo !

---------

"I, on the other hand, have always felt that apart from Lieberman, who thankfully does not appear to have a chance in hell of getting the nomination, the one candidate I would most hate to have to vote for is Wesley Clark.


"But not to worry, all is well in the Plaidder home. Last night my partner observed that Clark was "getting scarier." I said, "School of the Americas?" She said, "The nuns, what of the nuns?"

Now, to be fair to Clark, I went and looked at his statement on the matter, and it is full of condemnations of human rights abuses and support for "oversight" and "vetting" to ensure that the School of the Americas (renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) really does " the way it teaches the Army's values of respect for human rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent." This sincere desire to use the Army as a force for good instead of evil is no doubt what has attracted many of his endorsers, including Moore.

It is his obvious investment in the institution itself - which is perfectly understandable from a career military officer - that makes me extremely nervous. Clark evidently believes that the problem is not that the U.S. is attempting to determine what happens politically in the Western Hemisphere, but that we have not always done it the right way. I personally believe that attempting to install Western-friendly U.S.-military-trained leaders throughout the hemisphere is never going to be a good way to extend "respect for himan rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent." People don't like things that are offered to them at gunpoint. In my humble opinion, what we need after the carnage of Bush and the "preventive war" years is a president who will make an attempt at solving problems using something other than the American military. I don't think Clark is going to be that president, whether or not he's electable. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/10.html

---

 
Shut Down the School of Assassins - http://www.soaw.org/new/

[corporatewhore]

1. i would be concerned about people who arnt concerned

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. Every candidate supports US imperialism

Except for Kucinich (is Sharpton still running?) The Democratc Party IS the party of neo-imperialism. The SOA was built by Democratic leaders. The SOA teaches Democratic Party values to the leaders of the Latin American militaries.

The idea behind neo-imperialism is if the citizens of Latin American countries, like say Venezuela, vote the wrong way - let's say for Hugo Chavez, that military officers trained at SOA will have the "respect for human rights" to stage a coup, and remove the Democratically elected leaders. This is especially important if center-left leaders, like Lula in Brasil, start to propose land reform, a fair distribution of wealth, or prosecuting the owners of society - the wealthy CEOs and rich landlords - for crimes.

That sort of thing is against Democratic Party values, and that's why so many Democratic leaders support and defend the SOA.


"It is his obvious investment in the institution itself - which is perfectly understandable from a career military officer - that makes me extremely nervous. Clark evidently believes that the problem is not that the U.S. is attempting to determine what happens politically in the Western Hemisphere, but that we have not always done it the right way."

What are you going to do, vote for Bush? He believes that too.

[not systems]

2. The legacy of brutality in many countries by SOA graduates is shameful.

I'm concerned.

There should be a truth commission so every american can know the true
history of our relations with our neighbors to the south.

[Turkw]

20. But not all countries, So if we can't teach humanitarianism and democracy

while teaching more professionalism to South American officers, what do we do in South America? Walk away?

I hate to see any human right violations, and having the military used against workers is heartbreaking.

At the same time many of the rebel groups and criminal organizations are horrific as well. They murder, kidnapp, bomb etc. Do we do nothing to combat these groups?

The factor that determines who engages in human rights violations seems to be linked to country of origin, not where they got their training.

It would be more productive to help change the governments in the abusive countries than to do nothing but close a school that's training is not always misused. Change the environment where the abuse is encouraged by the local military or government.

[LoneStarDem]

3. Well

Well, it would seem that PA's major concern is not the rote association with the school, but the assumption that the US should be involved in the military orientation of South America. While western friendly is certainly debatable (as in I wouldn't necessarily disagree), I would point out that outside of a few European nations, the US military has one of the highest levels of professionalism in the world. If the changes have been made as stated (and if not, they should), then what is the harm in trying to raise the professionalism of the armies to the south? South American countries will have armies, they are perfectly capable of violating their citizens human rights on their own (i.e. it's not like the only motivating or enabling factor for rights violations is interaction with the US), and if a newly reformed organization can positively influence these armies, not create but prevent these crimes, well why isn't that a positive?

[JasonDeter]

4. well why isn't that a positive?

Why good sir, because its American!

But I think in the right hands American instituions can be a force for good. Even the one named.

[JNelson6563]

5. Unrelated to the article

Plaid Adder is a very good writer, one of my very favs on this board. Probably one of the best here.

Julie

[jumptheshadow]

7. She's a fine writer

This was a weak column based on emotion rather than logic.

1) Looks narrowly at the Presidential race and not the battle for Congress (something that has happened before with this writer).

2) In a media saturated era, basically calls for disarming ourselves before we build our own media voices. (And please note: Kerry had the strongest TV campaign in Iowa.)

3) Doesn't take into account very real regional differences that play into the electoral equation and shape votes more than our traditionally Democratic values. (See number 2, we need to build our own media outlets in these areas.)

4) Doesn't look logically at historical trends, and the need for Southerners on the ticket.

5) Doesn't look logically at demographic trends -- Democrats lost votes after this census. We have to win more states, not fewer.

6) Basically opines that if you throw a little fairy dust, then anybody can be elected to any office. You can do a rational calculation of electability, based on the candidate's stance on issues, regional background, experience, personal history and ability to concisely articulate issues. Compare them to demographic and voting stats across the U.S. Charisma and user-friendly personalities are intangible. But we all know them when we see them.

John Edwards -- the handsome, amiable, articulate Southerner who can connect with Americans across the regional and political spectrum -- will probably be President someday. Dennis Kucinich -- the odd-looking vegan from Cleveland who is brilliant and innovative on issues -- would more likely be a personal friend of mine than President. Oh, and he might win the Nobel Peace Prize because that might just be his role in the world.

I respect PA but she dismissed Clark as a candidate from the get-go because of his military background. So everything she writes about him lacks credibility because it seems based on a visceral response rather than logic. (I am writing about PA here as a columnist, not as a person. She sounds like a perfectly fine human being.)

[IndianaGreen]

6. SOA bad, but Clark was speaking of WHISC

which replaced SOA by Congressional mandate (SOA = dead nuns). To criticize Clark for his speech at WHISC, you might as well criticize Kerry for voting for establishing WHISC, and Clinton for being Commander-in-Chief.

SOA is NOT WHISC!

[jonnyblitz]

8. Same school different name.

Thousands of protesters each year can't be wrong. I am glad I don't have to be an apologist for this evil just to prop up a candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

9. The real evil is US policy in Latin America!

Clinton's Plan Colombia is one of many examples. The military carries the orders of the civilian leadership. People forget that their beloved Bill Clinton has bloody hands when it comes to human rights in Latin America and elsewhere in the world.

[trumad]

10. How can we forget when we got you I.G?

Uggg

[Tinoire]

12. SOA is still at it! 2 of 4 in failed coup vs Chavez=SOA /Bolivia /Mexico

Two of the four military generals who attempted to oust Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, were also trained by the SOA. Any form of the SOA, including WHISC, must be shut down immediately.

Over its 56 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates are taught specific skills by the US wage a war against their own people. Their preferred targets are educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, massacred, "disappeared" and forced into refugee by SOA grads and their warped definition of Human Rights. To this day, the carnage continues in Colombia, Mexico, Haiti and Bolivia.

The Bolivian people do NOT want our "Free Trade", they don't want their resources to benefit foreign investors at the expense, at the price of their poverty. So what do we do? We have the CSIS publish a bunch of bogus analysis to set the wheels in motion for the IMF and the NED to move in. The NED, also a firm believer in Reagan's definition of Human Rights, finances its friends from the SOA to "shut up those damn peasants" standing in the way of US-forced "progress" designed only to benefit the US and its investors.

As we speak, the US is still forcing Bolivia to export its newly discovered natural gas and participate in free trade agreements such as the FTAA "in order to develop its economy". Bolivia has the largest reserves of natural gas in Latin America. That and its other resources must be used for its people, not the investors in multinational corporations who, when these reserves were discovered, pumped about $2.5 billion into Bolivia's gas projects. Screw their investment. They had no right to run down there and try to appropriate those resources. These are the same obscenities that corporations such as Bechtel and Exxon-Mobil have foisted on people all around the world who just want to live in peace without our McDonald's, without having to pay for water, without having to buy mad-cow infected beef wrapped in shiny plastic. They don't want to live like us (are we even happy) and they certainly don't want to subsidize our rather worthless way of life. Why should they? And why should our tax dollars be used to fund the tools that impose our will on them? These tools of coercion?

===

Press release:

Globalize Solidarity not Repression and Corporate Greed!

Friday, October 17 2003 – 5-7pm: Rally at the Bolivian Embassy (3015 Mass Ave) in Response to the Killing of Protesters


Washington, DC – Activists from the Mobilization for Global Justice, School of the Americas Watch and other groups are responding with this demonstration to urgent calls for support and solidarity from Bolivia, where government troops are engaged in a bloody repression campaign against striking workers and anti-corporate globalization activists.

The Bolivian army cracked down massively on protests against the sale of the country's natural gas to multinational corporations. Escalating government repression against weeks of protests and strikes has killed more than 50 people in the last three days. After the massacre on Sunday the main focus of the fights moved to La Paz where the government is situated. Here again at least 20 civilian deaths have so far occurred.

With the whole country revolting the government has ordered further troops and tanks to the capital. SOA Watch is currently researching the names of the military officials who are directing the repression campaign. Past attacks on striking workers and protesters have been directed and implemented by graduates of the School of the Americas, a notorious US military training school based in Fort Benning, GA, which has turned out human rights abusers, death squad leaders and military dictators throughout Latin America.

While the U.S. State Department expressed its support for President Sánchez de Lozada, Civil Society groups throughout the world are declaring their solidarity with the people of Bolivia and are taking to the streets in protest of exploitative economic policies and military repression.

The Mobilization for Global Justice (MGJ) and School of the Americas Watch (SOA Watch) are part of a global movement against corporate globalization and militarization. MGJ and SOA Watch are currently planning together with a wide variety of other groups and organizations for a massive mobilization from November 18-23, 2003 in Miami, Florida and Fort Benning, Georgia to speak out against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the School of the Americas (SOA –renamed in 2001 Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation).

###
http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mgj-announce/2003q4/000278.html

====

Bolivians are Victorious Despite SOA-Style Repression
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:07:35 -0400 (EDT)
Change is inevitable!

Beginning in late September, thousands of Bolivians took to the streets to protest the plans of their government to sell Bolivia's natural gas resources to multinational corporations for export. The people used non-violent tactics like hunger strikes and human blockades to put pressure on the government and attract international media coverage. Soldiers responded to the social conflict in the way they were trained (many of them here in the US at the School of the Americas): with military violence to attempt to suppress dissent. In official SOA publications "economic development along free market principles" is identified as the "primary foreign policy goal(s) of the U.S." in Latin America. The SOA strategy is "to prepare military and police forces to respond to current threats to the achievement of those goals."

The threats in this case were the people of Bolivia who spoke out. The SOA-style response left at least 80 people dead but violence and repression did not stop the protests - to the contrary; it fueled the flames of resistance and even broader sections of society took to the streets and demanded the resignation of the president. The people succeeded, the President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada lost support even in his own coalition, resigned on Friday, October 17, 2003 and left the country to Miami, Florida.

"Abandoning the presidential residence in a military helicopter, Sanchez de Lozada became the fourth Latin American president driven from office by widespread protests in recent years. Ecuador's Jamil Mahuad, Peru's Alberto Fujimori and Argentina's Fernando de la Rua were all unseated by outpourings of public anger over U.S.-backed free-market economic policies." (10/18 Associated Press)

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/bolivia/txt/2003/10120bolivians.htm

===
August 2003

Protesters in Bolivia launched a series of strikes and set up roadblocks across the country to show their opposition to government plans to export natural gas. The protesters - most of them indigenous Aymara Indians - blocked major roads linking the country's capital, La Paz, with other towns in Bolivia and also with neighbouring Chile and Peru.

They were demanding that some 250,000 homes in Bolivia be supplied with gas for free before any of it is exported.

Despite the efforts of the SOA, the NED, the CSIS, the IMF, the people are winning. Bush's little world is exploding all over him. And it's not just Bush's little world- it's the obscene Free Market we've set up to steal from other people. Clinton, Bush, Clark- all of the on the same damn sheet of music when it comes to this and I won't have it. I will NOT be part of this obscenity.

Democratic party- you either give me a decent person to vote for or you just forget it. The deal's OFF if you can't do that.

I had an entire thread on the victorious events in Bolivia in September 2003 where I linked to several real-time articles and others added some great links too. The whole thing caught me by surprise but I was thrilled.

What on earth is going on in Bolivia?!!!!!/MELTDOWN IN BOLIVIA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=551449

===\
SOA alumni include:

--Roberto d'Aubuisson, organizer of El Salvador's death squads, who is held responsible for the assassination of Archbishop Romero in 1980.
--Three of the five officers cited for the rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen in 1980 in San Salvador and ten of the 12 officers cited for the massacre of 900 civilians at El Mozote, El Salvador. In 1993, a U.N. Truth Commission cited 60 Salvadoran officers - 49 of them SOA graduates - for carrying out the worst atrocities during ten years of civil war.
--General Hector Gramajo, Guatemalan Defense Minister, who instigated the death of thousands and is held responsible for the rape and torture of Diana Ortiz, a U.S. Ursuline nun.
--Guatemalan Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez, who was implicated in the murder of U.S. innkeeper Michael Devine and the torture and murder of Efrain Bamaca, a guerrilla leader and husband of U.S. lawyer Jennifer Harbury.
--Nineteen of the ranking Honduran officers connected to death squad Battalion 3-16 (a military counter-intelligence unit trained by the CIA),including its founder General Luis Alonso Discua. Battalion 3-16 killed hundreds of civilians.
--Former Panamanian dictator and CIA asset General Manuel Noriega,who is now serving 40 years in a U.S. prison for drug trafficking.
--Argentinian dictator General Leopoldo Galtieri (1981-1982), who directed the last two years of the six-year "dirty war" when 30,000 people were tortured, murdered and disappeared.
--Bolivian dictator General Hugo Banzer Suarez (1971-1978), who brutally suppressed clergy and tin miners and developed the "Banzer Plan"
to silence church workers. The plan became a blueprint for repression throughout Latin America. Banzer also sheltered Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie.
--Over 100 of the 246 Colombian officers cited for war crimes by an international human rights tribunal in 1993. In 1992, Colombian Lt. Col.
Victor Bernal Castano was given permission to attend the SOA in order to escape a criminal investigation of his role in the massacre of a peasant family.
--Mexican General Juan Lopez Ortiz, who commanded troops responsible for the massacre of suspected Zapatistas in Ocosingo in 1994.The victims' hands were tied behind their backs before they were shot in the head.

Consistently, Latin American countries with the worst human rights records have sent the most soldiers to the SOA:Bolivia under Banzer,El Salva dor during the most violent years of repression, and Nicaragua under the Somozas, were all top SOA clients. Continuing this trend, Colombia, which has had the worst human rights record in Latin America during the 1990s,sent the most soldiers to the SOA until 1997 (see list). In that year Mexico surpassed Colombia for the largest number of entrants, as human rights violations linked to official military forces have escalated in Chiapas where the Mexican army is fighting the Zapatista uprising.

<snip>

TORTURE

In addition to massacre (which the SOA curriculum encouraged), the other main component of the NSS was torture; this too was taught at the SOA,which the Pentagon admitted in 1996. "We were trained to torture human beings," one SOA graduate told Father Bourgeois. According to this alumnus, people from the streets of Panama were brought to the School and used as human guinea pigs for torture. He stated: "Some of them were blindfolded and they were stripped and ...tortured. At the same time they had a ... U.S. medical physician ... dressed in green fatigues who would teach the students in the nerve endings in the body, he would show them where to torture, where you wouldn't kill the individual. He would tell them how much the heart can tolerate." Five people in Panama confirmed that they knew about torture training at the SOA when it was located there.

Jose Valle, an SOA graduate and member of the Honduran death squad Battalion 3-16, described torturing as "a job, something I did to give food to my kids. I took a course in intelligence at the School of the Americas.The SOA had a lot of videos which showed the type of interrogation and torture they used in Vietnam.

<snip>

http://www.ckln.fm/~asadismi/soaterror.html


MEXICO

Mexico now sends the most officers to the SOA. The increase began after the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas in 1994. Since then,Mexico has undergone a massive militarization, using millions of dollars in U.S. military aid and training. This has been the Mexican government's response to economic and social problems. The Indians in Chiapas rose up against NAFTA because it allowed foreign multinationals to buy their formerly protected communal lands. The Zapatistas also demanded autonomy, an end to the grinding poverty that leaves 80 percent of Chiapas'children malnourished and the provision of education and health services.

The Mexican government answered these demands by blanketing Chiapas with 40,000 troops and sending paramilitary death squads into villages to massacre civilians. These groups are linked to the Mexican army and the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The massacres are aimed at depopulating villages seen as loyal to the Zapatistas and filling them with PRI supporters.

On December 22, 1997, Red Mask, a paramilitary group connected to the PRI, killed 45 Tzotzil Indians (20 women, 18 children and seven men)and wounded 25 others in the community of Acteal. Four-year-old Zenaida Perez was left blind from a bullet that destroyed part of her brain. Her mother, father, brother and two sisters were murdered. Two thousand people have been killed in such massacres since May 1995 when death squads first appeared in Chiapas. With names such as "Peace and Justice" and "The Throat-slitters," their members come from the PRI and the police. These paramilitary groups are part of the Mexican army's counter-insurgency strategy in Chiapas.

SOA graduate General Jose Ruben Rivas Pena helped design this strategy. According to Proceso, the main leftwing magazine in Mexico,included in his detailed plan are directives to censor media, "secretly organize sectors of the civilian population and conduct psychological operations against civilians." Thirteen SOA graduates who are now top military officials have played a key role in the conflict in the southern Mexican states. They include Colonel Julian Guerrero Barrios, who has been charged with the crime "violence against the people" and for his leadership in the torture and massacre of more than 12 young men in Jalisco.

"The message we get from our Latin American sisters and brothers is a simple one," reflects Father Bourgeois. "It's about suffering and death. It's about people who struggle for just wages. It's about people like us who are struggling for schools, adequate housing and medicine for their kids. And it's about a school training soldiers who return to their home countries and who keep the poor impoverished and living on the edge, struggling for survival. As Archbishop Romero said, `We who have a voice will no longer be silent.' We are growing in number and we are not going to stop because the work we are doing connects us to the poor and the oppressed, whose voices have been taken away."
http://www.ckln.fm/~asadismi/soaterror.html

==

The SOA is not only costly in human lives. Training at the School is paid for with U.S. tax revenues through the International Military Education and Training program (IMET) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The Pentagon claims that the annual operating budget is $5 million, but that figure does not include the salaries of the 202-person staff at the SOA or the $30 million that went into renovating the School's headquarters and Latin American bachelor officer quarters. Nor does it include the perks such as the free trips to Disney World, Atlanta Braves baseball games, and other regional attractions--all at taxpayers' expense.

Last year Representative Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced an amendment to the House Defense Appropriations Bill to eliminate Department of Defense funding to the School of the Americas. The intent of the amendment was to close the School, which Mr. Kennedy said, "cost millions of dollars a year and identifies us with tyranny and oppression."

It was the first time the role of the SOA was discussed in Congress and a heated debate ensued. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), said, "We should be training for peace and not for war. We should be teaching people to beat their swords into plowshares, to study war no more. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), said, "As I recall, one of the 12 apostles went bad. That does not mean the rest went bad." Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), said, "Would the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy)close the school that Somoza graduated from as well? Somoza is a graduate of West Point."

The amendment garnered 174 votes in the House of Representatives; 256 voted to keep the funding going. This was only round one.

On May 20th of this year Rep. Joseph Kennedy again introduced his amendment to the House Defense Appropriations Bill calling for the cut-off of all funding to the SOA. Lobbying on both sides of the issue was intense. Generals from the Pentagon visited congressional leaders fighting to keep their School open. Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) was invited by SOA officials to speak at a press conference at Fort Benning and said, "Democracy after democracy has emerged, because of American values and human rights exported to Latin America. Our relations with our neighbors in Latin America are stronger because of the School of the Americas." (COLUMBUS LEDGER-ENQUIRER, March 29, 1994) :puke:

http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/ZMag/articles/sept94bourgeois.htm

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the "Bush administration backs massacres in Bolivia" -17 October 2003
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/boli-o17.shtml

Massacres carried out by School of the Americas graduates who would logically have received their training before Bush took office.

I don't care what US policy is, or what President supported this school- its aims are evil and it must be shut down.

Anyone candidate defending it should be ASHAMED of himself. I am ASHAMED of the sudden defense of this school at DU just because some people think that the only way to oust Bush is to offer the American people someone who has the same global aims as Bush but will placate the people with a few liberal sprinklings of gay and abortion rights.

We can damn well do better than that and they know it.

If you want to change the system that fuels the neccessity for corporate globalization which is nothing more than exploitation and oppression of people whose resources or labor we want, and ultimately leads to economic wars followed by military wars when they refuse to give in, then VOTE KUCINICH.

If you are willing for this to improve a few small varying degrees VOTE KERRY, DEAN or EDWARDS because their only aim is to take us back to the Clinton days ((days that are lost forever because the rest of the world has caught on by now and will NEVER allow the US to continue its arrogant behavior)). With these guys, we'll only have 50-70 dead instead of 90. Big improvement for the 50-70 who will still be dead.

If you want this to continue, with just a few cosmetic changes, then VOTE CLARK who tells you that you are wrong about all of this and that we just use these tools to further democracy and human rights.

All this garbage at DU about well so & so is anti-war and only believes in war as a last resort. What the F kind of garbage is that? That statement is an insult to everyone's intelligence. War is ALWAYS a last resort.

[redqueen]

30. But... but... but!

They changed their name!

This means Clinton's not too great either!

Aren't American troops the best in the world?

Wake the hell up already.

Vote Kucinich or deal with the consequences. (More terrorism, more hatred for America's way of 'doing business', etc. etc. etc.)

[corporatewhore]

14. yep we know and we know who our "free" trade policy in latin america is

enforced by (give three guesses and the first two dont count)

[corporatewhore]

13. just like homeland security doesnt equal big brother good for you buying

into their propaganda!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. So far, for me, Clark has been the only other Dem I could vote for.

If Dean fails, I've been looking to Clark, as a viable alternative as an anti-war candidate. His support for the SOA troubles me...a lot. I'm not ready to write him off yet, but I wish he would vow to shut it down.

My options are getting thinner, Dean, Kucinich, Clark, or Green.

[Tinoire]

15. Clark is not anti-war

He believes in "war as a last resort". That's not being anti-war. Even for Perle and Wolfowitz, war is a last resort.

Dean is also not anti-war.

Very sorry to be trying to narrow down your options but I am really upset at candidates who are jumping on the anti-war band-wagon because it's the latest fashion.

What can I do to convince you that if you are anti-war your most reasonable, closest option is Kucinich.

Voting for someone who pays lip service to being anti-war but is not willing toimplement the kinds of reforms in US policy that lead to wars won't get us anywhere.

If Clinton were running today, he'd probably be sporting a discreet peace sign around his neck and proudly proclaiming how he refused to go to Vietnam because he was a conscientious objector & even protested the war. We'd be barraged with whatever he could dig up to his advantage such as maybe a photo of a student protest he atteneded or a paper he wrote expressing doubts.

But Clinton, as we all know, started an obscene war in Yugoslavia that was also oil-related (pipelines and access to the Caspian Sea). If you really want to laugh about that story, let me know and I will put it all in persective for you with maps of the region, stories of how it was a PR firm that started all the hoopla about an ethnic cleansing that didn't start until the US moved in the Albanian ethnic cleansers, testimony from the lead Patriarch of Judaism in Kosovo who clearly states this and states how the Serbs, Jews and indigenous Muslims were all hiding together from persecution by the Albanian KLA as the NATO forces turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the KLA- the only ones performing ethnic cleansing.

Clinton also bombed and sanctioned Iraq for 8 years. His AG went after the Progressives from Voices in the Wilderness who were trying to expose the lies of the administration with a vengeance.

And it was also Clinton/Gore who refused, refused, to put any language about human rights in their multi-million dollar aid packet to Columbia.

What says that about us?

Bandera, I've seen your posts. There's no way you can sign on to that. Kucinich and the Greens are the only ones who represent what I think you believe in. If you can bend to Dean on the war issue, then you need to examine him on Afghanistan, Columbia, Panama, the previous 12 years of Iraq and Yugoslavia. If you have to bend that much to go Dean and accept his Centrism, then you have to factor in that Edwards & Kerry are more liberal when it comes to US domestic policies. And you know where that leaves you in the end? With a pretty much even playing field. Except for Clark- he is the only one I can make no peace with or find any excuse to vote for because of the baggage he brings of close associations with and vociferous defense of the very evil NGOs that some of us have been fighting our entire lives.

[Turkw]

18. Good, I believe in war as a last resort as well. There ARE times when

military force is necessary. Perle and Wolfowitz supported the doctrine of preemptive strike, the is NOT war as a last resort, they also believe in changing the middle east political map. This is worse than preemptive strike, this is more like what we used to do in South America.

No war is good, but some are necessary. I support us being in Afghanistan, it is unfortunate that, like his father, Bush is neglecting our responsibility there and the result may be disaster.

I do not support going into Iraq, we should never have done it.

[Tinoire]

23. Clark supports preemptive strikes too & campaigned with Powell 4 Iraq war

The maddening thing about some of you Clark supporters, the 2 I personally know (from old activist days) and those I've talked to here like you, is that I fully believe your sincerity but can't understand how you ignore certain things about Clark that, to me, prove he is not what he says he is.

Clark's statement at Davos on pre-emptive strikes: "There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption".

Read this and think about it. How could Clark be who we so desperately want him to be when he went of to Davos with Colin Powell to campaign for the Iraq war? These things strike me as incongruous with his campaign rhetoric.

You Clark supporters are going to be the death of me ;)


Wesley Clark at Davos, Switzerland

26 January 2003
Is The WEF Playing Host To "Secret Oil Meeting" To Carve Up The Iraqi Black Gold Cake?
Davos, Switzerland: As helicopters continue to bring Chief Executives and world leaders into the Swiss alpine resort of Davos for this year's meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Friends of the Earth has been reliably informed by WEF participants that a "secret" meeting of top oil executives is scheduled to take place here this weekend. Friends of the Earth International - the world's largest grassroots environmental network - has today challenged the WEF to either deny that such a meeting is taking place, or to come clean on which companies and governments are taking part and what is being discussed.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell is addressing the WEF today amidst evident concern amongst many WEF business leaders and protests across Switzerland. However, many WEF attendees in the oil industry are set to benefit from an Iraq war.
A recent Deutsche Bank report indicated a potential conflict of interest amongst the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council over the commercial implications of war in Iraq. Baghdad Bazaar - Big Oil in Iraq was published last October but only came to light last week. It indicates that a regime change in Iraq would benefit US and UK oil companies while a peaceful resolution would benefit oil companies based in Russia, France and China:
<snip>
http://www.foei.org/media/2003/0126.html

===

Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo sceptics

Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.
<snip>
From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."

<snip>
Praise for Powell

But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm

====================================

Posted 07/02/2003
Titans of Davos: Cutting the Iraqi Oil Pile- Christopher Bollyln - The American Free Press
DAVOS, Switzerland—For 33 years, for one week every January, government leaders and the moguls of global business have convened here in this small ski town high in the Swiss Alps. While the mainstream media describes the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an event with a social focus, they know well that the real business of the conference is the private meetings of the global elite.

<snip>
On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop. Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group.

<snip>

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=492

===

Davos still in the surreal world

<snip>

Up in Davos, though, the military-industrial complex was no laughing matter. Alongside leading political figures from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UN security council countries, top executives from BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, and Lukoil were in Davos. So was the architect of the first Gulf war, General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".
While this group gathered in Davos, Friends of the Earth handed out a leaked Deutsche Bank analysts' report, entitled Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq. This frightening document lays out how different oil companies and countries could benefit from the replacement of Saddam's regime, and speculates on how different oil companies might be involved in post-war control of the Iraqi state oil company.

<snip>

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,883944,00.html

====

Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after Saddam
Mark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003

DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.

Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.

He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."
<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

===

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption
27.01.2003
Annual Meeting 2003

This session on resolving conflicts was one of the few at the Annual Meeting in Davos this year not to be dominated by the prospect of US and allied war with Iraq, noted moderator Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. That did not make it any more optimistic than other discussions. The roundtable discussion brought together Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Board, Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Institute of Europe, Russian Federation, Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Sundeep Waslekar, President, Strategic Foresight Group, India - all experts on flashpoints in their regions. And among the prospects being considered is action by the US against North Korea for building up its nuclear weapons programme in secret.

<snip>

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

Doesn’t that tell North Korea that it has won this game of deterrence? "The military option cannot be taken off the table," Clark responded. But he also underlined that the US policy to North Korea is clear: "We don’t want the government to collapse. We don’t want South Koreans to adopt the North Koreans. We won’t want a war."
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202:%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open&event_id=

===

An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion. ((remember Kucinich’s casual mention to Clark during one of the debates that Clark had worked on the plans for the occupation of Iraq))
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:rNgU5fvc1kcJ:www.srcf.ucam.org/camsaw/Resources/2003/Moral_war_myth.doc+%22wesley+Clark%22++Davos+powell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

==

But what he says, and the way he says it, doesn't always endear him to his audience -- especially when he's improvising. Last January, I saw Clark give a 45-minute presentation on how he thought the war in Iraq would unfold. As long as he was up there with his map and light pen, talking about JDAMs and phase lines and whatnot, he was magnificant. But when it came time to answer questions -- to talk with, instead of at, the audience -- Clark bombed.

Part of it was what he said, which was in essence: The U.S. is going to war, the president has made his decision, so you'd better just get used to it. This to a European audience, mind you, one heavily salted with Franco-Germans. Clark actually told them -- I swear I am not making this up -- that they had an obligation to support the war, because "that's the democratic process."

You can imagine how big that went over.
And it wasn't just what he said, it was how he said it. Intentional or not, Clark has that cocky, blunt American attitude that so often grates on the nerves of Europeans (and foreigners in general.) And he made no noticeable effort to tone it down. In fact, it looked to me like Clark irritated the crowd almost as much as Colin Powell, who also spoke at the conference. And that's saying something.

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html




Wesley Clark at Davos, Switzerland

26 January 2003
Is The WEF Playing Host To "Secret Oil Meeting" To Carve Up The Iraqi Black Gold Cake?
Davos, Switzerland: As helicopters continue to bring Chief Executives and world leaders into the Swiss alpine resort of Davos for this year's meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Friends of the Earth has been reliably informed by WEF participants that a "secret" meeting of top oil executives is scheduled to take place here this weekend. Friends of the Earth International - the world's largest grassroots environmental network - has today challenged the WEF to either deny that such a meeting is taking place, or to come clean on which companies and governments are taking part and what is being discussed.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell is addressing the WEF today amidst evident concern amongst many WEF business leaders and protests across Switzerland. However, many WEF attendees in the oil industry are set to benefit from an Iraq war.
A recent Deutsche Bank report indicated a potential conflict of interest amongst the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council over the commercial implications of war in Iraq. Baghdad Bazaar - Big Oil in Iraq was published last October but only came to light last week. It indicates that a regime change in Iraq would benefit US and UK oil companies while a peaceful resolution would benefit oil companies based in Russia, France and China:
<snip>
http://www.foei.org/media/2003/0126.html

===

Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo sceptics

Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.
<snip>
From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."

<snip>
Praise for Powell

But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm

====================================

Posted 07/02/2003
Titans of Davos: Cutting the Iraqi Oil Pile- Christopher Bollyln - The American Free Press
DAVOS, Switzerland—For 33 years, for one week every January, government leaders and the moguls of global business have convened here in this small ski town high in the Swiss Alps. While the mainstream media describes the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an event with a social focus, they know well that the real business of the conference is the private meetings of the global elite.

<snip>
On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop. Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group.

<snip>

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=492

===

Davos still in the surreal world

<snip>

Up in Davos, though, the military-industrial complex was no laughing matter. Alongside leading political figures from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UN security council countries, top executives from BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, and Lukoil were in Davos. So was the architect of the first Gulf war, General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".
While this group gathered in Davos, Friends of the Earth handed out a leaked Deutsche Bank analysts' report, entitled Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq. This frightening document lays out how different oil companies and countries could benefit from the replacement of Saddam's regime, and speculates on how different oil companies might be involved in post-war control of the Iraqi state oil company.

<snip>

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,883944,00.html

====

Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after Saddam
Mark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003

DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.

Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.

He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."
<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

===

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption
27.01.2003
Annual Meeting 2003

This session on resolving conflicts was one of the few at the Annual Meeting in Davos this year not to be dominated by the prospect of US and allied war with Iraq, noted moderator Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. That did not make it any more optimistic than other discussions. The roundtable discussion brought together Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Board, Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Institute of Europe, Russian Federation, Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Sundeep Waslekar, President, Strategic Foresight Group, India - all experts on flashpoints in their regions. And among the prospects being considered is action by the US against North Korea for building up its nuclear weapons programme in secret.

<snip>

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

Doesn’t that tell North Korea that it has won this game of deterrence? "The military option cannot be taken off the table," Clark responded. But he also underlined that the US policy to North Korea is clear: "We don’t want the government to collapse. We don’t want South Koreans to adopt the North Koreans. We won’t want a war."
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202:%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open&event_id=

===

An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion. ((remember Kucinich’s casual mention to Clark during one of the debates that Clark had worked on the plans for the occupation of Iraq))
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:rNgU5fvc1kcJ:www.srcf.ucam.org/camsaw/Resources/2003/Moral_war_myth.doc+%22wesley+Clark%22++Davos+powell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

==

But what he says, and the way he says it, doesn't always endear him to his audience -- especially when he's improvising. Last January, I saw Clark give a 45-minute presentation on how he thought the war in Iraq would unfold. As long as he was up there with his map and light pen, talking about JDAMs and phase lines and whatnot, he was magnificant. But when it came time to answer questions -- to talk with, instead of at, the audience -- Clark bombed.

Part of it was what he said, which was in essence: The U.S. is going to war, the president has made his decision, so you'd better just get used to it. This to a European audience, mind you, one heavily salted with Franco-Germans. Clark actually told them -- I swear I am not making this up -- that they had an obligation to support the war, because "that's the democratic process."

You can imagine how big that went over.
And it wasn't just what he said, it was how he said it. Intentional or not, Clark has that cocky, blunt American attitude that so often grates on the nerves of Europeans (and foreigners in general.) And he made no noticeable effort to tone it down. In fact, it looked to me like Clark irritated the crowd almost as much as Colin Powell, who also spoke at the conference. And that's saying something.

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html

[Bucky]

34. This post deserves to be printed out and read. (I'm pro-Clark, btw)

I'll look over your research later coz I'm at work and slackin right now. But let me say this; All candidates support the doctrine of pre-emption. It's not a unique philosophy and it's not the same as the Bush Doctrine.

Preemption would be like if FDR hit Japan in November 1941 while the Japanese navy was leaving the harbor. Or if he had solid, valid proof of an imminent attack from Japan (not a "sexed up" intel report goosed along by Dick Cheney) he could attack military targets still in the harbor. That's pre-emption policy and it's a recognized part of international law. Dean supports it, Kucinich supports it, Nader supports it.

What Bush did, and what Clark (and international law) does not support, is an attack on a country that is not presenting an imminent threat. The Bush Doctrine is that the US can, at will, override the Law of Nations if it thinks a state is harboring terrorists. Obviously this doctrine is entirely without standards or standing in law; it's a restatement of the law of the jungle since it applies only to US interventions. I heard one law professor refer to it as legalized piracy without the "legalized" part.

Clark has been clear that he did not support the action in Iraq or the Bush Doctrine. Statements to the contrary are either spin or disinformation. If Clark becomes president he will abide by the laws of this country. And he's got a track record to prove it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Thanks for your post.

But, I'm not ready to drop Clark yet. As for Yugoslavia and the civil war(s) there I find fault with all sides. I believe that Clinton was right to attempt to put a stop to the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by all sides.

As for Kucinich, I'll happily vote for him, if he should get the nomination.

Just curious. What "very evil NGO's" are you speaking of?

[Tinoire]

33. The NGO's? Make that Think Tanks and NGOs

I don't have time to edit this properly because I'm late for a meeting but they are in this list of corporations/NGOs he's been with and still is with. My greattest concerns are Markle, CSIS, NED. Sorry for a sloppy cut and paste but I am very late. PM me anything you want to know more about or answer here and I'll check back tonight.

Boards

He resigned as managing director of merchant banking for the Stephens Group Inc. in March 2003 after a 3 year stint there before going on to CNN when he was already examining running for President.

Gen. Wesley Clark Resigns From Stephens
ArkansasBusiness.com | February 28, 2003
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=377

He resigned from Acxiom AFTER the scandal broke about Acxiom selling the information about Jet Blue's passengers to HomeLand Security. First he only resigned as a lobbyist but when the noise got too loud, he finally resigned from the board on http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA">Oct 9 2003.

We also have the following boards:

• Sirva Inc. with its wholly owned company SIRVA Relocation that has as its main function in over one hundred countries, the relocation of entire firms and industries overseas
  
• Time Domain Inc. and its invasive RadarVision through-wall radar
  
• Messer-Griesheim
  
• Entrust Inc. (Internet-security company / CEO is co-chair of the Corporate Governance Task Force and works with Homeland Security)
  
• Time Domain Corp. (a Huntsville, Ala., advanced wireless-technology company)
  
• WaveCrest Laboratories (Green technology but the emphasis is on marketing to the military and law enforcement) because "there are lots of places like tight alleys in urban areas where you don't want to be in a Humvee, which is big and noisy," said General Clark, the company's chairman.
  The electric bike is light and simple, he said. "You turn the handle, and it just scoots. There's no sound. Just acceleration and speed. Just a shoosh on the pavement."
  
  
• Trustee of the International Crisis Group http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/home/index.cfm

Clark sat on the board of some of the world's most dangerous corporations while he was making his stunning journey from Republican friend of the neo-cons to his recent September metamorphosis into a Democrat.

Here are the companies they don’t talk about very much:

• Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age http://www.markletaskforce.org/bios.html (Scary group with intimate ties to the Saban Center (Daniel Pipes)
  
  
  
• Senior Advisor for the Center for Strategic International Studies
  http://www.csis.org/ a Right-Wing think tank which has been very close to Bush on matters dealing with Iraq & Afghanistan. They're like a who's who of the whatever neo-cons aren't in government and has a Board of trustees who's members proudly sit on boards of Halliburton, Hunt Oil, National Petroleum Council, American Petroleum Council, General Electric, special counsellors to Reagan, and what the hell is Sam Nunn up to with the Nunn-Wolfowitz-Task Forces for Hughes Electronics? I should have guessed. DLC. Media Transparency has quite a run-down on this organization
  http://www.mediatransparency.org/all_in_one_results.php?Message=CSIS
  
  
• National Endowment for Democracy (currently implicated in the Venezuelan Coup Scandal for having financed the oppostition to Hugo Chavez) which Ronald Reagan started in the early 1980s to promote American values abroad. Also on the board Frank Carlucci, Carlyle fame, Morton Abramowitz, Vin Weber, Evan Bayh http://www.ned.org/about/who.html
  
  Ronald Reagan started the NED in the early 1980s to "promote American values abroad" by destabilizing progressive movements/governments, especially those with a socialist or democratic socialist bent. Also on the board Frank Carlucci (Carlyle fame), Morton Abramowitz, Vin Weber (original PNAC signatory), Evan Bayh http://www.ned.org/about/who.html
  
  Here are the CSIS & National Endowment for Democracy's major/majority donors:
  Sara Scaife Foundatation financed in turn by Mellon Industrial, at one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Richard Scaife is the 38th richest man in America. Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is considered to be one of the top 4 conservative foundations. He's known as the Right's Founding Father.
  
  www.mediatransparency.org/funders/scaife_foundations.htm
  
  The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation one of the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundations. Its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in areas of welfare "reform" and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers.
  
  The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation is ... laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off. (...) supports right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation, source of policy papers on budget cuts, supply-side economics and the Star Wars military plan for the Reagan administration; the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, which provides funding for right-wing research and a network of conservative student newspapers; and the American Enterprise Institute, literary home of such racist authors as Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) and Dinesh D'Souza (The End of Racism), former conservative officeholders Jeanne kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp and William Bennet, and arch conservative jurists Robert Bjork and Antonin Scalia. <snip / this just goes on and on sending CHILLS up my spine>
  
  http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm
  
  http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm
  
  The Smith Richardson Foundation: active in supporting conservative causes... one of the countries richest families. Funded the early "supply-side" books of Jude Wanninski and George Gilder. Board of Directors include Ben Wattenberg (right wing, radical Free Market, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute, maker of the right-wing PBS show "Think Tank", Senior Editor of The American Enterprise Magazine[br />
  More: http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/smith_richardson_foundation.htm
  
  
  You have to really wonder about these things and ask serious questions when you run across articles where PNACers like Morton Abramowitz are telling us what a great guy Clark will be for us because the rest of our candidates are “woefully deficient”. Woefully defecient for PNAC ? THAT is the entire idea!
  
  Article:
  
  While Clark does not describe himself as a Democrat, he leans liberal on domestic policy.
  
  <snip>
  Some Democrats are skeptical, however, that Clark has what it takes to mount a campaign in 2004.
  "There's no question Wesley Clark would bring a lot to the party and field," said Democratic strategist Mark Mellman. "But the reality is for all these candidates it is getting a little late, especially for those who don't have a political organization in place in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. Despite having a compelling message, it may be late to set a place at the table as a practical matter."
  Others, however, say Clark's strengths could trump the field. Morton Abramowitz, a State Department veteran with whom Clark worked in Kosovo, called Clark "a fighter, a determined battler" and said Clark's military experience gives the general an advantage in an area in which the other Democratic candidates are "woefully deficient."
  "He comes as a commanding figure," Abramowitz said. "He's run things. What has Joe Lieberman run?"
  Abramowitz dismissed the idea that it is too late for Clark to consider a run for president in 2004.
  
  
  From:
  Gen. Clark's Next War: Conquer the Democrats?
  By E.J. KESSLER
  FORWARD STAFF
  http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.01.31/news6.html
  
  Clark well represented the very evil that Progressives are fighting when he waged that obscene, illegal war against Serbia because it stood in the way of the West's grand scheme to integrate the Balkans into an economic model in which the region's economies would be subordinated to Western corporate interests as we bombed and destroyed the entire country so that Soros and his friends could get their hands on the socially owned firms that belonged to the people of Serbia and we could get our access to the oil rich Caspain sea. Just like Bush’s war, that war was waged without UN approval and without Congressional authorization.
  
  Clark is being pushed on us by the DLC, well known for and very open about its corporate ties and interests, known for its cooperation with the American Enterprise Institute which is the parent of PNAC (PNAC is on the AEI’s 5th floor- wonder just what we can expect to find on the other 4 floors). These companies and George Soros (who is part of the Carlyle Group right along with James Baker, Frank Carlucci and the Bush & Bin-Laden families), represent the transnational corporate interests that are killing us. Do we ever ask ourselves why George Soros- a foreigner- is so eager to buy our elections for the paltry sum of $10 million dollars at the same time that he is destabilizing our currency by dumping the dollar and buying Euros? Have WE learned NOTHING from what Soros did to Indonesia, Ukraine, Belorus, Malaysia and is trying to do in Russia now? Do we not recognize the MO as it’s being done to us?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  An MIC world of "liberalisation" of neighbourhood economics and more intervention in social democracies, using our weapons of economic blockades, debt interest elevations, cluster bombs and depleted uranium coated shells, all to achieve war objectives under the pretext of going after terrorists and illicit drug-traffickers.
  
  
  This article from the Wall Street Journal covers a few of those boards:
  
  Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business
  Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze By Jacob M. Schlesinger and Sara Schaefer in Washington and Greg Hitt in Little Rock,Ark.
  
  Wall Street Journal, 9/18/03
  
  IN ANNOUNCING his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight. Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become : chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business.
  
  http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=377
  
  
  
  

[corporatewhore]

28. i couldnt vote for clark too scary

soa vieques free trade.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. I certainly have my doubts about the general.

For the very same reasons. Plus, I'm not very comfortable with any military man.

[OKNancy]

16. DU's own OKNancy supports Clark

and thinks SOA questions have been answered quite well by Clark.

[mmonk]

17. That's fine

I have doubts on different candidates as well. I also know the mood of the country and can look at all weaknesses beyond the political talk. In other words, I tend to take many things farther in accounting to whom I think can beat bush. I don't think the country is overly concerned with SOA at this point in time (not to discount it, just being observant and practical).

[Rich Hunt]

21. Thank you, PlaidAdder

This was one of the best, most thoughtful editorials I've read in a long time.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. some words of wisdom from Henry A. Kissinger

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

[Tinoire]

24. And Venezuelan, and Bolivian, and Mexican, and Yugoslavian

and Iraqi, and Haitian and Columbian and and and...

Peace

[Plaid Adder]

25. Well, at least now I know someone's reading the column.

I agree with jumptheshadow that this week's column is not a prizewinner (I have less time to work on them now that the day job is a lot busier). It is also quite true that I have never thought Clark was a good idea, and the SOA issue only confirms that for me. My "fear of the military" is strong; but I don't think it's unfounded. When you have spent your entire life and career working within an institution, you inevitably come to internalize that institution's values to some extent. I am quite sure that Clark would be *less* willing to start the kind of war Bush is engaged in in Iraq than almost anyone on the Bush team, and to that extent he would be an improvement. But I also don't think that he would really be the first one to question some of the basic assumptions that have been driving American foreign policy for the past 30 years, including the assumption that we have the right to determine who runs countries that we are deemed to have a strategic interest in--which is exactly the same kind of logic that got us into Iraq. The only difference with the PNAc crowd, really, is that their idea of what we have a strategic interest in is so rapaciously inclusive that it looks insane even to people who might agree with the basic principle.

But it is also true that apart from Kucinich, most of the Democratic candidates share that same basic assumption, they just differ in the degree to which they are willing to push it.

I don't mean the column to be an 'indictment' of Clark, nor do I expect it to change anyone's mind about supporting him or not supporting him. And no doubt I am wrong about many things. I have always acknowledge that it's probably a good thing that I don't run the world. All I'm trying to do is get a different take on things out there so there can be a better debate.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Tinoire]

26. You exist! You really exist! lol. Too sweet!

Thanks for dropping in. Great post and well said:

apart from Kucinich, most of the Democratic candidates share that same basic assumption, they just differ in the degree to which they are willing to push it.


I plan on quoting that!

Peace

[Bread and Circus]

27. I read your column...and I read this one....as a Clark supporter...

I am sorry you see it this way...but hey, we need all stripes
in the party.

[Hoppin_Mad]

29. Thanks Adder - It was a winner ! -nt-