The Shared Agenda of the Neocons and the New Democrats

[Q]

The Democratic Rank and File are being played like a cheap fiddle.

The Neocons and New Democrats are using 9-11 and the war on terrorism to make permanent and radical changes in 'our' government and both political parties. I submit that the success of the Bush WH in dominating American politics, circumventing the Constitution and avoiding accountability was and is dependent on a weak opposition party. To put it another way: A small but well-connected and corporate financed faction of the Democratic party...known as the New Democrats...have joined with forces on the Right to keep their puppet Bush and his allies in power until these changes become permanent. This 'faction' is made up of just enough conservative Democrats to vote with the Right on issues pivotal to their mutual agenda.

The Republicans and their Neocon, media and religious fundamentalist allies have put together one of the most effective political attack and coverup machines in American history. Not only that...they have successfully used taxpayer-funded propaganda to manipulate public opinion to make it appear both credible and ethical during a 'time of war'. Let's give credit where it's due: these guys are good at what they do. But this attack and plausible deniability machine doesn't work exclusively for the Right. It also works to the benefit of the New Democrats and anyone else that supports the Neocon Agenda or helps in obstructing investigations into Bush White House fraud and corruption.

There was Watergate in the 70s, Iran/Contra in the 80s and Sexgate in the 90s. All were centered around investigations and hearings into abuse of power by the executive branch. But after the 2000 election the very institutions that kept an eye on our White House and made them accountable to the rule of law and the people seemed to go out of business.

What happened after 2000 to cause such a radical change in the American political and justice systems? What happened to Constitutional checks and balances? Investigative journalism? To the Democratic party? How is it that Bush & Gang was able to steal the 2000 election in plain view, allow 9-11 to happen on their watch without being held accountable and then become virtually untouchable by the 'rule of law'?

The answer to this question goes beyond the American Corporate Media and a weak opposition that seemingly remains helpless as long as they're in the minority. The New Democratic Coalition is actively working (behind the scenes) with the Bush government to keep the American people in the dark about the loss of civil liberties, election fraud, illegal wars, government corruption and war profiteering.

The Bush Government will never be held accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and humanity. Why? Because there are just enough Democrats working with and protecting them to make it appear as if the 'war on terrorism' has bipartisan support. The shared agenda of the Neocons and New Democrats? Perpetual war and the use of fear and terror to control the American people and their government.

This is my opinion. Yours may differ.

[LoZoccolo]

1. There's a much simpler answer to this.

There was Watergate in the 70s, Iran/Contra in the 80s and Sexgate in the 90s. All were centered around investigations and hearings into abuse of power by the executive branch. But after the 2000 election the very institutions that kept an eye on our White House and made them accountable to the rule of law and the people seemed to go out of business.

What happened after 2000 to cause such a radical change in the American political and justice systems? What happened to Constitutional checks and balances? Investigative journalism? To the Democratic party? How is it that Bush & Gang was able to steal the 2000 election in plain view, allow 9-11 to happen on their watch without being held accountable and then become virtually untouchable by the 'rule of law'?

Opposite-party rule of the legislature ended.

[MollyStark]

4. not so simple

There have been several times when members of the minority (us) could have kept some bad legislation from passing by voting with the democratic party and moderate republicans, but chose to vote with the radical right instead.
People say they are gutless, I say they know exactly what they are doing.

[LoZoccolo]

6. That has nothing to do with what I was responding to.

I was responding to a specific question posed in the post. Please don't mess around.

[mattclearing]

135. Molly is right, and her post directly answered yours.

If you want to say something, you have to expect that others may say something back.

[LoZoccolo]

139. It was much better than /Cats/.

I'm going to see it again and again.

[Warpy]

2. I'm not sure there is actual collusion

especially since my mind tends to dismiss such conspiracy theories on sight.

However, it is clear that the wealthy men at the center of the party's power elite are perfectly happy to be out of power and getting huge tax cuts. They know that had Kerry faced a clean election and won, it would have cost them.

It's just another reason we need to keep going to those DFA meetings. The party will change only from the grassroots up.

[whistle]

3. Who are "The New Democrats?....beats the hell out of me!....

<snip>

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | March 16, 2005
What We Stand For: Americans don't know what Democrats believe in. It's time to tell them.
By Al From and Bruce Reed


Here are some simple truths every Democrat needs to hear. To win back the White House in 2008, our party must change. We must be willing to discard political strategies that may make us feel good but that keep falling short. We must finally reject the false choice between exciting our base and expanding our appeal, because unless we both motivate and persuade, we'll lose every time.

But above all, Democrats must be bold and clear about what we stand for. It's time to show the millions of people who can't tell what Democrats stand for that any American who believes in security, opportunity, and responsibility has a home in the Democratic Party.

As Bill Clinton told us many times in 1992, change is never easy. Our party's greatest challenge is to offer new, innovative, and progressive ways to expand opportunity, demand responsibility, and defend freedom and American interests in the world. That will require challenging party orthodoxy and, from time to time, making some in our party uncomfortable. But during the next four years, we have to be willing to surprise people once again. If we do that, we will earn the chance to put our ideas into action; if we don't, we will not win, no matter how much money we raise or how good our party machinery may be.

We congratulate Gov. Howard Dean on his new job as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He needs to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, hone the party's political machinery to rival the Republican juggernaut, and rebuild state parties, particularly in red states. That's a tall order, even for someone with Dean's energy and tenacity. We've had differences with Governor Dean in the past, but we wish him well in this endeavor. If he succeeds in building and funding our party, all Democrats will benefit.

<more>
<link> http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=253206

<snip>
March 16, 2005
Our National Security Challenge: An Open Letter to Democrats

Our party faces a host of urgent public challenges. But one overshadows all the rest: defending America against terrorists and the extremist ideology that inspires them.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, we and our allies have dealt crippling blows to al Qaeda. Yet the struggle continues because our real enemy is not any particular gang of terrorists, but rather the jihadist creed that motivates people to commit acts of terror. From Manhattan to Madrid, from Iraq to Indonesia, its adherents have unleashed paroxysms of violence against innocent civilians.

If not significant in military terms, these attacks nonetheless succeed in their main purpose -- sowing terror. Moreover, the level of terror and destruction will rise exponentially if our enemies succeed in getting their hands on nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction. And today's Islamist terrorists could prove more dangerous than our Cold War adversaries because, being stateless, they cannot be deterred by the threat of massive retaliation.

This new danger tests the mettle of the people and parties that aspire to lead America. No political party will gain or hold power -- nor will it deserve to -- if it cannot provide people with a basic sense of security.

<more>
<link> http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=253152


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253218&kaid=132&subid=193

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Of course they share ideas, they share personnel. There was a thread about

that a while back. I will try to find it.

NEOCONS almost = DLC

[Al-CIAda]

7. PNAC= "A new Pearl Harbor" = Treason, complicity, and collusion..

Partial list of people associated with the Project For The New American Century.

- People are identified as being connected to the PNAC because either they are listed on the organisation’s web site, or their names appear as authors/contributors on official PNAC documents. Information current to Dec. 2004.

Abramowitz, Morton - Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation.
Abrams, Elliot - National Security Council – top advisor on the Middle East. Alumnus of the Heritage Foundation.
History: As Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under Reagan, was responsible for covering up war crimes committed by the U.S. backed Contras. Was charged in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and pled to lesser charges. Was later pardoned by Bush Sr. The British media reported Elliot was behind the attempted Chavez coup in Venezuela.
Allen, Richard V. - member: National Security Advisory Board, and the Defense Policy Board. President of the Richard V. Allen Company (consulting firm). Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute.
History: founding chairman for the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center. Founding member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Former board member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Assistant to the President for National Security affairs during the Reagan administration, but forced from office over suspected financial misconduct.
Anderson, Mark A. - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).
Armitage, Richard - Deputy Secretary of State.
History: Former board member of CACI, the private military contractor whose employees were responsible for torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs during the Reagan Administration. Named by the government as one of the people guilty of supplying weapons in the Iran Contra Affair, but never charged.
Au, Andrew Y. - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).
Bang-Jensen, Nina - executive director of the Coalition for International Justice.
Bao-Lord, Bette - member of the Council on Foreign Relations (director until 2003). Chairman of Freedom House. Wife of ex-ambassador to China Winston Lord, who is Co-chairman of the International Rescue Committee.
Barnett, Roger - professor at the Naval War College (a government facility).
History: Vice President of the National Institute for Public Policy. Professor at Georgetown University.
Bauer, Gary – founder of the Campaign for Working Families, president of American Values.
History: past president of the Family Research Council. Under Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration.
Bennet, William J. – co-director of Empower America, co-director of Partnership for a Drug-Free America, Distinguished Fellow of the Heritage Foundation. Writer.
History: Secretary of Education under Reagan.
Bergner, Jeffrey - study group member of the Commission on National Security 21st Century. Member of the board of trustees for the Hudson Institute, and the Asia Foundation. His lobbying company represents a number of weapons contractors, among other major corporations.
History: Staff Director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the Reagan administration.
Bernstein, Alvin - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).
Bernstein, Robert L. - Professor at the National Defense University (a government facility).
History: worked at the Naval War College (government facility), and in the Defense Department.
Biddle, George - member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Vice President of the International Rescue Committee (allegedly a relief organisation).
Bolton, John R. - Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
History: Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute. Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs for the Department of State under Bush Sr. Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under Reagan.
Boot, Max - Senior Fellow of the National Security Studies. Contributing Editor for the Weekly Standard.
History: editor of the Wall Street Journal, writer and editor for the Christian Science Monitor.
Bork, Ellen – Deputy Director of the PNAC.
History: Transatlantic Fellow of the German Marshall Fund.
Boschwitz, Rudy - Presidential appointee to the Holocaust Memorial Council. One of the top fund-raisers for Bush Jr. in 2000. Founder of Home Valu Inc. Minnesota Senator (1978-1991).
Buckley, William F. Jr. - owner of National Review magazine.
History: CIA agent in the Fifties. Hosted the television show Firing Line.
Bush, Jeb – Governor of Florida.
History: Banned convicted felons from voting in the 2000 presidential election, using an extremely inaccurate system to remove voting rights; allowed ineligible absentee ballots to be counted.
Cambone, Stephen A. - Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Special Assistant to the Secretary and Director for Program Analysis and Evaluation – Department of Defense.
History: Special Assistant to Donald Rumsfeld just prior to current appointments. Director in the Defense Department during the Bush Sr. administration. Past deputy director in SRS Technologies (Defense contractor).
Carlucci, Frank - Chairman Emeritus of the Carlyle Group, and Nortel Networks. Member of the board of United Defense Inc. Considered a protégé of D. Rumsfeld.
History: Chairman of the Carlyle Group (1993-2000). Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration. Deputy Director in the CIA. CIA agent. Accused of being behind the assassination of Congo Prime Minister Lumumba during the Sixties, but never charged.
Cheney, Dick – Vice President. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Employee(?) of Halliburton – draws a one million dollar per year salary.
History: worked for D. Rumsfeld in 1969. Presidential assistant to Gerald Ford. Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr. Halliburton CEO 1995 to 2000; gains the company 3.8 billion dollars in federal contracts and guaranteed loans. Upon becoming Vice President, Halliburton receives billions of dollars in Iraq contracts not tendered to other companies. Behind installing Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Elliot Abrams into their current positions in government. Wife Lynne is a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. Daughter Elizabeth is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs.
Clemons, Steven C. - Executive Vice President of the New America Foundation.
Cohen, Eliot A. - professor at Johns Hopkins University. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: professor at the Naval War College. Previously worked for D. Rumsfeld.
Cropsey, Seth - Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.
History: Director in the Heritage Foundation. Visiting Fellow in the American Enterprise Institute. Assistant Editor of the Public Interest (1976-77). Hudson Institute researcher. Deputy Under Secretary in the Department of the Navy during the Reagan administration.
DeConcini, Dennis Webster - Chairman of the Board of Directors for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
History: eighteen years as Senator from Arizona. Member of the Balkan Action Committee.
Dale, Helle - Director in the Heritage Foundation.
Decter, Midge – Writer. Heritage Foundation director. Wife of Norman Podhoretz. Claims to worship Donald Rumsfeld, and has written a book for Rumsfeld admirers.
Dobriansky, Paula - Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
History: Senior Vice President (Washington office) of the Council on Foreign Relations prior to appointment. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs for the Department of State in the Reagan administration.
Donnelly, Thomas – Deputy Executive Director of the PNAC.
History: Director of Strategic Communication and Initiatives for Lockheed Martin Corp. (weapons contractor).
Eberstadt, Nicholas - consultant for the State Department, consultant for the Bureau of the Census. Member of the American Enterprise Institute.
Edgar, Robert (Rev. Dr.) - General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ. Ordained as an United Methodist. Former Congressman.
Epstein, David - employee at the Office of Secretary of Defense – Net Assessment.
Etzioni, Amitai - founder of the Communitarian Network, and editor of their magazine. Was Senior Advisor to the White House on Domestic Affairs during the Carter administration.
Fautua, David - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).
Feulner, Edwin J. Jr. - Heritage Foundation.
History: advisor to President Reagan.
Forbes, Steve – President, CEO, and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine.
History: campaigned twice for the Republican nomination for president. Directed the dissemination of propaganda on Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty during both the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.
Fradkin, Hillel - member of the Advisory Committee on International Education – Department of Education. Part of Benador Associates, a publicity firm handling clients such as PNAC members R. Perle, J. Woolsey, F. Gaffney, C. Krauthammer, and M. Boot.
History: Fellow in the American Enterprise Institute prior to government appointment.
Friedberg, Aaron - Vice President’s Deputy National Security Advisor.
History: Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. Consultant for the CIA.
Fukuyama, Francis - President’s Council on Bioethics. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gaffney, Frank – President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, Washington Times columnist, brother of Devon Gaffney-Cross.
History: worked for Richard Perle during the Reagan administration.
Gaffney-Cross, Devon - member of the Defense Policy Board (Pentagon). Member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Sister of Frank Gaffney.
Gejdenson, Sam - owns Sam Gejdenson International. Congressman (D) 1981 - 2000.
Gerecht, Reuel Marc – Senior Fellow of the PNAC, Resident Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
History: former CIA agent (1985 – 1994). CBS News consultant on Afghanistan.
Goldman, Merle - Adjunct Professor for the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department.
Goure, Daniel - consultant for the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. Vice President of the Lexington Institute. Was a Study Team Leader for the Institute of Peace (1990-91).
Halperin, Morton H. - director for the Council on Foreign Relations, and for the Open Society Institute.
Hefferman, John - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).
Hooper, James R. - Executive Director of the Balkan Action Council.
Ikle, Fred C. – Distinguished Scholar for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Reagan administration.
Jackson, Bruce – President of the Project on Transitional Democracies. President of the Committee on NATO.
Member: Council on Foreign Relations, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Board of Advisors for the Center for Security Policy.
History: Director of Strategic Planning for Lockheed Martin Corp. (weapons contractor). Worked for Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney during the eighties.
Joyce, Michael S. - founder of Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise, an organisation created to help push through Bush Jr.’s “Faith-Based Initiative”. Member of the Research Council of America. Was part of the Presidential Transition Team for Reagan.
Kagan, Donald – Hillhouse Professor of History and Classics at Yale University. Writer. Father of Frederick and Robert Kagan.
Kagan, Frederick - Professor of military history at West Point.
History: co-wrote, with his father Donald and other PNAC contributors, “While America Sleeps”.
Kagan, Robert - co-founder of the PNAC. Contributing Editor for the Weekly Standard and the New Republic; columnist for the Washington Post. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Husband of Victoria Nuland, Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President.
History: Deputy in the Department of State under Elliot Abrams during the Reagan administration.
Kampelman, Max M. - Lawyer. Member of the Board of Trustees for Freedom House. Member of the Board of Advisors for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
Karatnycky, Adrian - member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Freedom House.
History: worked for the New York Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times.
Kemble, Penn - Department of State – Head, Eminent Persons Group, Sudan Slavery Commission. Senior Fellow in Freedom House.
Kennedy, Craig - President of the German Marshall Fund.
Khalilzad, Zalmay - Ambassador to Afghanistan, Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan, and Special Presidential Envoy to the Free Iraqis.
History: Senior Director of the National Security Council (2001 – 2003). Accused by candidates in the Afghan elections of arranging President Hamid Karzai’s victory. Worked for Paul Wolfowitz at the State Department in 1984 – 1985. Advisor to Unocal for their proposed gas pipeline project through Afghanistan (1997).
Killebrew, Robert B. - Colonel (retired)
History: Security Strategies study member for PNAC. Consultant to a variety of army and private institute military projects.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane - on the executive committee of Freedom House, and the board of advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on the Present Danger. Former U.S. Ambassador. Member of the National Security Council under Reagan.
Koh, Harold Hongju - Dean of Yale.
History: Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Clinton administration.
Kovler, Peter - Nixon Center Advisory Council. Balkans Action Committee.
Krauthammer, Charles - Presidential appointee to the President’s Council On Bioethics. Columnist for the Washington Post. Contributing Editor for the New Republic, and the Weekly Standard. Member of the Editorial Board for the National Interest, and the Public Interest.
Kristol, William - co-founder of the PNAC. Columnist for (and co-founder of) the Weekly Standard.
History: Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, Secretary of Education Chief of Staff under William Bennett during the Reagan administration.
Lagon, Mark P. - Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.
History: fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. Deputy Director of the House Republican Committee. Senior advisor to Jeane Kirkpatrick - American Enterprise Institute.
Lasswell, James - Employee of GAMA Corporation (war games, military training via software).
Lehrman, Lewis E. - on the Board of Trustees for the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute. President and co-founder of the Citizens for America.
Libby, I. Lewis - Assistant to the President, and Chief of Staff to the Vice President.
History: after graduating law school, went to work for Paul Wolfowitz (1981 - 1985) at the State Department. Hired again by Wolfowitz in 1989, this time at the Pentagon.
Lindberg, Tod - Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute. Editor of Policy Review journal.
Mack, Connie III - Congressman for Florida. Previously served in the Florida House of Representatives (2000 - 2003).
Maletz, Christopher – Assistant Director of the PNAC.
Markey, Mary Beth - Executive Director for the International Campaign for Tibet. Worked in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to 1996.
Martinage, Robert - consultant for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
McKivergan, Daniel – Deputy Director of the PNAC.
History: research director for The Weekly Standard (1995 – 1997). Legislative director for Senator John McCain (2000), and for Congressman Dan Miller (1997).
Meese, Edwin III - Heritage Foundation.
History: Attorney General during the Reagan administration. Investigated for his involvement in the Iraq Bechtel pipeline deal (which also involved D. Rumsfeld) - not prosecuted, but resigned.
Meilinger, Phil – U.S. Naval War College.
Muravchik, Joshua - Resident Scholar for the American Enterprise Institute. Member of the Board of Advisors for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
Owens, Mackubin - professor at the Naval War College (a government facility).
Owens, Wayne - Deceased (December 18, 2002).
History: eight years as Congressman (D) for Utah.
Peretz, Martin - owner and Editor-in-Chief of the New Republic magazine.
Perle, Richard N. - Pentagon Policy Advisor (resigned February 2004), member – Defense Policy Board.
Member: Balkan Action Committee, Committee on the Present Danger, American Enterprise Institute associate. On advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
History: Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan. FBI suspected Perle of spying for Israel in 1970 - not prosecuted.
Pletka, Danielle - Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy for the American Enterprise Institute.
History: senior staff member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (1992-2002).
Podhoretz, Norman - member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Husband of Midge Decter, father-in-law of Elliot Abrams.
Porter, John Edward - member of the RAND board of Trustees.
History: Congressman until 2000.
Quayle, J. Danforth - was Vice President under Bush Sr.
Rodman, Peter W. - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
History: Staff Director of State Department Policy Planning under Reagan.
Rosen, Stephen P. - Harvard professor.
History: professor at the Naval War College. Director in the National Security Council under Reagan.
Rowen, Henry S. - member of Department of Defense Policy Board. Presidential appointee to the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.
History: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under Bush Sr. RAND Corporation president 1967–1972.
Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense.
Member: Hoover Institution board of trustees, RAND Corporation, Empower America board, Freedom House board, Balkan Action Committee, Committee on the Present Danger, Center for Security Policy.
History: Congressman from 1962 to 1969. Member of Nixon’s cabinet. Member of Gerald Ford’s cabinet and Secretary of Defense. Chaired Ballistic Missile Threat (“Rumsfeld”) Commission in 1998.
Scheunemann, Randy – on PNAC Board of Directors, U.S. Committee on NATO Board of Directors. Treasurer for Project on Transitional Democracies. Lobbyist.
History: Office of the Secretary of Defense - Consultant on Iraq Policy (2001).
Schmitt, Gary – Executive Director of the PNAC. Consultant to the Department of Defense.Member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO. Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institute. Adjunct Professor at John Hopkins University.
History: Executive Director of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Reagan.
Schneider, William Jr. - Chairman of the Defense Science Board for the Department of Defense. President of International Planning Services, works for the lobbying company Jefferson Consulting Group. Previously served on the “Rumsfeld Commission”.
Shaw, Sin-Ming - resident scholar at Oxford University’s Oriel College.
Shulsky, Abram N. - Director: Defence Department’s Office Of Special Plans, a division created by Paul Wolfowitz.
History: Worked for the RAND corporation. Worked under Richard Perle in the Defense Department during the Reagan administration.
Shultz, Richard - Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School. Holds Chairs at the Naval War College and the U.S. Military Academy. Fellow at the Institute of Peace.
Simon, Paul - Deceased (Dec. 9/03). Former Democratic Senator.
Sokolski, Henry - Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Education Center.
History: was Resident Fellow in the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. Was a Senior Legislative Aide for Senator Dan Quayle.
Solarz, Stephen J.- vice chairman of the International Crisis Group. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: Congressman for New York (1975-93)
Sonnenfeldt, Helmut - Brookings Institution.
History: member of the National Security Council. Advisor to President Nixon.
Sussman, Leonard - executive director of Freedom House. Was a journalist in New York.
Sweeney, John J. - President of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Taft, William Howard IV - Chief Legal Advisor to the Department of State.
History: assistant to Casper Weinberger in the Nixon administration.
Thornburgh, Dick - Lawyer. Past governor of Pennsylvania. Attorney General in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.
Tkacik, John - Heritage Foundation. President of China Business Intelligence. Worked in the State Department during the Reagan administration.
Turner, Ed - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).
Vickers, Michael - Director of Strategic Studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Creator of “Future Warfare 20XX” games. Former CIA agent.
Waldron, Arthur - board member of Freedom House, member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: professor at the Naval War College (1991-97).
Wallop, Malcolm - Heritage Foundation. Founder and Chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom.
History: part of the Rumsfeld Commission. Senator for Wyoming (1977 - 1995).
Watts, Barry D. - Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation – Office of The Secretary of Defense.
History: before government appointment, was a director in Northrop Gruman (weapons contractor).
Webb, James - was Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration.
Weber, Vin - member of the National Commission on Public Service. Member of the German Marshall Fund – board of trustees. Co-founder of Empower America. Partner in Clark & Weinstock.
History: Congressman for Minnesota 1980 – 1992.
Weigel, George – Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
History: co-founded National Endowment for Democracy.
Weinberger, Caspar W.– writer.
History: past publisher and chairman of Forbes magazine. Secretary of Defense under Reagan. Indicted on felony charges for his participation in supplying missiles to Iran, but pardoned by President Bush Sr.
Weyrich, Paul M. – President of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. National Chairman of Coalitions for America.
History: co-founded Heritage Foundation. Co-founded the Moral Majority. Past treasurer of Council for National Policy.
Williams, Christopher A. - Department of Defense – Special Assistant to Donald Rumsfeld. Lobbyist for Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corporation (weapons contractors).
History: member of Pentagon’s Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and member of Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board during Bush Jr. administration.
Windsor, Jennifer L. - Executive Director of Freedom House.
History: previously held various positions at the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Wolfowitz, Paul - Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Assistant to the Vice President.
History: Head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff under Reagan. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs under Carter.
Woolsey, R. James - member of the Defense Policy Board, member of the Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and member of the National Commission on Energy Policy. Trustee for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Freedom House. Honorary Co-Chair of the National Security Advisory Council.
History: Director of the CIA during Clinton administration.
Wortzel, Larry - Director in the Heritage Foundation.
Zakheim, Dov S. - Member of the advisory board for the American Jewish Committee, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adjunct Scholar for the Heritage Foundation. Under Secretary and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense (resigned April 15, 2004).
Zoellick, Robert B. - U.S. Trade Representative and member of President’s Cabinet.
History: Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs, then White House Deputy Chief of Staff in the Bush Sr. administration.

[cquik18]

100. Good to know someone has been doing their homework...

I also recommend "House of Bush, House of Saud" by Craig Unger, as well as "Worse than Watergate", by John Dean....both books mention PNAC as well...

An interesting sidenote: John Dean was part of the Nixon Administration-this guy worked for NIXON!- and HE'S saying the current administration is corrupt! Think about it!

[FightinNewDem]

8. The obsession continues

If you spent on-tenth the energy you expend on bashing fellow Democrats on unseating Republicans, we could probably win back at least a dozen state houses in the next two years.

Get a grip.

[Zhade]

9. Maybe if you focused on the PNAC fans in the DLC...

...we could make more progress on this issue.

How do you feel about DLCers like Will Marshall and Marshall Whittmann endorsing PNAC statements? Do you like them giving this gang of traitors and criminals (remember, several PNACers committed treason during IranContra) a Democratic imprimatur?

If you need links to the statements these two have endorsed, ask WyldWolf, I sent him links to all of the endorsements. At least he's willing to read the evidence and consider it, rather than just attacking someone like Q for bringing up this very valid concern.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

10. Agreed. "paroxysms of violence" are an American export to be stopped.

The Republicans are a fascist horror show.

But we've learned that the Dems have been working with them in a 'good cop/bad cop' propaganda theater that still fools lots of people.

While getting 'Dems' into offices is a goal, now we know:

1) The Democratic Party has been infiltrated with Republicans running false-flag campaigns for years.

2) Many Democrats have been embracing Republican/fascist policies out of terror, greed, or laziness.

3) The consequences of not figuring this out and changing it are permanent war, a police-state in the US, and environmental disaster.

I'm preparing my case that General Wesley Clark is the next calculated step in the military coup against the American people.

We want DEMOCRACY, not mere 'Democrats.'
The US government made the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' long long ago.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Clark against Perle was all a stage show, right?

Do me a favor then, get some real patriot or whatever you choose to call the alternative to the Republicans and complicit Democrats to start publicly saying some of the things that Clark was saying about PNAC's agenda, because someone had better effectively confront it fast. If you don't believe Clark is doing that, despite all of the testimony he just gave, dig someone else up quick, OK?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

13. I haven't finished this. I'll post anyway since Clark v Perle is hot now.

An unfinished case against the General but plenty to consider...Have you read that the Pentagon is signing up 14 year-old boys in 'pre-enlistment' programs? If this is true, Clark better come out screaming against it or you'll know what I'm asserting is true.

Anyway-

We want DEMOCRACY, not mere 'Democrats.' Clark may at best be sincere in his motives but I see him damned by his associations and tactics.

I offer this post to illustrate:
1) An analysis of Wesley Clark's recent testimony for the House Foreign Affairs Committee opposite Richard Perle.

2) A hidden history of NATO, which Clark led in the Balkans War, which includes Nazis, terrorism, war crimes.

3) Continuity of tactics of US terrorism under Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

4) The Pentagon's plans for squashing domestic dissent against its wars called 'Operation Garden Plot' using DARPA surveillance and propaganda and Clark's hand in it.

5) Clark's current associations with the CIA, DARPA, Newt Gingrich, Frank Carlucci, The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, Boeing, and other elements comprising the fascist military coup against the American people finalized in November, 2000 and embraced by the DLC.

6) I contend that Clark is being groomed by the Council on Foreign Relations to put the smiley face back on US corporate terrorism to reduce resistance that is eating into the profits and eroding American long-term ability to conquer the world. The CFR's new product is being sold by using the old product as a foil. The illusion of choice is a marketing tool that works well.

7) The resuscitation of American's embracing the 'just war' is the task of a Clark presidency towards the goal of US global hegemony, something Americans don't look back or forward to notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company of USA,Inc. swaps front window management but never changes the goal of controlling the American public and the world regardless of the body count or international laws.

Wesley Clark is a Company Man.
A lifer. A planner. Long range. Apologist for NATO/US war crimes, US coups and user of propaganda. Sound familiar? The US corporation's private security agency (called the Pentagon) was honing its ability to cover its agenda and war crimes with propaganda long before the Bushevik neo-cons made it obvious to more Americans.


Consider how much mileage with some Democrats Wesley Clark gets for admonishing the neo-cons for biting off more than they can chew and letting the blood be seen dripping down their chins. Very bad public relations for maintaining the myths of American Virtue and innocence from war crimes. Psychological operations have been part of military strategy to control the American public along with other countries.

Clark just repeated the 1994 Army War College critique of the neo-con's Global War on Terror in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week and made Richard Perle look absurd, admittedly a noble and necessary task.
BUT.
But notice the Army War College's emphasis, comparison to Hitler's overreaching in WWII, means not achieving ends. Very telling. The Ends are not refuted.

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/wot/critical-essay.html
(Washington Post story linked from Vietnam Vets Against the War Against Imperialism)

>snip<

{Report author} Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars . . . because their strategic ends outran their available means."

>snip<

Very apt comparison to Hitler's mistake since NATO incorporated ex-Nazis and terrorized Europe, as did the US's CIA, NASA, and military industrial media complex which Clark worked with all his life.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GAN412A.html
(NATO’s secret armies linked to terrorism?
by Daniele Ganser
ISN Security Watch, 15 December 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 17 December 2004)

>snip<

At a time when experts are debating whether NATO is suited to deal with the global “war on terror”, new research suggests that the alliance’s own secret history has links to terrorism.

ISN Editor’s Note:

This report written by Daniele Ganser is based on excerpts from his newly released book, “NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe”, released this week by Frank Cass in London.

The book describes NATO’s clandestine operations during the Cold War. The research was prompted by a story that made world headlines in 1990 but quickly disappeared, ensuring that even today, NATO’s secret armies remain just that - secret.

Until now, a full investigation of NATO’s secret armies had not been carried out - a task that Ganser has taken on single-handedly and quite successfully.

>snip<

Clark also reinforced the GWOT unproven indictment of bin Laden as the Head Boogie Man of 9/11. You know, the leader of the muslim terrorists used by NATO in the Balkans just as Carter, Reagan, and Bush I did in Afghanistan against the Soviets and now justifying permanent war and a police-state.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,688310,00.html
(Guardian: America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims)

>snip<

"In both Afghanistan and the Gulf, the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia.

The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah. Wiebes reveals that the British intelligence services obtained documents early on in the Bosnian war proving that Iran was making direct deliveries.

Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East. Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft."

>snip<

NATO's spokesman for war in the Balkans admitted it was a con job:
Jamie Shea on 'the Ultimate PR Challenge'
http://www.apc.org.nz/pma/sshea.htm
31 March 2000

Selling a Conflict - the Ultimate PR Challenge

BERN, Switzerland. Jamie Shea, NATO spokesman during the Kosovo war, recently gave a talk to business leaders, titled: 'Selling a Conflict - the Ultimate PR Challenge'. With unusual bluntness, Shea talked about the 78 days of his media success.

One has to win the public opinion, said Shea, and this isn't a simple task while violating the sovereignity of a state."

War as a Soap Opera

Shea said that the public loves daily soap operas with good characters, and that's what he gave to the public. How well he did this job, is shown by the fact that people still recognize him today wherever he goes. The media star Shea also boasted that he was recently nominated as one of the "10 sexiest men in the world" by a magazine.

The media had Jamie Shea, NATO had the media. On the other side was Milosevic, with no media briefings and ever-changing spokespersons - giving a bad image in the media.

>snip<

http://www.psywarrior.com/shapingperceptionsbalkans.html
(Shaping Perceptions During the Latest Balkan Imbroglio)
The Balkan War used the new internet for propaganda campaigns.

Both a history of Nazis in NATO and 24 Reasons to Oppose NATO near the bottom are here at this anti-fascist website:
http://www.wbenjamin.org/neumannproject.html
(The Franz Neumann Project: Beyond the Behemoth
Toward a Critical Theory of Fascism)

But Clark's post-2000 talking up of domestic social programs and civil liberties gets him a halo. Instead of his artful campaign gestures and convenient associations with a few liberal groups, let's examine his not-so-liberal co-workers, shall we?


Wesley Clark is on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA front group for US overt efforts to overthrow governments that used to be done covertly. Venezuala is one of its main targets.

From SourceWatch, formerly Disinfopedia, a guide to front groups and think tanks:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy

Funding of foreign political parties
The NED regularly provides funding to opposition candidates in elections in countries other than the USA. And according to Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED (and CIA front man of the 1960s-jom):

A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA
— W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180.

"According to left-wing critics, the NED only supports candidates with strong ties to the military and who support the rights of US corporations to invest in those countries."

>snip<

Former CIA agent Phillip Agee on the NED:
"So, basically what the program of subversion these days is what they call the promotion of democracy, which is nothing more than a lie. And all the other euphemisms that they throw into these programs are equally lies, because the real purpose, as it has always been since 1947 and the beginning of the CIA's covert action operations in Italy… The goals have always been the same, but since the CIA people who receive the money, i.e., their beneficiary organizations abroad had so much trouble in covering up this under-the-table money, and it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, that they decided to fund these openly. One should never forget that the CIA has many millions of dollars that they can add to the money that organizations are getting from the State Dept., the NED, or its four core foundations, or from USAID. So, it is a fairly sophisticated structure, and so far it has been somewhat successful.
Source: Dennis Bernstein, "Philip Agee, Former CIA agent speaks on Venezuela (http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html)", Flashpoints, March 14, 2005.

>snip<

NED Directors of the Board

* Frank Charles Carlucci III of The Carlyle Group
* Wesley Kanne Clark, retired General, presidential candidate, and board member of Stephens Group – a venture capital company
* Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
* Francis Fukuyama, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Clark is also on the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Here is the SourceWatch analysis.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies
>snip<

During the war against Nicaragua, CSIS produced several documents "proving" a communist plot, etc. For many years, CSIS was also seen as a think tank where right-wing "officials-in-waiting" could wait until their next appointment in government.

... "one of those ephemeral constellations into which the luminaries of the American political establishment frequently arrange themselves in order to encourage policy to navigate by their lights: Madeleine K. Albright, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Charles Carlucci III, Warren Christopher, William Sebastian Cohen, Bob Dole, Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger, Stuart Eizenstat, Alexander Haig, Lee H. Hamilton, John Hamre, Sam Nunn, Paul O'Neill, Charles S. Robb, William Roth, and James Rodney Schlesinger. That makes four former Secretaries of State, one former National Security Adviser, two former Secretaries for Defense, a former Secretary of the Treasury, a former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a former Director of the CIA, and three Senators"; ... signatories to a May 2003 Declaration (http://csis.org/europe/2003_May_14_JointDeclr.pdf) proposing that "the states of the European Union, which are among the richest and most powerful states in the world, should invite US government officials to attend their highest-level legislative and policy-making meetings, in order that these officials can ensure that the Europeans do not pursue policies which are independent of, or disapproved by, the American government."
--------------------------------------------------------------


Clark is also on the above CSIS's 'Task Force on the United Nations' working with Newt Gingrich, Boeing (which assists in virtual training for urban combat with DARPA, unmanned planes, satellite surveillance, etc.), The Heritage Foundation, and other FASCIST INFRASTRUCTURE.

This site is the source of the photo so many Clarkie's like to use.
http://www.usip.org/un/members.html

Task Force Members
(photo of Wesley K. Clark captioned
"Task force member Wesley K. Clark participates in a discussion during a task force session in February 2005.")




Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House of Representatives (Co-Chair)
CEO
Gingrich Group

George J. Mitchell, Former Majority Leader of the Senate (Co-Chair)
Chairman
Piper Rudnick LLP

Wesley K. Clark, Gen. U.S. Army (Ret.)
Chairman and CEO
Wesley K. Clark & Associates

Edwin J. Feulner
President
The Heritage Foundation

Roderick M. Hills
Partner
Hills and Stern

Donald McHenry, Ambassador (Ret.)
Distinguished Professor, School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University

Thomas R. Pickering, Ambassador (Ret.)
Senior Vice President, International Relations
The Boeing Company

Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy
American Enterprise Institute

Anne-Marie Slaughter
Dean
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University

A. Michael Spence
Partner
Oak Hills Capital Partners

Malcolm Wallop, U.S. Senator (Ret.)
Senior Fellow
Asian Studies Center

R. James Woolsey
Vice President, Global Strategic Security
Booz Allen Hamilton

Senior Advisors

Charles G. Boyd, Gen. U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
President and CEO
Business Executives for National Security

J. Robinson West
Chairman, PFC Energy
Chairman of the Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
---------------------------------------------------------

The US military has been honing its plans to occupy American cities and control anti-war protesters since the 1960s when 'Operation Garden Plot' was initiated. This is what the so-called War on Terrorism's Homeland Security is really accomplishing to prevent the Vietnam War domestic unrest scenario from ever getting out of control of the Pentagon and the corporations it protects.

Upon 'retirement' Clark fed DARPA's Total Information Awareness program by personally lobbying the IranContra felon, Admiral John Poindexter, today's Dr. Strangelove working on DARPA's surveillance of American political dissent, today's COINTELPRO run on supercomputers.

Clark did this by fronting Acxiom, an enormous data-mining company with records on millions of Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7380-2003Sep26.html
(Clark Worked For Ark. Data Firm
Acxiom Role Part of Surveillance Debate

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 27, 2003; Page A08 )

>snip<

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

>snip<

Acxiom is a data integrator that manages billions of records for some of the nation's top banks, retailers and marketers. The company said it has "the largest collection of U.S. consumer and telephone data available in one source" -- data that is used in part to enhance others' records and authenticate identities.

>snip<
-------------------------------------------------------

Gee, isn't DARPA just protecting airlines from terrorists? No.
DARPA is protecting the US government from YOU AND ME and clever Pentagon planners like General Wesley Clark sure know this if I do, right? Clark has mouthed defenses of civil rights while campaigning that are sheer hypocrisy in light of his income sources.

'Operation Garden Plot' is the Pentagon's ongoing planning for using the US military to quell civil unrest, that is, anti-war protests. The planning started in the 1960s and took off during the Clinton years in response to 'domestic terrorism.' DARPA's emphasis on urban warfare is part of a two-fold strategy of the future: invade foreign countries and squash domestic dissent at home. The CIA has used domestic assassinations for decades to eliminate resistance leadership.

http://www.darpa.mil/spo/programs/auo.htm?area=3
(DARPA Special Projects Office: Assured Urban Operations)

>snip<

"Technologies are being pursued by DARPA/SPO to provide a picture of all people and vehicles moving on the ground and apply this information to track people emerging from buildings of interest and follow them as they move to new locations."

>snip<

Notice that this applies to the USA as well. "ALL PEOPLE." Clark's Acxiom is helping out with Total Information Awareness, BIG BROTHER.
-----------------------------------------------------------

See Alex Constantine's comprehensive history of the Pentagon's 'Operation Garden Plot' development through the Bush I/Clinton years with highlights from the Rodney King agent provocateur-inflamed LA riots, the 1993 truck bombing of the WTC by FBI informants, the 1995 Oklahoma bombing disinfo event , etc, in a continuous arc of police-state encroachment on civil liberties and elimination of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act meant to keep the US military off of the US people.
http://alexconstantine.50megs.com/home.html
(aprox. 2/5 down the page)
For easier to read text see http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/suppression.html

>snip<

HOMELAND DEFENSE: DOMESTIC MILITARY CZAR
"Terrorism is multifaceted and differs from group to group and incident to incident.Yet the single common denominator is that it is a psychological weapon, intended to erode trust and undermine confidence in our government, its elected officials, institutions or policies. What makes a WMD terrorist incident unique is that it can be a transforming event."
Frank J. Cilluffo,
Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Council on Foreign Relations, Roundtable on Terrorism

"I personally believe that the next decade is a decade of homeland defense…"
John Hamre
Deputy Secretary of Defense
In January 1999 the New York Times stated in an editorial that "there have been discussions in the Pentagon, but no decision, about creating a new domestic military command to combat terrorism. That would erode the long-established legal principle that America's armed forces should not be involved in domestic law enforcement." (67) While the military has, according to the Times report, "no intention of usurping civilian control", under the euphemistic banner of "homeland defense", the Pentagon "decided to ask President Clinton for the power to appoint a military leader for the continental United States."(68)

>snip<

White House officials "reacted favorably, characterizing the proposed step as a relatively minor adjustment of the lines of military authority and organization." President Clinton, whose nominal approval was required in order to move ahead with the appointment of the domestic military chief, commenced to "weighing the issue carefully", promising a response. His objectivity in the matter was doubtful all along given his authorship of various directives on the matter, including in particular, Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Overseas, dated May 1998, and Presidential Decision Directive 39, a June 1995 presidential "counter-terrorism" edict which provides guidance in distinguishing "crisis management" from "consequence management".

>snip<

On October 8, 1999, Pentagon foresight was rewarded when Admiral Harold W. Gehman Jr., NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT), was put in charge of defending the homeland. According to script, President Clinton "approved these new changes made by the Pentagon's top officials as part of a routine revision of the responsibilities and roles of its nine commands scattered across the globe." According to this "routine revision", Admiral Gehman's new job "is to coordinate military actions should an enemy target this country…" Again, "the idea has been criticized by civil libertarians who argue that any homeland defense plan might open the door for the military to assume the role of domestic police, which is prohibited by law." In reference to the appointment of a domestic military chief, ACLU Attorney Nojeim stated that "our concern is that there be a bright line drawn between law enforcement and the military. This not only blurs that bright line", warned Nojeim, "but virtually guarantees further involvement of the military in civilian law enforcement activity."(72)

>snip<

Along those same lines, the Air Force's Air University offered a 1998 course entitled "The Posse Comitatus Act: Consideration of its Contemporary Value/Appropriateness." An abstract of the course states that "this project will review the history of the Posse Comitatus Act, the rationale for its existence, contemporary exceptions, and explore the logic for its continued existence and enforcement. If it is determined the Act is no longer necessary, consideration will be given to making a recommendation for modification or elimination of the Act."(78) Finally, the US Army Peacekeeping Institute summed it up this way in a slide entitled: "The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385)." It's simple: "Exceptions: Military Purpose Doctrine, Sovereign Authority, Civil Disturbances."(79)
-----------------------------------------------------------


More actual 'Garden Plot' documents can be seen at the Texas Tech University's Virtual Vietnam project. The server times out on my old links so you may need to search engine your way into the site and look for the documents.
http://star.vietnam.ttu.edu/starweb/vva/servlet.starweb
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the text of the 1984 version of 'Operation Garden Plot.'
http://www.uhuh.com/control/garden.htm
(Text of The United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, June 1, 1984)



The United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2

The following information was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The original printing was of June 1, 1984. The information herein is UNCLASSIFIED and does not come within the scope of directions governing the protection of information affecting the national security.

It took a little more than three years to obtain a full copy of Operation Garden Plot from the U.S. Government, and was done so under the freedom of information act for unclassified documents. The implications within the full context of this document should make the hair on the back of your head stand on end!!!!!

In this document signed by the Secretary of the Army, is hereby assigned as DOD Executive Agent for civil disturbance control operations. Under Plan 55-2 he is to use airlift and logistical support, in assisting appropriate military commanders in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and US possessions and territories, or any political subdivision thereof.

The official name of this project is called "Operation Garden Plot."

Under this plan for the deployment of Operation Garden Plot, the use of CIDCON-1 will be mandatory. This direct support of civil disturbance control operations is to be used by the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. with an airlift force to be comprised of MAC Organic Airlift Resources, airlift capable aircraft of all other USAF major commands, and all other aerial reconnaissance and Airborne Psychological Operations. This is to include control communications systems, aeromedical evacuation, helicopter and Weather Support Systems.

If any civil disturbance by a resistance group, religious organization, or other persons considered to be non-conformist takes place, under Appendix 3 to Annex B of Plan 55-2 hereby gives all Federal forces total power over the situation if local and state authorities cannot put down said dissenters.

Annex A, section B of Operation Garden Plot defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder.

Under section D, a Presidential Executive Order will authorize and direct the Secretary of Defense to use the Armed Forces of the United States to restore order.

2 TAB A APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX S USAF CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLAN 55-2 EXHIBIT POR:SGH, JCS Pub 6, Vol 5, AFR 160-5 hereby provides for America's military and the National Guard State Partnership Program to join with United Nations personal in said operations. This links selected U.S. National Guard units with the Defense Ministries of "Partnership For Peace." This was done in an effort to provide military support to civil authorities in response to civil emergencies.

Under Presidential Decision Directive No. 25, this program serves to cement people to relationships between the citizens of the United States, and the global military of the UN establishments of the emerging democracies of Central and Eastern European countries. This puts all of our National Guardsmen under the direct jurisdiction of the United Nations.

Section 3:
This plan could be implemented under any of the following situation:

(1) Spontaneous civil disturbances which involve large numbers of persons and/or which continue for a considerable period of time, may exceed the capacity of local civil law enforcement agencies to suppress. Although this type of activity can arise without warning as a result of sudden, unanticipated popular unrest (past riots), it may also result from more prolonged dissidence.

This would most likely be an outgrowth of serious social, political or economic issues which divide segments of the American population. Such factionalism could manifest itself through repeated demonstrations, protest marches and other forms of legitimate opposition but which would have the potential for erupting into spontaneous violence with little or no warning.

(2) Planned acts of violence or civil disobedience which, through arising from the same causes as (1) above, are seized upon by a dedicated group of dissidents who plan and incite purposeful acts designed to disrupt social order.

This may occur either because leaders of protest organizations intentionally induce their followers to perpetrate violent acts, or because a group of militants infiltrates an otherwise peaceful protest and seeks to divert it from its peaceful course.

Subsection C: (2) Environmental satellite products will be continue to be available. (d) Responsibilities. Meteorological support to civil disturbance operations will be arranged or provided by AWS wings.

The 7th. Weather Wing (7WW) is responsible for providing / arranging support for Military Airlift Command (MAC) airlift operations. The 5th Weather Wing (5WW) is responsible for supporting the United States Army Forces Command.

(3) SITUATION. Civil disturbance may threaten or erupt at any time in the CONUS and grow to such proportions as to require the use the Federal military forces to bring the situation under control.

A flexible weather support system is required under control. A flexible weather support system is required to support the many and varied options of this Plan.

ANNEX H: XXOW, AWSR 55-2, AWSR 23-6, AFR 23-31, AR 115-10, AFR 105-3.

Subsection B:

Concept of Environmental Support. Environmental support will be provided by elements of Air Weather Service (AWS) in accordance with refs a-f. The senior staff meteorologist deployed int the Task Force Headquarters (TFH) will be the staff weather officer (SWO) to the TFH.

Centralized environmental support products are requested in accordance with AWSR 105-18. (4) Weather support is provided by weather units located at existing CONUS bases or by deployed SWOs and / or weather teams to the objective areas.

(5) Support MAC source will be provide in accordance with the procedures in MARC 103-15. MAC forces will be provided in accordance with the procedures in AFR 105-3.

(a) Air Force Global Weather Central: Provides centralized products as requested.

REFERENCES : JCS Pub 18 - Doctrine for Operations Security AFR 55-30, Operations Security

1. GENERAL Opposition forces or groups may attempt to gain knowledge of this plan and 'use that knowledge to prevent or degrade the effectiveness of the actions outlined in this plan. In order to protect operations undertaken to accomplish the mission, it is necessary to control sources of information that can be exploited by those opposition forces or groups.

OPSEC is the effort to protect operations by identifying and controlling intelligence indicators susceptible to exploitation. The objective of OPSEC, in the execution of this plan, is to assure the security of operations, mission effectiveness, and increase the probability of mission success.

2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATIONS SECURITY (OPSEC):

The denial of information to an enemy is inherently a command responsibility. However, since the operations Officer at any level of command is responsible to his commander for the Overall planning and execution of operations, he has the principal staff interest in assuring maximum protection of the operation and must assume primary responsibility instibility for ensuring that the efforts of all other staff elements are coordinated toward this
end. However, every other individual associated with, or aware of, the operation must assist in safeguarding the security of the operation.

3. OBJECTIVES:

a. The basic objective of OPSEC is to preserve the security of friendly forces and thereby to enhance the probability of successful mission accomplishment. "Security" in this context relates to the protection of friendly forces. It also includes the protection of operational information to prevent degradation of mission effectiveness through the disclosure of prior knowledge of friendly operations to the opposition.

b. OPSEC pervades the entire planning process and must be a matter of continuing concern from the conception of an operation, throughout the preparatory and execution phases, and during critiques, reports, press releases, and the like conducted during the post operation phase.

4. Specific operations orders and standard operating procedures "MUST be developed with the awareness that the opposition may be able to identify and exploit vulnerable activities.

Reference Material:

Released under Freedom of Information Act on March 30th, 1990. All material presented here has been declassified and supersedes USAD Operations Plan 355-10 of July 16, 1973. Information released by USAF under supervision of Alexander K. Davidson, BRIG. GEN, USAF, Dep. Director of Operations.

APPENDEX 5 TO ANNEX E TO USAF CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLAN 55-2 Annex Z. Other References: 10 United States Codes 331,332,333,8500,1385, MARC 105-1, MARC 105-18, AR 115-10, AFR 105-3, PDD-25.

Additional backup documents will be found on another site at
http://www.cafes.net/mo/Gardenplot.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I'm going off now to a local Democratic Party Peace Day concert

and fund raiser that I am helping to stage. I honestly do not have time to even skim this post now, but I will later.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

18. Right on. Thanks for your work! n/t

[JohnOneillsMemory]

16. In short, Clark intends to succeed where neo-cons fail. Not good either.

The Council on Foreign Relations is delighted with the progress their new product is making by using their old product as a foil.

The illusion of choice is a marketing tactic.

[MollyStark]

21. Great point here

I saw a portion of the exchange between Clark and Perle, and I wondered why Clark never really denounced the war or the idea of preemptive war. As always he criticized the time and the way it was carried out.


Clark just repeated the 1994 Army War College critique of the neo-con's Global War on Terror in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week and made Richard Perle look absurd, admittedly a noble and necessary task.
BUT.
But notice the Army War College's emphasis, comparison to Hitler's overreaching in WWII, means not achieving ends. Very telling. The Ends are not refuted.

[dogman]

22. This was a followup of an appearance two years ago.

At that time he said the war was wrong. We did not need to go to war then. No one in their right mind would be against a pre-emptive war if we knew for certain we were going to be attacked. He stated that Iraq was contained and their was no need for war at that time. Obviously we had inspectors on the ground and if they found evidence of WMD and Saddam had thrown them out and refused diplomacy, war would have been the result.

[MollyStark]

23. Not good enough

I am in my right mind and I am against pre-emptive war. When you are about to be attacked, as in the ships are in the harbor, that is not pre-emptive war.
I also do not agree with the idea that we had to go to war even if we found evidence of WMD. Iraq was contained. They couldn't hurt us even with WMD. They were not actively participating in any recent ethnic cleansing and they weren't attacking their neighbors.
Like I said. Clark disagreed with the timing and the methods, but he never objected to the idea that we had a right to be there at all.

[dogman]

26. I'll repeat no one in their right mind would allow an attack if they

knew it was coming. Of course Saddam was not a threat, that is why Clark was against the war and said so before the war. My hypothetical was based on not being able to contain Iraq, at which point a war would result. This was the picture B$$$co tried to paint but Clark called them on it after 9-11. In this day and age you don't wait for ships in the harbor. Missiles in the air do not allow time for a response. A pre-emptive strike might suffice. If it became an all out war would depend on the response. Clark has a firmer grasp on the situation than you or I or JOM. I would trust his judgment way before any of us. That is why I would want some one of his ability in the position of President.

[Zhade]

54. So are you saying that Iraq just HAVING any WMD...

...would have justified an attack?

I don't want to misunderstand you.

[Jai4WKC08]

67. I won't speak for dogman

But I do want to insert that Clark made it clear before the HASC back in 2002, and reiterated there on Wednesday, that he thought at the time Iraq did have WMD and he still didn't think it warranted the use of force.

Clark has been pretty clear that he believes a commander-in-chief must reserve the right to pre-emtive strike when the threat is truly imminent. But he calls the invasion of Iraq, even with the presumption of WMD, "preventaive," not "pre-emptive." And he does NOT support the concept preventative war.

[Zhade]

70. Thank you for this. Do you have a link to his statements?

NT!

[Jai4WKC08]

83. About pre-emptive vs. preventative war?

I'll assume so, since you found the 2002 HASC transcript and know the 2005 transcript isn't available yet.

Hoo-boy... I think he discussed it in one of his foreign policy campaign speeches, or maybe a townhall, but I don't have a transcript handy to point to.

He does discuss it at some length in his book, Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire.

(Sidebar: I used the full title on purpose, because it's so often overlooked that a central theme of this book is precisely that Bush and the neocons are trying to create a New American Empire, which Clark concludes is wrong both morally and from the standpoint of what's feasible in the modern world. In fact, the last chapter of the book is titled, "Beyond Empire: A New America." I thought that was sort of nice segue back to the real topic of this thread).

But anyway... in scanning thru my copy (and I haven't sat and read it thru in well over a year), I'm not sure I can distill his comments down to a single tract short enough to be typed in here. He gives a rather long and multi-dimentional explanation. But I'll give it a shot.

This portion should give you a feel for the concept. Starting on pg. 144 of the paperback edition, and concluding a discussion of Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy (a formal document required by law for every administration to publish), Clark writes:

"But the heart of the document was seen in the president'a introduction... While citing the need for nonproliferation, the document places a priority on 'proactive' counterproliferation, explaining that the threat of weapons of mass destruction employed by hostile rogue states or terroist groups is a newly understood thread and that 'we cannot let our enemies strike first.' This in turn required a new reliance of preemptive action--not in every case, but 'proceed deliberately' and recognizing that 'the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.' As the president explained in the introduction, 'America will act against such erging threats before they are fully formed.'

"It was a bold statement, though to be sure American presidenta have always had the option of striking preemptively--it is inherent in the right of self-defense. But this policy was more, much more. It became the centerpiece of U.S,. national security strategy."
(emphasis added and all typos mine)

It may be that Clark first started calling the president's new doctrine "preventative" as opposed to "preemptive" after this book was published, or I may just not have re-read closely enough. But I know I've heard him draw that distinction. In any case, the book clearly, to my mind, recognizes that the difference was codified in the wake of 9/11.

My edit was to change "modern war" to "modern world" in the sidebar. The original was just fingers working faster than my brain.

[Zhade]

92. Yes, wrong transcript. My error.

Indeed, the so-called "Bush Doctrine", taken directly from PNAC, is preventative rather than preemptive. Clark is correct on that.

Thank you for taking the time to write this up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Again, in Clark's own words:

Among the major candidates, Clark has proposed perhaps the highest, clearest standard for justifying pre-emptive war. On July 13, 2003, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Clark, ‘What kind of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify in your mind the invasion?’ Clark replied that the United States would have to find "not only the capabilities to produce the weapons but the weapons, and then I think you'd need something more. I think you'd need the documents or the discussion that there was in fact a program to threaten the United States or its allies with those weapons in the immediate future." (Source: “The Worldview of Wesley Clark,” Slate, September 18, 2003)

This is in my post #31, which includes two other referenced comments by and about Clark that you should also read.

[Zhade]

72. I've read the entire thread. This does sound reasonable.

Can you consider and answer my question about his association with the NED and PNACer Fukuyama?

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. My post #72 below touches on your question

To be honest I don't have more time at this instant to do further heavy lifting detailed research for posting purposes. I did a lot of that last night and I will do more of it later but I have other matters to attend to as well. I do just urge you to keep looking at the full picture rather than only seemingly negative aspects of parts of it. I get the clear sense that you do not jump to conclusions, that you take all of this seriously as well you should and I appreciate that attitude. There are some, like John, who judge Wesley Clark against a much higher standard for perfection than they would anyone else. Of course with John, he keeps refusing to be specific about anything or anyone that he supports, though he is quick to denigrate others, so I am not sure who, other than himself, he would hold up as a model of positive political leadership for these times in this place.

[Zhade]

98. I like JOM a great deal.

He has brought forth important information in the past. I believe he is a credit to DU.

No offense intended, but please don't use your appreciation of my willingness to look at both sides to denigrate him. I'm not comfortable being used in that role.

That said, I agree that this is all serious. I believe JOM has real concerns. He may be wrong, he may be right, but I've never gotten the impression he just does this to piss people off or drive wedges. If I can figure out why there is a gap between his views and yours, I will be better informed for it.

Thanks for all your efforts to educate. They are not wasted.

[Tom Rinaldo]

109. I understand and appreciate what you are saying

I just made a long post to John (#107) which hopefully will help restore our communications to a consistently productive exchange. I do have some strong feelings, as obviously does he, but I will always make a sincere effort to explain mine and try to stay open to listening to the opinions of others.

I will admit out front that there is much more that I hope to learn myself regarding many of the questions and issues touched on by many of the posters in this thread. In fact, if the original poster (was that Q?) reads this, I would like to apologize for not yet having had the time to reflect or comment on the original header for this thread. It was my experience (right or wrong as it may be) that the original large discussion topic of this thread took a sharp and sudden turn into a specific attack on Wesley Clark that I felt was unjustified and needed to be responded to. The overall topic is a good one for discussion.

By the way, without having benefit of a transcript either, I will comment on what Clark did say about Fallujah, and it certainly wasn't that "the annihilation of Fallujah was a good thing". Clark NEVER would say that the annihilation of anything or anyone was a good thing. He on occasion will say that, within context, the accomplishment of a specific military objective was necessary, compared to the alternatives then possible. Clark opposed going into Iraq in the first place. Much of his opposition to invading Iraq focused on his accurate understanding and subsequent predictions of what likely set of events such an unwise insertion of United States military forces into the region was likely to create. That can NOT be over emphasized. Another of my often odd analogies. If I am walking with a small group of friends by a group of strangers and it appears, rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter, that one of them mumbled something insulting to us, I would urge my friend to not yell back "yeah your mother wears combat boots!" But if he did and someone then charged him with a knife I would probably punch that guy before he subsequently killed my friend. Some possible conflicts are best avoided in the first place. This is not meant to be a direct analogy to the situation in Iraq but I am making a point.

Clark did not want us to invade Iraq in part because he foresaw what likely would happen if we did, with far greater accuracy than almost any other commentator at the time. And he is saying the same things about Iran and Syria now, by the way. It did not at all surprise Clark that radical Islamics would flood into Iraq if the U.S. invaded or that they would attempt to there set up the type of bases that existed under the Talion in Afghanistan. You may remember that prior to the U.S. led "final assault" on Fallujah, many months earlier, U.S. Marines had surrounded that city and battled with insurgent forces holed up there. Clark had many detailed criticisms of all of the mistakes committed during the U.S. occupancy AFTER the invasion that he testified against, starting with our failure to provide the number of forces needed to restore security and provide a safe living environment for Iraq citizens after we destabilized their nation. He wasn't listened to then either. As a result the insurgency took deeper root.

Once the United States subsequently declared that we were going into Falluja to root out the terrorists who had established bases there, and assembled the forces to do so, Clark made another prediction. He predicted that if the United States did not then follow through on it's statements it would be perceived by insurgents in Iraq as a sign of weakness that would embolden their insurgency. Clark predicted that once Falluja was elevated to such symbolic and military prominence by U.S. officials, that it would subsequently take on more of those very characteristics. Clark said at the time that the insurgents would dig in further and make plans for an assault that they presumed would take place sooner or later.

The reality is that by starting the wrong game of cards to begin with, by invading Iraq in the first place, and then compounding that by playing that card game while wearing ideological blinders, the United States ended up holing a very poor hand with very few options left on how to play it. Falluja did become a sanctuary for terrorists. Multiple staged beheadings were held there. Uncounted bombs that were used to kill thousands of innocent Iraq civilians were assembled there. And on and on. There were no good choices left regarding Falluja. That ugly and brutal climax could easily have been avoided at multiple times at various stages, but Bush kept plunging forward with his PNAC vision through every Yellow and Red light that could easily have averted that moment had they been heeded.

[Zhade]

112. Couple of questions here...

"He on occasion will say that, within context, the accomplishment of a specific military objective was necessary, compared to the alternatives then possible."

Is Clark of the opinion that carpet-bombing the entire city of Fallujah was necessary? I hope not, because that was collective punishment, and let's be clear: what was done to Fallujah, up to and including using napalm, was a war crime.


"It did not at all surprise Clark that radical Islamics would flood into Iraq if the U.S. invaded or that they would attempt to there set up the type of bases that existed under the Talion in Afghanistan."

You do realize that even the U.S. military has admitted that the vast bulk of the 'insurgency' is made up of native Iraqis and not 'foreign fighters', right? This statement presumes that 'Islamists' from outside the country are large in number, and this is simply not the case.


"Falluja did become a sanctuary for terrorists. Multiple staged beheadings were held there. Uncounted bombs that were used to kill thousands of innocent Iraq civilians were assembled there. And on and on."

I strongly disagree. Independent evidence suggests that while there were some terrorists and some resistance fighters (NOT the same thing, mind you!), the majority population of Fallujah were normal everyday Iraqis trying to live their lives in peace.

Then there is the questionable nature of some of the beheadings. We can't know for sure that it was Abu Musab al-Goldstein's -- er, al-Zarqawi's -- group behind all of them. Hell, credible journalists question the existence of Zarqawi in Iraq - some even contend he's a composite boogeyman useful to the American occupiers.

If your point is that an all-out assault on Fallujah was 1) militarily necessary or 2) justified, we are in strong disagreement.

And while this may not seem fair, I have to ask this. Clark has been recorded (on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman) as approving of the use of cluster bombs. Well, these are considered illegal under international law. How do you feel about his stance on this?

[Tom Rinaldo]

117. To state the obvious, Clark had absolutely no operational role in Iraq

In Kosovo he argued in favor of lower level bombing flights, in large measure because he felt that high level bombing of the sort that eventually was used in Kosovo and against Serbia, resulted in increased civilian deaths and less precise and therefor effective missions targeting genuine targets, but Clark was over ruled in Washington by those who feared a public backlash against any American casualties. Clark realized that the position he advocated for increased risks for pilots, and he literally stayed up nights worrying for the safety of those he sent into combat, but he felt it was the right position to take and I am sorry that he was over ruled.

It is my firm belief that Clark means it when he says that "force should only be used as a last resort" and that he understands full well that any use of force that effects a civilian population inevitably causes anguish and will increase opposition to those who wield that force. When you listen to the hearing testimony, listen closely to Clark rebuking the Republican head of that Committee who seemingly is extolling the Iraq model for Democratizing the Middle East. Clark very pointedly told him that people in that region had a very different association to the phrase "Iraq Model" that the Chairman does. He said to most Arabs at every level of society the "Iraq Model" doesn't summon up images of free elections, it summons up images of doors being broken open in the middle of the night and people being thrown to the floor. It means torture in prisons, it means people getting shot and killed, and violence all around them.


When I said that Falluja became a sanctuary for terrorists there is nothing in my statement that contradicts your statement: "the majority population of Fallujah were normal everyday Iraqis trying to live their lives in peace." I fully agree with you. Concerning "the existence of Zarqawi in Iraq", I am not in a position to know and I always keep an open mind about possible misinformation or worse, especially with an Administration such as Bush's. But I do not think that Al Quada and groups like it are a complete American fabrication. It makes all the sense in the world to me, looking at global realities for most poorer peoples of the world, that such groups would in fact exist. And to the extent that they do, the invasion of Iraq was a great recruiting tool for them, and a chaotic situation such as post invasion Iraq is a good climate for them to do their work in. But I also fully understand and agree that "the vast bulk of the 'insurgency' is made up of native Iraqis and not 'foreign fighters'". We have no disagreement there.

One thing all should know and either accept or not about Clark, he will never be a leading critic of the men and women of the United States military who serve their country (as he sees it) in it. He is tired of soldiers bearing the brunt of criticism for the wars that civilians send them into, and that feeling encompasses the lowliest of privates up to to flag officers. He holds our elected leaders responsible for the decisions that they make that result in war or peace. But Clark has no tolerance for war crimes, though he may or may not define them the same way that you do, I really can't say.

Here are pieces from a transcript of Clark on Hard Ball which took place before Gonzales made his first appearance before a Senate committee seeking confirmation to be AG. Other leading Democrats later made some good strong comments, but Clark's was the first of this clarity that I had heard up to that time:

CLARK: How can the American people have confidence in a man like Gonzales after what he‘s written for the president of the United States? He‘s basically said the Geneva Convention was irrelevant. He basically said that torture is something that‘s very limited, that you could be in terrible pain and that you still wouldn‘t be being tortured.

MATTHEWS: Yes. He said we could have cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners.

CLARK: And not have it be torture.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLARK: And Mr. Gonzales has basically said the power of the presidency is unlimited and he can do anything he wants.

How can we feel confident as Americans that we‘re living under the rule of law when the attorney general has violated what we believe to be the law...

CLARK: This is what we believe in.

We—look, we fought for the Geneva Convention. It was put in place to protect our soldiers, our values and our institutions.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLARK: We can‘t win the war on terror if we give up what we stand for as the American people.

MATTHEWS: Would you testify against Gonzales on the Hill if they asked you?

CLARK: Well, I would testify against anybody who wrote those kinds of things. I don‘t know Gonzales personally. But how he could have written these documents is outrageous."

Prior to that Mathews had baited Clark with a comment something like, (paraphrasing here) "Oh c'mon General you've seen war, you've seen these types of abuses. There are reports from the Viet Nam war of Viet Cong being thrown out of helicopters: Clark said something about he hasn't seen it in any unit he commanded and that he has heard those stories and if they were true he hoped everyone involved received the punishment they deserved.

Concerning the torture again, Clark refused to allow the focus of blame to be restricted to the military only, he said it went right up the chain, all the way to Rumsfeld and Bush who set the policies, determined the resources available in Iraq, and furthered a climate that set the tone all the way down the chain. Clark did not defend war crimes committed by individuals, but he pinned accountability at the very top. He said Bush and Rumsfeld should be held accountable, and not allowed to throw off responsibility.

To be honest, I don't know anything about the cluster bomb issue you have raised but I almost always side with international law though I will not promise in advance to always do so (those too ultimately are drafted by power brokers of one sort or another including some tyrants). Here is what I feel about Clark in general though. He is open to arguments and he will give you a truthful answer as to where he stands. If cluster bombs exist in our arsenal and if they should be out lawed, they exist because a host of politicians of both parties do not make an issue of it, and in fact appropriate the money to produce and purchase them. I do not pretend that Clark is perfect on all issues that matter to me, but do you know that his platform included a call for literally cutting the Defense budget? Literally, not just slowing the rate of growth, as in providing less money tomorrow than today. Clark said he knows exactly where they hide the pork and where the cuts can be made that will not threaten our actual security.

[dogman]

78. Jai answered well.

The point was that Saddam was contained. My point in speaking of preemption was that if he had them and had the means and intent to deliver them a preemptive strike would be justified. If that led to an escalation on the part of Iraq, war would be inevitable. Besides Clark another voice that spoke out intelligently before the War was Jerry Springer. He pointed out three possible scenarios. One, if Saddam had them he would use them on our troops. Two if he had them and smuggled them out of the country, they could be in the hands of terrorists. Third , and the one that seems to have happened, they would not exist and we would lose credibility. Pretty good analysis from some one the RW would like to discredit because of his talk show. We had inspectors on the ground and we went to War for one reason. As Clark pointed out after 9-11, this was the prior plan of the B$$$ administration.

[Zhade]

93. Springer is surprisingly well-informed.

I think his show is a bizarre thing for him to have been involved in.

That aside...I'm a little concerned with the "intent" argument. How is intent defined? Are we talking desire and willingness, or actual planning to do so imminently?

If the former, I am not in agreement. If the latter, I'd be insane to disagree.

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts for me. I do appreciate it.

[dogman]

103. The post below has a good definition IMO.

Snip>"then I think you'd need something more. I think you'd need the documents or the discussion that there was in fact a program to threaten the United States or its allies with those weapons in the immediate future." (Source: “The Worldview of Wesley Clark,” Slate, September 18, 2003)"

[Zhade]

111. That is a completely reasonable position.

NT!

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. OK just got back ( my role tonight was set up). Let's see...

Molly, Clark testified in 2002 that he assumed Hussein already had WMD, likely chemical, and that Hussein probably had an active program to develope Nukes. Clark still argued AGAINST attacking Iraq during his Congressional testimony. In fact he was clear as glass about his opposition position opposing all but critically important preemptive attacks, as this 7/03 interview indicates:

“Among the major candidates, Clark has proposed perhaps the highest, clearest standard for justifying pre-emptive war. On July 13, 2003, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Clark, ‘What kind of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify in your mind the invasion?’ Clark replied that the United States would have to find "not only the capabilities to produce the weapons but the weapons, and then I think you'd need something more. I think you'd need the documents or the discussion that there was in fact a program to threaten the United States or its allies with those weapons in the immediate future." (Source: “The Worldview of Wesley Clark,” Slate, September 18, 2003)

And if you wonder how Clark feels about Bush's doctrine of Preemptive War in general and the threat it poses to our National Security, how about this exchange from the transcript of the Thursday, October 9, 2003 Presidential debate held in Arizona?:

"WOODRUFF: Very quickly, General Clark, because he was referring to you. And then we're...

CLARK: Judy, I think what people want is they want straight talk and they want leadership.

I think the question that Candy raised about Iran is a very serious question.

And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.

Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it."



Are you concerned in general about Neo Con influences on U.S. Foreign policy? Thought you might be interested perhaps in this then, taken from "The Neoconning of America" published online 1/07/04 (the middle paragraph is of interest regarding Clark, but I retained two others for context):

"In my view, the neocon meme is too far advanced to be uprooted by such makeshift tactics, but it looks like they're certainly going to give it a try. That's the neocon method: don't argue, try to shut down all discussion by smearing your opponents. Will they get away with it? Brooks thinks so, and he and his neocon confreres are fearless in their attempt to brazen it out. He writes:

"We'd sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up."

They dearly wish it was just Wesley Clark. Brooks and his fellow Scoop Jackson Republicans will be laughing out the other side of their mouths when the investigation into who started this war, and why, gets going, and that is precisely what the inquiry into who outed Valerie Plame promises to be."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010704.html

[Jai4WKC08]

37. You must be confusing Clark with Kerry

Nice try, Ches, but you're WAY off the mark. As usual.

[Crunchy Frog]

39. Also confusing Clark with Howard Dean

seems to me.:shrug:

[Zhade]

55. Ches? Who's Ches?

Did I read the wrong post?

[LittleClarkie]

114. Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place

It must be someone else entirely, if it's not Clark, Kerry or (looking farther down the thread) Dean.

Kerry and Dean and I think even Kusinich all said just about the same thing. We shouldn't have been there in the first place if there were no WMDs, but all said that Iraqi forces had to be trained the place stabilized before we could leave.

Kerry believed in weapon inspectors. I would presume that Clark and Dean did as well, sane men that they are.

I do wish the primary wars would be over already. These men don't attack each other. Why should their supporters?

[wyldwolf]

29. yeah...

that was Dean's method, too. He always disagreed on the time of the war, not really the war itself.

But Clark did denounce the war, ches, just like Dean did.

[adwon]

43. That's their job

That comment is a bad misreading of the role of the military. It is not up to the War College to critique policies that are civilian in origin and scope. Their job is to work out how to carry out policy. Thus, the War College draws an inference with the Eastern Front because it's a great example of not properly adjusting means and ends.

If the War College were to openly critique the Iraq War as wrong or immoral, they would be stepping outside their authority. Crude as this sounds, the military is the tool used to implement policy. It is not up to the tool to call its task. That's the job of the civilian leadership.

[KittyWampus]

106. Clark WROTE A BOOK Denouncing Preventative War. Damn.

and that's what Iraq Invasion was PREVENTATIVE.

Preemptive War is Legal according to ALL International and American codes.

Preemptive War is taking out an IMMINENT threat that is poised to strike you NOW.

There is not ONE Democratic Politician who would say Preemptive War is immoral or unjust.

[Crunchy Frog]

144. Yes, but it has the word "war" in it dammit!

That means that he has to have been a warmonger to have written it.:sarcasm:

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. I can see that I am going to have to do this in pieces.

You say "Clark may at best be sincere in his motives but I see him damned by his associations and tactics." This after you just accused Clark of being the lead agent in a coming Military Coup against the American people. That is kind of like saying someone seems like a nice enough guy if it weren't for that little thing about being an Axe murderer. I think you only throw in an occasional positive comment about Clark because otherwise people might wonder what the fuck mission you are on. It seems less personal to stab Clark in the back if you can find an occasional nice thing to say about him.

"Damned by his associations and tactics", eh? I will have to read through your post at least 5 times I am sure but I see very little discussion of Clark's tactics. What I see a lot of is your slant on tactics that certain forces deemed undesirable by you might currently be using. Now some of those forces I'm sure we would both agree are undesirable, but since you often damn with a very wide brush I don't blindly accept your judgments.

No, I think what you are doing is everything in your creative powers to draw associations between Clark and various bad guys. Then you dig up something that one or more of those bad guys wrote, or that was written by someone in some institution that one or more of those bad guys was or is part of. Next you expand the original context of that "incriminating" information and argue as if it were irrefutable knowledge that your expanded context is now the operative one and that your old document is without any doubt a present day blue print for destroying our Democracy. Hence the person you have already "damned by associations" now stands convicted of being a current day enemy of our Democracy.

There was a name for that type of reasoning when I was a kid when it was mostly used by the Right Wing, John. It was called McCarthyism, and people then were routinely "damned by association". I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. You even managed to work in a indirect linkage to Hitler. Ooooh scary, we don't like Hitler. I suggest that all Du'ers by all means go read the Washington Post article that you linked that makes passing mention of Hitler. I wonder how many would find it alarming outside of your spin. And just to be sure that people do make the right associations, you add this personal commentary: "Very apt comparison to Hitler's mistake since NATO incorporated ex-Nazis and terrorized Europe, as did the US's CIA, NASA, and military industrial media complex which Clark worked with all his life." Here is the link to the article John thinks is so scary:
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/wot/critical-essay.html

John I have news for you. You may not like it, but people study War in War College. Shocking isn't it. It is a bad idea in general to spend tax payer money on running a college where people are taught how to lose wars. If you are going to have a military and spend a lot of money on it, most people would prefer that they didn't lose the conflicts that they got into.

Here is another shocking revelation. In the United Sates of America the military is subordinate to Civilian leadership. It is not the Military's role to decide which wars to fight or what objectives should be pursued militarily. It is our Democratically elected civilian leadership that gets to make those decisions. It is the job of the military to provide expert advice to civilians about what would likely actually happen if the civilians decided to go to war. I for one prefer that to having the military actually calling the shots or giving dishonest or incompetent advice, don't you?

Now it so happens that Wesley Clark is a civilian now, so he gets to express his own opinions about policies, and the opinion he has expressed is that we should not have invaded Iraq, that we should have negotiated directly with North Korea, that we should be seeking to engage Syria and Iran in regional discussions while giving them a real stake in achieving peace, rather than threatening them with force. He says the Republican policies will likely lead the U.S. into further wars in the region and he is strongly opposed to the Republican policies. And, because he has military expertise and was asked for it, Clark told Congress exactly what the United States Military will be faced with in attempting to follow any Civilian orders to reestablish stability in the Mid East if the United States continues to destabilize and take down regimes there. He explained why the Military is not prepared to accomplish those ends and what it would cost this nation to give the Military the capacity to achieve those objectives if ordered to. It was very sobering, at least I hope to God it was, because Congress damn well better sober up and fight the war fever that has infected this Bush PNAC Administration.

[Zhade]

56. Interesting that your last sentence mentions PNAC.

Does it bother you that Clark is on the board of the NED with at least one PNACer?

Clark's association with the NED, btw, is not guilt-by-association. It's a direct link with and support of an organization that has funded coups and coup attempts in foreign countries. Surely Clark must know the internal business of the NED?

I stated in another thread that I would reevaluate Clark, and I am doing so. Issues like his association with the NED do concern me a great deal. I would like to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Also, with regards to the "best intentions axe murderer" thing - is it not possible that the MIC might be using Clark as an unwitting agent? That does not diminish the man, but suggests the power and reach of the MIC. I'm not positing this as the case, just pointing out that good people can be used by bad people for bad ends.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. You do know, don't you, that Sen. Paul Wellstone was also on NEDs Board?

Classic Neo Con that he was. There is obviously a larger discussion to be had here, but Dammit, the core kernel of truth is usually deceptively simple. Most Government sponsored institutions are tools and how they are used largely depends on who has their hands on them. That is true of the Police, that is true of the Judiciary, that is true of the Army, that is even true of the CIA.

I support the CIA and other intelligence agency efforts to intercept and decode Al Quada messages concerning possible future Terrorist attacks. Yes there are false scares, and there is the Boy who Cried Wolf (essentially Bush's entire Administration since after 9/11), but there are real enemies also. A lot of people really did die in an attack on a resort in Indonesia that Westerners frequented. There really was a Shoe Bomber. Many people really did die in the Madrid Train bombings. I want the United State to have some intelligence capacity. I would like someone out there to be in a position to say, no we have no evidence of Iraq plans to use WMD against the United States when that is the truth. And yes the CIA also cooperated with Death Squads in Central America under Reagan.

To go very far afield (but for a reason), what were your feelings about Soviet Control over Eastern Europe (let alone the relationship between the Soviet government and it's own citizens)? I could be wrong but I currently believe that a strong majority of the people living in the Warsaw PAC nations weren't too pleased with it at the time. I know that there were significant abuses that occurred with some NED supported initiatives in nations outside of our own. NED also worked with people in Eastern Europe to promote a freer press and in support of the emergence of Labor Unions like Solidarity in Poland. Meanwhile, as Clark so simply put it to the Republican Chair of the Congressional committee he was testifying in front of, when that idiot was trying to equate the liberation of Eastern Europe with American military efforts to "bring Democracy" to the Middle East; "Reagan didn't invade Eastern Europe".

[Zhade]

95. Wellstone voted for DOMA, too. Go figure.

As a bisexual who might one day fall for a guy, that bothered me when I learned it.

Obviously, the truth about the NED is that it's neither all-good nor all-bad. I do believe (but would have to research to confirm) that most of the abuses of the NED have been in the Republican arm of the organization.

That said, has Clark ever spoken up about those abuses, such as the funding of the Venezuelan "opposition" that tried to effect a military coup? Has he spoken out about the CIA-assisted death squads in SA during the 80s? Given that he sits on the board with a known PNACer, and he is against PNAC, has he expressed his feelings toward a PNACer being on the board? (These are legit questions - I have not read up on Clark recently.)

Naturally I did not care for the Soviet Union or its tyranny over the Eastern Bloc.

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. Some thoughts

I don't off hand have specific answers to many of your questions here. I will say a few things though. First about speaking up against there being a specific PNACer on the NED board. I don't think that is a fair expectation of Clark or anyone else in a position such as his (now grass roots activists - that's a different story) and I NEVER hear anyone have expectations of that sort for anyone OTHER than Clark, which I also think is unfair. Remember the Democrats in Congress, and officially in the Senate, by overwhelming majorities voted to confirm virtually everyone in Bush's 2000 administration, including know PNAC members. There are certain rules of conduct that politics tends to be played under.

Number two, I can point you to several written references to Clark already being cast as a conspiracy theory loose cannon by Republicans regarding his comments about the PNAC agenda and Neo Con influences in America (I already posted one on this thread). Here is another used against him early in his 2004 campaign for President:

"Candidate Derides Committee That Crafted Cold War Victory"

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

... Relatively few American voters have even heard of the Project for a New American Century or remember the Committee on the Present Danger, so the flap is unlikely to sway many votes immediately. But if the interview contributes to a sense of General Clark as something of a loose cannon, that might have an effect on voters seeking a steady leader to guide the nation in the war against terrorism...

...A director of the Project for a New American Century, Randy Scheunemann, called General Clark’s comments “bizarre.”...

... “This is a guy who could barely win a war in Kosovo,” Mr. Scheunemann said. “Now Wesley Clark is running for president by running against a think tank?”

Here's that link: http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=Ol...


Clark also was attacked as "crazy" for reporting that he got a phone call from someone in the Administration immediately after 9/11 asking him to back up the argument that Bush was about to make connecting Iraq to that attack. I don't have those sources bookmarked and don't have time to look for them now.

Clark has been quoted as saying that the 2000 Elections were stolen by the way. This isn't that direct quote but it is one I am particularly fond of. It was made during a live interview on NH Public Radio, again during his run for President. I have the official CD recording by the way, bought from the Station:

"I think we're at a time in American history that's probably analogous to, maybe, Rome before the first emperors, when the Republic started to fall... I think if you look at the pattern of events, if you look at the disputed election of 2000, can you imagine? In America, people are trying to recount ballots and a partisan mob is pounding on the glass and threatening the counters? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a political party which does its best to keep any representatives from another party — who've even been affiliated with another party — from getting a business job in the nation's capital? Can you imagine a political party that wants to redistrict so that its opponents can be driven out entirely?...it's a different time in America and the Republic is - this election is about a lot more than jobs. I'm not sure everybody in America sees it right now. But I see it, I feel it." - General Wesley Clark

What is my point? My point is that Wesley Clark has already climbed way out on a number of limbs that most Democrats are afraid to touch with a ten foot pole. Yes you can want him to make bold statements against each and every abuse of American power, but do you know what you will end up with in return if he does? Another Ramsey Clark who would not have a snow ball's chance in hell to get elected to anything that would allow him to actually reverse destructive policies, let alone become President of the United States.

[Zhade]

116. And suppose he did become president. Would he then speak up?

Or would he remember how hard it was to get there, and decide it isn't worth it, damage to the country notwithstanding?

I'm not saying he would remain silent. I'm infuriated, however, with the idea that speaking out against abuses should not be done because there's political gain to be had. To his credit, Clark does seem to go out on a limb often - which may be why he doesn't get very far. So there's merit to your point, and it royally pisses me off.


"Remember the Democrats in Congress, and officially in the Senate, by overwhelming majorities voted to confirm virtually everyone in Bush's 2000 administration, including know PNAC members. There are certain rules of conduct that politics tends to be played under."

Yes, and the rules are bullshit and I'm angry every time they play the game. It's enabling fascism, basically. Take Kerry, for example - he voted for Negroponte to be U.N. ambassador, despite HIS OWN INVESTIGATIVE WORK on Iran-Contra, in which Negroponte was involved!

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. Zhade, this gets to the heart of why I support Clark

I know he isn't perfect on every issue, though I actually was pleasantly surprised by how often I do fully agree with him. It also gets to the heart of some of my back and forths with John here and elsewhere. To return to my earlier comparison, I think Ramsey Clark would be a more outspoken President in that regard than Wesley Clark, but Ramsey Clark or anyone else any where near like him, can not become President in the next 12 years or so, and that is as far as my make shift crystal ball will take me. I supsect twelve years is far too optimistic a timeline for installing a real radical in the White House, but I suppose it could happen if the whole world goes to Hell, and I do mean Hell, in between. Some sincere people with whom I agree very much on most issues disagree with me on this question. Some people thought it was realistic to believe that Dennis Kucinich could win in 2004. I never thought so.

Having said the above however, my answer to your second question; "Or would he remember how hard it was to get there, and decide it isn't worth it, damage to the country notwithstanding?" is a clear and resounding NO. Clark will speak up about what he believes in, and he will say what he honestly thinks. It essentially is who he is. As President Clark would have the bully pulpet, so to speak, he would have direct access, even through the media screen, to the American people. In my opinion Clark would speak up more, not less, once he became President. Clark by nature and profession, is a tactician. In no other field, with the possible exception of medicine, does the difference between planning well or poorly have more dire consequences than in fighting wars. The difference, in war, between victory and defeat is monumental.

If Clark decides to run again it will in no way be symbolic, it will be to win and he will have a strategy for combating media bias, and reconnecting with voters who have strayed away from the Democratic Party over the last 20 years so that he can assemble the votes needed to win against whatever the Republicans throw against him. Actually I believe that Clark sees that candor overall is one of his strengths, that the American people yearn for straight talking, and in that way he has something in common with Howard Dean. Having said that however, Clark has observed the Republican spin machine first hand now. He knows how it operates and he understands that without the benefit of holding the Presidency and at least untill such time as he may become the official Democratic Party nominee for President, his unfiltered access through the media to the American people is very limited. Therefor I expect he will hold some punches for now of the type that would play into Republican attempts to marginalize and discredit him.

Here is a link to a great buzzflash interview with the co-author of "Hunting the President", Gene Lyons where he outlined the attack campaign he expected the Republicans to use against Clark, among other things. This from October 22, 2003:

BUZZFLASH: You're probably one of the most well-informed journalists on how attack politics play themselves out with a culpable media, based on your extensive research and writing on the Clintons. How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

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

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

Of course he was right, as was shown in this first sentance of a news release that I already shared with you elsewhere on this thread:

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

I want someone, Zhade, who is both smart enough to defeat the Republicans and honest enough to tell the American people the truth about what he really believes, even if sometimes I have a few differences with him, and personally I find that in Clark. Clark says that he is not intimidated by anything in politics. He knows it is a blood sport, but he fought in real wars. Did you ever read this quote from the time Clark introduced his progressive income tax reform plan?:

"If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it," Clark said.

"And if that makes me an 'old-style' Democrat, then I accept that label with pride and I dare you to come after me for it."

Let me say this and then stop so I can finally make this post. I am not someone who ever would have believed it possible that I cculd possibly someday ever urge anyone to support a retired United States General for President. And if you knew me you would know just how big an understatement that is. My consideration of Clark was not just in passing. I finally satisfied myself that Clark actually believes in the concept of honor, duty, service. Believes it in just as deep a sense as the most radical social justice activist that I know. He may not see the world through the exact same lens as I do, but honor duty service is not campaign rhetoric for Clark. He is a man who dedicated his life to serving our nation in a way that I personally never would have dreamed of, but he dedicated his life to protecting the Constitution and risked his life in the course of that service, and he walks the walk of his beliefs.

Let's put it this way, if you do not think Clark has sold out his principles or committment to public service and the common good in order to get where he has in life so far, then I guarentee you Clark is the safest bet of any person I know with any remote chance of becoming President, that he will not sell out those principles after he is elected.

[Zhade]

142. I can admire your passion, as well as your sincerity.

I still have some qualms that I would like to discuss, but I need some time to ruminate on them before I discuss them with you.

Thank you for taking the time to have a discussion. Some of your fellows are a bit too zealous to interact with, but you have impressed me with your candor and willingness to explore the issues, even when angry with JOM. I respect that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. I'll look forward to that, and Thanks. n/t

[ccarter84]

42. the 14yr-old pre-enlistment program was april fools article n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

44. Thank you for that information.

Would you happen to have a link by any chance?

At any rate, it's really sad when people on a progressive message board begin using, not just unsubstantiated rumor, but April Fools jokes :wow: as bases for smears against some of the most prominent and effective of our Democratic leaders.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Donna Zen]

73. Hoping that at least some of this rebuttal will be read

...and taken in the spirit it is offered.

Let's see: Acxiom

Acxiom is a data mining company dealing with and limited to, publically available information; it is one of many, and not the largest. Clark with his wife, upon leaving the military, with his wife, decided to stay away from weapons companies. A job in Little Rock opened up, and he took it.

Shortly after 911, Clark received a call from two of his cousins who work at Acxiom--plenty of people in LR work for them. The cousins were upset because 11 of the 19 hijackers' names and complete information including addresses, appeared in Acxiom's data base. "Could cousin Wesley do something since the information was not making it up the ladder."

Clark called Paul O'Neill and made an appointment. For three months Clark worked without any pay to advise the government what went wrong. How could Acxiom have the information about people who were on a "terrorist" watch list and intelligence agencies have missed it? Because of difficulties regarding his non-official status coupled with a subject that was eating up his time without pay, Clark did register as a lobbyist.

Personally, I am glad that Clark was at the table. He is a strong protector of our Constitutional rights and he wanted something done about an over-priced and obviously inadequate system of screening. Actually, if you are concerned about government intrusion, then you should be glad too. Acxiom had no information that is outside of the public domain, and the bush-administration's reaction to 911 and the negating of our right to privacy, is horrible.

[dogman]

12. So you are the litmus paper.

They just go to you to have their credentials stamped. All hail the new Emperor. He alone speaks for the people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. By the way John, you have been skirting this question.

Who do you support any way, or are you on a one man crusade hoping to become a 100 person movement?

You do not want "mere Democrats". So who exactly isn't a "mere Democrat"? Who would you gladly support for President for example, and why? How important do you feel winning the 2008 Election is by the way?

And perhaps more important, what is your plan for confronting the threats you speak of? You have a critique, all well and good, but what is your plan? Ralph Nader had a critique also and far as I'm concerned his plan helped defeat Al Gore and install PNAC in the Pentagon.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

17. You're right. I'm not sure who. But the 'just war' is a Clark-enabled scam

And rejecting the author of 'Waging Modern War'and 'Winning Modern Wars'
is critical to healing the violent norms of American culture.

I think it deadly important for liberals and progressives to understand how long American fascism has been destroying democracy, why, and who makes it happen.

That is a big step in creating a new political attitude that doesn't accept the murderous scam called the 'just war' which Wesley Clark is reinvigorating.

Unfortunately, any REAL threat to the power structure gets neutralized with a bullet or a smear.

This means cultural cues that convey values are even more important. The Christian Fundies who are so vigilant about cartoon characters may seem absurdly vigilant but they are absolutely right about the effect of cultural cues.

Violence used to control and enforce 'justice' is our biggest problem.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[MollyStark]

24. Do you have anything to say in response to the poster?

An insult is not an argument.

It seems to me that a man who writes books about waging war, a subject in which he is expert, is justifiably suspect.
I don't think Clark every presented himself as against this war, just the methods and timing. But I do think his campaign and his supporters are presenting him as being the candidate most like to keep us from war because he knows how bad it is. I think that is the rhetoric I read the other day. It is a false argument.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. See my post #31 above. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

36. Why is that a false argument?

What the fuck do you really know about how soldiers feel about war? If you ain't been there, you ain't got a clue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I'm not a big fan of the Ex Pope for several reasons

Though there were some things about him that I admired. He lectured Bush to his face for one thing, saying there was no moral justification for the invasion of Iraq. You know what was the only war I know of that John Paul II actually called morally justified? The one Clark led for N.A.T.O. in Kosovo.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Not good enough John

I asked you a range of very fair questions given that you began this discussion by saying that you can not support "mere Democrats".

"You're right, I'm not sure who" is not even remotely a sufficient answer when what you are doing is a broad based smear of Democrats without specifically differentiating one from another aside from singling out Wesley Clark, who happens to be the leading Democrat who is most clearly exposing and opposing PNAC's agenda in public.

Go back and re-read my questions to you. It was multi part, something you usually take to like a duck to water. I am not asking you to commit to backing a specific person for President now, but who, for example, just might be worthy of your support given your concerns? Maybe s/he isn't a Democrat, you have given absolutely no indicateion of where you stand politically, and since you are attacking others, I for one would like to know.

And I also asked you how important you thought it was to prevent the Republicans from winning the White House again in 2008? That is an issue many of us struggled with in 2004 here as many of us ultimately fell into line and worked hard to support someone who wasn't our first choice.

I also asked you what plan went with your critique. Some of us argue in favor of working within the Democratic Party to nominate the best Democrat possible who can win in 2008, while getting involved with the Democratic Party at the local level to seek changes in it. That is a plan, and those of us who see some value in it are usually able to at least speculate on which Democrats might be worth supporting. You may disagree or think that plan is lacking, but what is yours? Like I said Nader had a good critique, and a plan, which was to run for President himself. I didn't think highly of his plan, or how it worked out, that is why I am interested in hearing yours.

It is a lot easier to poke holes than it is to solve problems.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

52. I just listened to 3 hrs of 'Clark vs. Perle' ..take a while to write up.

I wrote my above history before listening to the streaming audio of the HASC hearing on 4/6/05. Amazing public theater, it was.

I have three pages of notes and no transcript so it while take a while to write up my expose and connect the dots to the history I posted above.

Anyone have a full transcript? I have timing markers from this link:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf
to prove Clark said things and the context.

But in short, I loved the part where Clark says that the annihilation of Fallujah was a good thing, Negroponte's arrival was a good thing, more massive Pentagon spending is a good thing, more NED propaganda to destabilize governments is a good thing, high oil prices are a good thing, many more troops to the middle east is a good thing.

Oh, brother.

With Dems like this, who needs Republicans?

I have a lot of writing to do to respond to those of you who care as much about the future as I do. Thanks for hanging in there.

[Zhade]

58. "the annihilation of Fallujah was a good thing"

Do you have a link to this? Because if he did in fact say this, my reevaluation is over.

I want to be certain I have the facts, though.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. Nope, he said nothing of the sort

As you should have figured out by now. Please see my post #59.

[Zhade]

66. I read it. Do you have a link to a transcript?

As I said, I will decide for myself upon review.

EDIT: nevermind, someone posted a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1714563

[Jai4WKC08]

71. I understand and concur that's what you should do.

I just grew concerned when you put John's words in quotes, AS THO they were Wes Clark's words. They weren't.

All I would ask is that you look at the FULL context of what he said, on this and anything else John should post. What question was he asked (in this case). What was the drift of the debate up to that point. What was the agenda of whomever he was replying to (Duncan Hunter was trying to nail him to a wall from the get-go).

I guess it really boils down to having to read the full transcript (and it will no doubt be LONG, since the hearing lasted well over three hours) to really know what Clark meant by any given piece.

Btw, I checked that link and it's to the transcript 2002 testimony.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. I still don't know of a written transcript but...

It really is gripping and absorbing to actually listen to the full hearing. The issues are of the highest importance. I really urge you to listen to the whole hearing, even if you have to do it in parts over a few days. These questions are NOT going away. Clark was bluntly telling that committee that we are now on a steady course toward additional wars with and in Syria and Iran, and Perle did not deny it. It was an amazing event, the lines could hardly have been drawn sharper.

[Jai4WKC08]

79. Just in the for what it's worth dept

Clark and Dean both just a couple days ago spoke at the quarterly meeting of the Association of Democratic State Chairs on Friday, April 8th, in Little Rock.

Clark spoke first, and reportedly thanked Dean for what he was doing for the party. Don't have any exact quotes.

But here's what Dean is reported to have said:

Howard Dean spoke next, complimenting the Ark Dems, addressing the direction of the Party, and praising Wes' testimony before the HASC. He said he was thrilled that Wes had "told it like it is and put Perle in his place."

[Crunchy Frog]

88. What I want to know is

Does this now mean that Howard Dean is a neocon? I'm really starting to get confused here.

[Zhade]

94. Yeah, realized it was the wrong transcript after I logged off at work.

D'oh!

I put JOM's words in quotes as a quotation of his words in his post. It's a technique I use to call attention to the point I'm replying to.

"All I would ask is that you look at the FULL context of what he said, on this and anything else John should post."

I like to think I always do this as a matter of course, because it's fair, though I do fail at times.

I will continue to read both sides and weight the matter. I do thank you for your efforts to inform.

[Crunchy Frog]

87. I would strongly reccomend that you listen to it yourself.

While 3 hours is alot of time, it is well worth the listen. That way you can hear everything in its full context and draw your own conclusions. They may end up being the same ones that JOM draws, but they will be your own, based on your own assessment, rather than based on someone else's interpretation.

The whole thing can be listened to here. http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

[Zhade]

96. Thanks for the link - I'll have to listen at home on my weekend.

(I'm at work, and it's my Thursday.)

I gotta say, I respect a lot of Clark fans like yourself (you're actually one of my favorite DUers), but I also respect guys like JOM very much.

So you can see, it's a gap, and I want to know what's really there.

[Crunchy Frog]

145. I appreciate your openmindedness

in being willing to listen to the testimony and make your own judgement about it. I also appreciate the complement. I respect you as a poster too, and I fully respect it if you reach a different conclusion about Wes Clark than I do.

The important thing is making judgements based on your own evaluation of the evidence rather than relying on what other people's opinions are. That's true for anything, not just political figures.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Suffice it to say

That I do not rate your ability to objectively summarize and report very highly. I experience you as someone who believes he knows the conclusion before he approaches the facts, and then picks and choses data that can be shaped through selective interpretation into a picture to illustrate the conclusion that he went looking for.

Your coming attractions already has me at the edge of my seat in anticipation waiting for your full staged production. I have pointed out on numerous occasions, and I have not been alone in this, that you weave reality to your own liking, or disliking if you think that is a more accurate way of putting it. I've done that already on this thread regarding some of the "truths" you allegedly uncovered. I have no patience with reverse McCarthyism, John, and I will call you on it. Just because you claim to present information in an accurate context doesn't make it true, and you repeatedly do the opposite of what you claim. Your "summary highlight notes" regarding Clark's testimony is laughably slanted and biased. I heard the testimony, and I urge all DU'ers to do so also, for themselves, not through John's Alice in Wonderland Looking Glass. It seems we will have much to talk about. Fine.

You sometimes remind me of the prosecutors from the old House and Senate Committees on Un-American Activities: "It says here that you used to be friends with so and so, who once was a member of such and such, which had persons including so and so in their leadership who have been identified by so and so as Communist sympathizers. That organization is well known to have taken position X on issue Y which as it turns out is similar to position Q regarding issue L, which the Communist Party of America expressed support for on such and such date. Do you deny having once been friends with so and so? Are you willing to renounce him now and supply the committee with other names or are you going to turn your back on Patriotic Americans and hamper our attempts to root out this evil among us?"

The secret to a good smear is to take isolated pieces of data out of a larger setting, and frame them instead as compelling pieces of evidence that conveniently fit a derogatory consciously pre cultivated indictment of one's target. A garden variety example of that was Bush seizing on Kerry having said "I actually voted for that Bill before I voted against it". Suddenly that became proof that Kerry walked around with his finger in the air trying to figure out which way the wind was blowing before he was willing to take a stand on anything. Forget the real context, a new and damning one was conveniently provided and packaged along with other equally compelling so called clear examples of Kerry "flip flopping", until it was obvious to everyone that Kerry was a wishy washy waffler who could not possibly be strong enough to protect America. Why bother listening to what Kerry actually says? Everyone knows Kerry will say whatever he has to in order to get elected. Smear complete, trap closed. A more complex smear of course was the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and all of their highly documented "evidence" that Kerry was a lying coward who was really preparing to run for President when he was in Viet Nam.

You know one thing that I long ago saw that the Karl Rove brand of Republicans had mastered is to attack an opponent who they are fearful of in the area of that opponents greatest strength, not in that persons areas of relative weakness. They perfected it but anyone can use it. Wesley Clark may or may not be the best person to elect as our next President, but he has been the best direct and effective opponent of the Neo Cons and their PNAC agenda that the Democrats have been fortunate enough to have on our side. I am not surprised then that this is precisely the aspect of Clark that is now being challenged.

[bvar22]

89. deleted post

[JohnOneillsMemory]

101. Short version because now your making personal attacks against rules.

Tom, you know better than this and I will refrain from an 'alert.'

Some personal business and then just a few Clark quotes below:

You may think Clark is acceptable and my criticism is suspect but this pisses me off very much and demands yet more of my time to respond even though I do have some off-line life that doesn't consist of trying to prevent finalizing the military coup in this country and warding off accusations of GOP sympathies. That's absurd on the face of it. Search my every post of the last three years.

I first saw Nazi concentration camp photos when I was six years old. It is the single most formative event of my life. Then I saw photos of US soldiers admiring their Viet Cong severed-head trophies when I was eight years old and marched against the Vietnam war in the streets with my family.

I have a relative who helped prosecute Nazis at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII.

I've spent hours a day since 9/11 getting a detailed history of players, motivations, and tactics in the US government for the last 100 years.

I would not trust any Pentagon general in the Executive branch of a government already owned and operated by fascist militants and war criminals for the last 60 years. And I substantiate this distrust as best I can.

The US creation of dictators, wars, torture, WMD, destabilizing propaganda, poverty, starvation, corruption, eco-disaster are the targets of my writing at DU and will remain so. Promise.

Revealing and explaining this is my agenda. Copy that statement, put it on a t-shirt, a bumpersticker, bookmark it, Tom.

Listening, noting, researching, archiving, linking, excerpting, all take HUGE amounts of time and energy.

On psy-ops tactics:
The Pentagon, Wesley Clark's career boss, is THE MASTER OF PSY-OPS and PROPAGANDA, not me. I've given those links and explanations and will continue to do so.

Do you accept that many Dems and Repubs have a good cop/bad cop game going on the disinformed indoctrinated exhausted terrified American people? I do.

I further assert that focusing ONLY on Richard Perle and the few neo-cons is A TACTIC. That is, 'the enemy of enemy is my friend' is how Clark is very theatrically being presented as the NON NEO-CON.

You altogether miss my point that no matter how sincere Clark is,
REPEAT: no matter how SINCERE Clark is,
his functioning as the next Colin Powell facade for permanent war, resuscitated US military strength, renewed public involvement in Operation Global Lynching, etc. is a risk not worth even considering.

The owners of the US government and their private security arm, the Pentagon, plan many years in advance by creating candidates, massive propaganda campaigns, destabilizing regions, etc. Looking only to the next election is like being herded into a containment pen like sheep. "But he can win." That may be exactly what the containment pen-builders want you to think. Finalize the militarization of our culture with a Pentagon lifer in the White House. Yikes.

Look at the bigger picture. General Clark asks the committee to do just that.

I try to show the forest and the trees. You call that a complicated Rovian smear campaign.

Your accusation that attacks on the 'best' critic of what you call 'the neo-con agenda' are Rovian show your myopia about history and the players. The 'neo-con agenda' is not such a departure from US history as you would like to think. I try to make that case, too.

Have you read any of the US Army psy-ops manuals that I post? This is the world that General Clark has lived in all his life. I've been working for twenty years as a touring audio engineer. I'm quite dangerous compared to the Pentagon and General Clark, ay?

Smearing me instead of addressing Wesley Clark is a tactic/response I run into all the time but I'm not accusing you of being 'Rovian,' I'm making my case whether you like it or not. I sometimes think that personality profiling is being used to incite me to defend my integrity and less time outting the Pentagon and its tactics against the American people. Now that would make perfect sense, wouldn't it?

BACK TO WESLEY CLARK:

LISTEN, PLEASE. House Armed Services Committee 4/6/05 at this link:
http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

Gawd, there was so much spin, euphemisms for US war crimes, reinforcement of propaganda cover stories, it will take hours of work to list them all. Two lowlights on WMD intel and Fallujah:


1) 1:26:10 Clark defends intelligence officers from criticism by reinforcing the lie that the intel on WMD was wrong. He points his finger up the chain of command but reinforces this terrible lie.

2) 1:29:28 In response to Taylor's question "where do we go from here?" Clark responds: "I think the military actions have been effective. General Casey did the right thing, in my view, in shutting down Najaf and Fallujah, and, um, all that action that occurred in the fall. We did a good job of protecting the election." He goes on to characterize Iraq as a military job on the ground that should be winnable with the US in an "advisory capacity."

In my book, Tom, FUCK TO HELL ANYONE WHO EUPHEMIZES THE MASSACRE OF FALLUJAH AS MERE US OCCUPATIONAL STRATEGY. I'M STILL HAUNTED BY THE SIGHT OF THE CORPSES HALF-EATEN BY DOGS, TOM. MASSIVE FUCKING WAR CRIMES. IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE TO DESCRIBE THIS AS PART OF A "WINNABLE WAR ON THE GROUND." FUCKING GROTESQUE. BUT THAT'S WHAT I EXPECT FROM A PROFESSIONAL WARRIOR WHO WRITES 'WAGING MODERN WAR' AND 'WINNING MODERN WAR.'

3) 1:38:00ish After making the case for not inciting resistance from Syria and Iran until Iraq is dealt with and cautioning that destabilizing those countries requires atleast having a plan for when their governments fall (which he recommends destabilizing with CIA propaganda aka the National Endowment for Democracy-"Hey, if they fall, they fall"), CLARK HAS THE HONESTY TO ADMIT "I WANT TO EAT THE ELEPHANT A BITE AT A TIME!" by way of showing the chairman that he wants to topple the governments of countries not 'friendly' to the US (corporations) just like any other red-blooded imperialist.

SEE THE 2004 ARMY WAR COLLEGE REPORT ABOVE THAT CITES HITLER'S BITING OFF MORE THAN HE CAN CHEW. CLARK IS SMARTER. HE WANTS TO EAT HIS ELEPHANT WITHOUT BLOOD DRIBBLING DOWN HIS CHIN MESSING UP HIS UNIFORM AND SCARING POTENTIAL RECRUITS.

4) 1:59:40 Clark justifies a hugely expensive list of weapons for achieving and maintaining 'Full Spectrum Dominance.' YET HE'S SWEET-TALKING DEMS ABOUT SOCIAL SPENDING. WHAT'S HIS PRIORITY? I DON'T THINK THE GENERAL IS GOING TO CALL FOR MASSIVE WAR DEPARTMENT SPENDING CUTS, IS HE?

I have to go to bed but your little cautionary smear against me, Tom, required responding before my pages of notes from audio with no available transcript was boiled down to something to substantiate that atleast my opinions were GENUINE if not yours.

I'm sick of wading through the long sad history of Clark's employer and his career. Professional killers and propagandists with blood and poverty in their wake. Sickening.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. John, this will be the personal part of my reply

Aspects of the overall topics being discussed on this thread have obviously tapped into larger themes that we both feel very strongly about. In dealing with them I suspect that we are both trying to speak out strongly about things of great concern to us without loosing our balance in the process and slipping into unfair conclusions. I know that I have been walking on a fence in my comments to you, but as you say, there are sincere reasons for that.

I have been a life long anti War activist. No, that is not quite true, when I was 16 I thought it would be honorable to fight for other people's freedom in South East Asia. By the time I was 17/18 in 1967, I was anti-war in Viet Nam. I was at the surround the Pentagon March (Ithink it was late 1967) that Norman Mailer wrote about in "Armies of the Night". I stayed very active fighting the Viet Nam War until it ended. I met McGovern and hated seeing him defeated by Nixon. Later, I had a close friend who served with Witness for Peace in Nicaragua. I got a regular stream of passionate letters from her about the regular atrocities in Reagan's Contra Wars. I was involved in a street theater group that reenacted them. I demonstrated frequently.

An affinity group that I was involved with did a mock "mining" of San Fransisco Harbor with black painted beach balls with Styrofoam cups glued to them, also painted black (try it some time, they really look menacing!) We did this in the middle of the night and put up Naval quarantine posters all around the city. It was all a parody of Reagan's mining of the waters outside of Nicaragua's port. We had a realistic pretense for why the U.S. was mining San Francisco - can't remember it off hand, and said the Coast Guard would escort legitimate shipping through the harbor in convoys. More than one radio station actually aired early serious alerts about the mining.

Later I worked with Catholic Social Services developing a shelter program for homeless youth. The agency was quite progressive at that time in S.F. by the way and I worked closely in coalition with the Gay Community among other things to create our homeless youth program. Our Community Services staff had a full time organizer who worked on the Sanctuary movement, which took Central American refugees from right wing death squads into Churches, people who would have been deported by Reagan's INS if they were discovered. Our staff all supported each other's work.

I was the San Francisco driver one day for an El Salvadorian Priest who was tortured by death squad related elements in El Salvador, though he escaped being murdered. He was a close friend and confident of Archbishop Romero and was an early architect of Liberation Theology who some credit with having personally radicalized Romero, so he was prominent in El Salvador. (Our Sanctuary movement organizer was at the Square for the Church where Romero was assassinated along with San Fransisco than Archbishop John Quinn when government soldiers opened up fire on a crowd there, by the way). I helped write a letter of introduction for this priest with some U.S. progressive foundations that I was working with at the time. Somewhere I still have that letter but now I can't remember his name though I will never forget the stories that he told me.

So John, we share strong sentiments about the scourge of war and about right wing military efforts to destabilize Democracies. However I am not a pacifist. My political position, and my political activities, revolve around the concept that one should always work in life to promote Peace, understanding, and cooperation between peoples whenever and however possible, but I do not rule out the possibility of "just warfare" when lack of action is more immoral than that action. Clark said it very simply, by the way. I think this is his quote but I may be off by a word or two: "Bad things happen in War. That's why we should avoid them." Clark also says that force should only be used as a last resort, and he and Perle went at it directly with each other over that one, with Perle ridiculing Clark over that sentiment. Sometimes in human history Vikings have been known to invade peaceful villages. People have been known to be murdered by organized armed forces so that their land and assets can be seized. Fanatics have been known to attack innocent people, as in 9/11, in the name of some religion or cause.

John, we have had an up and down posting relationship. From time to time I have tried to discuss the larger picture with you in pragmatic terms. I tried that earlier on this thread for example. I am focused on what steps we can all realistically join together to take that will start turning this ship around before we hit the iceberg and go down. Simply repeating, "we're going to hit an iceberg, we're going to hit an iceberg" isn't good enough for me. Second, I have been frustrated by what appears to be (admittedly this is subjective) your tendency to duck responding with any substance to some reasonable direct questions asked of you (examples are in this thread). Third, I am troubled (obviously) by your rapid leap in focus from general and highly justifiable concerns about the larger destructive forces at work in our nation and the world, and your then honing in on Wesley Clark as your virtually sole target for specific attack. Fourth, I am often very much bothered by the ways in which you go about making your specific indictments. And that is a hot button issue of mine in general, not just regarding Wesley Clark. Fifth, I have a thing about people putting words into other people's mouths and then attacking those people for having said them, and I often have strong disagreement with you over the things that you claim Wesley Clark said (in those cases where you are not literally quoting him). That is separate from other concerns about selectively presenting information outside of its full context. The latter set of concerns are universal for me, they transcend my support for Wesley Clark. They are a matter of principal to me.

Have you seen the movie; "The Hunting of the President"? If not I highly recommend it. Our Democratic Party Club showed it as part of an ongoing political film series that we are running. It shows how innocent people can be relentlessly hounded and destroyed by repetition of attacks involving pieces of data specifically used to insinuate. People like Rush Limbaugh drive me straight up the walls because they do it all the time. It is not simply their political view point that infuriates me. I can get upset by a William Safire column for example, but he doesn't infuriate me in the same way. It is Rush's methodology of smears. It is guilt by association, it is innuendo, it is the stitching together of various highly charged topics conveniently wrapped up in a (name your Democrat) lynching bow. If I wasn't clear enough in my earlier comments then I will here apologize. I was not saying that you are only here to conduct a right wing methodology attack on Wesley Clark. Unprincipled people on every side of a conflict, political or otherwise, use the same weapons. Both sides in a war use guns. Sometimes well intentioned people, myself VERY MUCH included, get swept up in the heat of conflict and use arguments that upon reflection are not fully grounded with the type of integrity that ideally I would ask from myself and others. When I say, as I did in an earlier post, that I am opposed to "reverse McCarthyism" it is true. I am. I am also equally opposed to classic McCarthyism. And though I did say in the passion of the moment that I felt your arguments resembled "reverse McCarthyism", I did not say it was your intent to play that role, or that your motives were less than sincere.

The whole area of potential smears and character assassination is a very hot button issue to me John, and the reason why actually does circle back to my Peace sentiments. Non violence presupposes honest dialog. The build up to violence always involves the demonization of the enemy. So one reason why I am taking the time to write this personal post to you is to clear the air if possible. I do not want to even give the appearance of falling into that which I oppose. Like I said, I am quite open to believing that you are fully sincere in all your statements. I do not at all deny that the basic issues you are concerned about are real ones that are not only worthy of discussion, they should be discussed. The tone for my replies to you was set by your statement: "I'm preparing my case that General Wesley Clark is the next calculated step in the military coup against the American people." That in my opinion, is a highly inflammatory statement. It fits my definition of character assassination, whether it was intended by you as such or not.

I hope our future communications can be positive and productive.

[Sparkly]

108. To your four citations of the testimony...

1. The administration did rely on false 'intel' -- in fact, they preferred it. The forged documents on Niger were one example. Now they're trying to blame the intel instead of their decisions about it. Clark was absolutely right to lay the blame on them.

2. Fallujah is a perfect example of how the whole invasion, unnecessary in the first place, was botched and thus allowed to escalate. Our politicians didn't know how to deal with people like Zarqawi and al Sadr. They took a relatively America-friendly city and set conditions for zealous murderers to get in and gain power, creating a bigger mess they alternately ignored and fought -- growing the violence at every step. The goal was not to kill civilians; but the longer the opponents were enabled to seize power and territory, the more civilians would end up killed in the long run. It was tragically stupid lack of planning, and makeshift decisions based on political considerations, that caused the mess -- but there is no question we had to deal with it once it was taken over. The delay in the long run just created further violence and displaced citizens. Clark was right when he said, after we backed out, that we were going to have to go back in sooner or later. It's really oversimplifying to say that if we'd left it alone after the chaos ensued, people would have been safer; or that anyone is cheering killing civilians. A synopsis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah

3. The elephant is the problem of terrorist groups, which pose a threat to civilians all over the world. Of course we need to address it, with care, strategy, carrots and sticks and yes TALKing rather than simply invading more and more countries. What's your solution? Ignore it? A complete overhaul of US policies (dependence on oil, for example) would help but not eradicate attacks from these groups, nor can they be instantly effected.

4. No, he's not advocating spending cuts; he's advocating smarter policies that don't squander blood or treasure, along with fiscal policies at home that address the debt and support lower- and middle- income families by requiring more from the wealthy, as all Democrats I know of propose.

Again, nobody is saying violence is good, or the invasion was good, or the deaths of civilians is good.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean

when you say that "just war" is a Clark enabled scam. I have always been under the impression that the "just war" concept is something that originated with St. Augustine, and involved a detailed set of criteria for determining which sets of circumstances justify the use of military force.

Since the set of criteria that St. Augustine enumerated was quite stringent, and since I'm not a pacifist and do believe that there are some situations where military force is justified, I think that the "just war" concept is a useful one.

I don't, however, see how Wes Clark can be either credited or blamed for it.

I guess I'm kind of wondering whether you yourself believe that there are truly no circumstances under which military force can be justified. I'm also wondering whether you think that the Democratic party could successfully field a true pacifist as a candidate. If you do not believe it is feasible to field a true pacifist, I'm wondering what criteria for military force you would find it acceptable for our candidate to advocate, and which potential candidates come closest to advocating those sets of criteria.

Wes Clark's criteria for use of military force are much more stringent than those of most people whose names are being discussed as potential Democratic candidates. I'm wondering whether you will go after those people with the same level of doggedness.

These questions are offered in a spirit of genuine desire for understanding and communication, and I hope that you will respond to them in the same spirit in which they were offered.

Thank you.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

102. Excellent questions. Frikkin' hard ones too. (Damn!) Tomorrow....n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

140. I'm looking foreward to your answer.

In fact, I'm still looking foreward to promised answers to a number of posters in other threads as well. Hope to hear back from you soon.:)

[wyldwolf]

28. yeah. I read them. Here is a quick take....

... I'm still formulating my thoughts on it, though.

I believe in Progressive Internationalism. Q posted snips from a PPI article earlier in this thread and, IMO, it is spot on in it's analysis of past Democratic administration's foreign policy positions.

New Deal Democrats (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Dems from that era), as Dolstien described them, have historically been very patriotic, fiercely anti-communist and anti-fascist, and generally supportive of military intervention abroad. Indeed, many so-called "neocons" are former New Deal Democrats who left the party when George McGovern, with the solid backing of the New Left, won the party's presidential nomination in 1972.

WWII was a good example of progressive internationalism. Although we didn't enter until after we attacked, FDR and the Democrats wanted in months earlier when word of the Nazi atrocities began surfacing.

Wes Clark described Progressive Internationalism perfectly when he stated that the future role of the US military would be peacekeeping, nation building, and humanitarian missions. That was his motivation in Kosovo and his desire to intervene in Rwanda.

Now, as for PNAC, Iraq, the neocons, and the Dems involved.

The Right has a tendency to hijack the left's ideas and bastardize them.

Capitalism is a liberal invention. Unregulated capitalism is the right's bastardization of it.

The Iraq invasion and occupation is the Right's bastardization of progressive internationalism.

It was done based on a lie. And when the lie was exposed, the reasoning was switched to a humanitarian one.

But wanting regime change in Iraq is not exclusive to the right. Clinton signed the Iraq liberation act and the likes of Dennis Kucinich voted for it.

Al From of the DLC, IMO, wanted to go into Iraq for differing reasons than the GOP but in signing on to PNAC, essentially abandoned the spirit of progressive internationalism.

He was wrong to do it. The situation in Iraq did not call for progressive internationalism but I believe he thought it did.

Of course, there are many here with a better grasp of Dem history than I, so I'm sure if I'm too far off base someone will let me know.

[Zhade]

30. See, we DO all have more in common than we think.

I can't find too much fault with your post, except to say that past Dem (and Repub) presidents were by no stretch of the imagination interested in limiting "progressive internationalism" to necessary interventions like WWII. They had few qualms about using America's military to preserve "American interests", i.e. commercial and corporate interests.


"The Iraq invasion and occupation is the Right's bastardization of progressive internationalism.

It was done based on a lie. And when the lie was exposed, the reasoning was switched to a humanitarian one."

Couldn't agree more!


"But wanting regime change in Iraq is not exclusive to the right. Clinton signed the Iraq liberation act and the likes of Dennis Kucinich voted for it."

IMHO, expressing desire for a tyrant like Hussein to be overthrown is a far cry from supporting military action to do so. I simply do not believe that we have the right to overthrow foreign leaders. Revolution and hopefully democracy must come from within, so that a democratic facade is not forced onto the foreign populace in order to serve our own interests. I would be surprised if you disagreed with me on this, actually.


"Al From of the DLC, IMO, wanted to go into Iraq for differing reasons than the GOP but in signing on to PNAC, essentially abandoned the spirit of progressive internationalism.

He was wrong to do it. The situation in Iraq did not call for progressive internationalism but I believe he thought it did."

I am unaware of From endorsing PNAC prinsiples. Did I miss a letter somewhere?

I do have to say I appreciate our civil discourse. Kudos for that.

[wyldwolf]

25. every weekend - another finger jabbing lecture...

... that says basically the same thing as last weeks's

[ulysses]

41. easier to gripe than to respond?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

47. the time for responding to Q's weekly diatribes has long passed

oh, I know some (a few and dwindling) still try to argue the points with him as I used to do, but we get met with more of the same cut-and-paste "you dont't understand... the DLC is evil... it's right in front of your eyes" responses.

Now I just point out that, like a soap opera, DU readers can skip reading Q's anti-DLC diatribes for a few weeks and when they come back they will not have missed anything.

[Q]

49. Yet...here you are making sure you never miss an episode...

...of this 'soap opera'. This suggests that you're either obsessed or just can't get enough soap.

Or perhaps you're just frustrated that you can't shut down anti-DLC threads? That free speech thingy seems to be just as much of a burden for the RWingers on the left as it is for the right.

And isn't it YOU that makes a soap opera out of these threads by interjecting words like 'evil' into the discussion? I've never used the word 'evil' to discribe the DLC. You know this of course...but you seem to believe that you can discredit my threads by making it appear that I'm just part of the 'loony left'. But that's a DLC tactic that we're all too familar with and you should know by now that it isn't working.

You keep trying to move the conversation somewhere else...to another time and place. But this scenario starts in 2000...when the New Democrats consolidated power through the Neocons and the theft of an election.

The pivotal issues here are 9-11 and Iraq. You seem to believe that the Democratic rank and file are stupid and haven't noticed that the New Democratic 'leadership' has intentionally allowed Bush to escape scrutiny about one of the worst lapses of security in our nation's history. Why would they do this? Because they wanted perpetual war as much as the Neocons and this generation's 'Pearl Harbor' was as good an excuse as any.

It's all about Iraq, aggressive war and lying to the American people.

[Q]

51. I understand...

...that you're very worried that the New Dems are finally being exposed as Bush collaborators and enablers. But it's time that we go beyond 'bashing Bush' and pay more attention to what our own party is up to. Perhaps you've noticed that the current leadership isn't doing a very good job at 'unseating' Republicans?

Every Democrat should be concerned that a faction within the Democratic party is actually helping Bush to establish a 'national security state'.

[Zhade]

53. Still waiting for an answer, FightinNewDem.

Consider this a gentle reminder of my questions.

[natrat]

132. hmmmm how could you excuse the bankruptcy bill etc. vote ?

[Q]

19. "Progressive" Internationalism

Why is the DLC...through the PPI...establishing foreign policy for the Democratic party?


------------
Foreign Policy

Progressive Internationalism

PPI | Key Document | October 30, 2003
Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy

Excerpt:

"...Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong.

Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative.

Progressive internationalism stresses the responsibilities that come with our enormous power: to use force with restraint but not to hesitate to use it when necessary, to show what the Declaration of Independence called "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," to exercise leadership primarily through persuasion rather than coercion, to reduce human suffering where we can, and to create alliances and international institutions committed to upholding a decent world order. We must return to four core principles that have long defined the Democratic Party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism:

• National strength. From Franklin Roosevelt's pledge to make America the "arsenal of democracy" to the present, Democrats have stood for a strong national defense. The armed forces that won such brilliant victories in Afghanistan and Iraq were bequeathed to the current administration by President Clinton. Democrats will maintain the world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world. At the same time, we recognize that America's global influence is not just a reflection of our military power. It derives as well from our nation's other strengths: a large and dynamic economy, the capacity for innovation and self-correction, energetic diplomacy and the moral allure of our founding ideals. Democrats will not neglect these vital sources of American power.

• Liberal democracy. Democrats believe that America should use its unparalleled power to defend our country and to shape a world in which the values of liberal democracy increasingly hold sway. History amply demonstrates that true peace and security depend not only on relations between states but also between state and society. Rulers who abuse their own people are more likely to threaten other countries, to support and spawn terrorism, to violate treaties, and otherwise flout norms of civilized conduct. British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it succinctly in his July 2003 address to Congress: "The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack."

• Free enterprise. Democrats believe that economic freedom is integral to human progress. It is no accident that the world's freest countries are also its richest countries. We stand for equal and expanding opportunity at home and abroad. That is why we favor vibrant, entrepreneurial markets, open trade, and active governance to ensure honest competition. Such conditions not only unleash the creative potential of individuals, they draw nations closer together in a web of economic interdependence. And as the world's biggest economy, America has a vital stake in expanding a rules-based system of world commerce that ensures broadly shared prosperity while steadily lifting global labor and environmental standards.

• World leadership. Democrats believe energetic U.S. leadership is integral to shaping a world congenial to our interests and values. World order doesn't emerge spontaneously; it must be organized through collective action by the leading powers, in particular the leading democracies. The main responsibility for global leadership falls on America as first among equals. But our country cannot lead if our leaders will not listen. The surest way to isolate America -- and call into being anti-American coalitions -- is to succumb to the imperial temptation and attempt to impose our will on others. We believe, instead, in renewing our democratic alliances to meet new threats, in progressively enlarging the zone of market democracies by including countries that want to join, and in strengthening and reforming international institutions -- the United Nations, the international financial institutions, the World Trade Organization -- which, for all their obvious flaws, still embody humanity's highest hopes for collective security and cooperative problem-solving.

In the 20th century, Democratic statesmen like Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy applied these core principles to lead America out of isolationism into world leadership. They championed democracy. They built up and used our armed forces to combat and contain fascism and communism. They expanded trade and created the world economic system that brought decades of unprecedented global prosperity. They created alliances like NATO that not only deterred the USSR but also subsequently helped to transform former adversaries into new allies. They recognized that to win the Cold War, America had to inspire not just fear in our enemies, but admiration and loyalty in our friends. To that end, they built an enduring network of alliances and institutions that shared our burdens, enlarged our influence, and encouraged other free peoples to stand with America.

That strategy led to victory in the Cold War, the consolidation of a new peace throughout Europe, and a dramatic expansion of global freedom. By the end of the 20th century, the United States was an historical rarity -- a dominant power more admired than feared by others.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004

[wyldwolf]

27. they're not

How is writing an opinion piece setting DNC policy?

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. That so called "opinion piece" could have been written by PNAC.

Oh wait a minute.....it WAS. As in Will Marshall of PNAC and of PPI and of the DLC.

And this treasonous shitbag is who you trust with the future of the Democratic Party??

[wyldwolf]

46. another matter entirely

stay on topic.

[Q]

48. What's this all about?

Please don't tell visitors to my thread to 'stay on topic'. They can discuss the price of tea in China for all I care. But YOU shouldn't try to make the rules and frame the debate on someone else's thread. That is what's nice about DU. If YOU want to discuss a particular subject, framed in a certain way...you can start your own thread.

Perhaps you need to take a break from my threads? Spring is almost here and gardening is a really nice hobby.

While others talk about conspiracy theories...you seem to believe in coincidence theories.

Why is it that the New Democrats are so gungho about the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Why would they take a position that's the direct opposite of the majority of Democrats? The answer could be that they've wanted to attack and control Iraq for as long as the Neocons.

But even the Neocons are being more honest about Iraq than the New Democrats. At least THEY admit that WMD was just a talking point to get troops on the ground and the process of building bases started. The New Dems still insist that it's all about national security and a 'muscular' defense.

[bvar22]

63. I look forward to Q's weekly posting ...

of the TRUTH about the DLC. He is performing a Patriotic Duty. An informed electorate is necessary in a Democracy.

I also enjoy the few but determined apologists and propagandists for the DLC who attempt to hijack these threads with personal attacks on the OP.

The same few appear every week with multiple posts whining and complaining about the threads without ever addressing the content. It is hysterical because their multiple posts only kick these threads to the top where they get more exposure, something the DLC would like to avoid.

Keep up the good work.
:rofl:

[Zhade]

60. With all due respect, WW, this IS on topic.

This entire thread was started with the premise that at least some in the DLC share PNAC goals.

You and I have discussed DLCers like Will Marshall and his endorsement of PNAC views. Marshall founded PPI. I think this is relevant to the discussion.

[wyldwolf]

81. if you'll look at post #19

Q asked, "Why is the DLC...through the PPI...establishing foreign policy for the Democratic party?"

He has no proof of that. And even if some in the DLC (and out of the DLC for that matter) share PNAC goals, that still isn't indicative of them establishing foreign policy for the Democratic party.

[Zhade]

97. Yeah, but you and I know there are still prominent DLCers in Congress.

They still have sway, even as their pull is diminishing.

Let me ask this, though: Marshall (and Madeline "500,000 dead Iraqi kids is a price worth paying" Albright) were advising Kerry on foreign policy during his campaign. If he'd been allowed to take his rightful place as president (I *think* you and I agree that he actually won), Marshall may have been well-placed to continue advising. Would you have been comfortable with that?

I wouldn't.

[Q]

50. The New Talking Points of the DLC/PPI/PNAC...

...are that ALL WARS ARE RIGHTEOUS if they're started by the US. And if you're against ANY war started by the Hawks in both parties...then you must be one of the 'liberal elite' trying to relive the good old days of anti-Vietnam protests while ignoring 'real' threats to our national security.

Which is why the Neocons and the Neodems will always try to steer the debate away from the issue of whether thousands of Americans and Iraqis needed to die for THEIR agenda.

And take note that the ONLY Democrats in support of the illegal attack on Iraq are associated with the DLC or their corporate benefactors. The rest of the party...including progressive/liberal politicians like Kennedy and Kucinich and most of the rank and file...are against it. 95% of the 2004 delegates were against the war.

Another disturbing trend is that the DLCers are actually defending Bush by berating other Democrats that accuse him of lying this nation into war or the many unethical/illegal acts they've committed since 2000. They say this 'hatred' against Bush is hurting the party and the 'war on terrorism'. But there is no real war on terorism...and the Neocons and New Democrats know it. They're using nationalism to keep this lie going and have no plans to deal with the truth until they've achieved their goals.

[bvar22]

57. It is painfully clear....

that the DLC would prefer a republican Corporatist in power than a liberal Democrat, and will work toward that goal.

For evidence, see the 2004 presidential primary.

[LittleClarkie]

115. Would you care to summarize that evidence?

What are you talking about, please.

[wyldwolf]

119. he's calling Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt...

... Lieberman, and Dean "republican Corporatists."

This is why people like him (and they're abundant in this thread) can't be taken seriously.

[LittleClarkie]

120. Kind of figured it was something like that

which is why I needed him to break it down for me. I knew that if I looked at Primary 2004 I wouldn't see what he saw, because I'm not standing far enough to the left to see the same view he does.

[bvar22]

137. More evidence.

Don't take me seriously, I'm just an anonymous poster....

...but readers here better take the DLC seriously!
Here is one of their darlings:




Now is this senior member of the DLC helping Democrats get elected?
or is he playing for the Republican Corporatists?

[wyldwolf]

141. you've presented no "evidence" of anything.

[bvar22]

125. One aspect of the evidence....

...is the lack of Party funding and support for liberal candidates in their local races.
I will cite two races.

1) The Wellstone reelection in Minnesota in 2002:
This race was targeted by the bush* administration as a #1 priority. Both bush* and Cheney and other BIG Republicans appeared in Minnesota many times at numerous fundraising rallys and campaign rallys for Norm Coleman. The Republican Party expended huge sums of money for TV, Radio, and Print campaign materials.

Paul Wellstone (the most liberal Senator) was basically abandonned by the Democratic Party Money Men and DLC Celebrities. Not one single Big Name Big Money Democrat (DLC) came to Minnesota to provide support for Wellstone. (I know, I live in Minnesota). Even though the race was tight, Paul refused to sell HIS soul to the DLC for their money and support. He had pulled slightly ahead in the polls before he was killed several days before the election.


2) See also the Cynthia McKinney reelection efforts in Georgia for more of the same. This uppity Black Woman had the nerve to publically question the government's cover story of 911, and demanded an investigation. She was immediately publically disowned by the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. A mysteriously well fundedmore conservative Democrat emerged from no where to challenge her in the Primaries.

Unlike the Republicans, you will not see the DLC publically support ANY of the more liberal members of the Democratic Party when they are targeted by the Republicans. Can you cite a disputed race in 02 where the DLC publicly supported a Democratic incumbent that advocated a change in any of the following issues:

Nafta (Global Corporatism)
Free Trade with China
Funneling more Tax Money into the Defense Budget
Continued Imperial Wars
The ongoing Destruction of Labor Unions

Coincidence? I think not.
This lack of Party (DNC/DLC) support for liberal (Pro-Labor, Pro-Working Class) Democrats in contested races IS evidence that the DLC would prefer a CorpoFriendly Republican in those seats.

[LittleClarkie]

127. I'd like to see a source of DLC funding of candidates

to see who they DO support. Would something like that be on Open Secrets do you think?

Might be interesting. I'm open to seeing evidence of what you speak of.

Thanks for the reply.

[bvar22]

131. I don't have the monetary expenditures,

However, public appearance, speeches, attending rallys, appearing with candidates in campaign ads, editorials supporting a candidate in local papers, public endorsements ......those things count, and that support WAS glaringly absent in the campaigns I cited! The Republican Party supplied ALL that in abundance for their handpicked rubberstamp, Norm Coleman....The DNC/DLC provided NONE for the Wellstone campaign in spite of the closeness of the race and the possibility of losing a Senate seat. It was only in the last couple of days that Paul pulled ahead in the polls.

You asked for evidence for my claims. Absence of support IS evidence.


The Democratic Party IS a Big Tent, but there is NO ROOM in the tent for those who would advance the agenda of the Very Wealthy Corporatists at the expense of Labor and the Working Class. Those people already have a party....It is The Republican Party! There is NO DOUBT about who owns the DLC. Even the DLC admits they are owned by Corporate interests and their goal is the give Corporations a louder voice in the Democratic Party.

These people and the people who support them are my political enemies. Whether they have a (D) or an (R) after their name is no longer important.

[LittleClarkie]

133. I know, I was just looking to doing some digging for myself

I do appreciate the coherent response.

In comparison, how much did the DLC support people like Kerry or Clark? I know one of the DLCers was in the team of Kerry advisors, but then Kerry seemed to have a whole spectrum of advisors, probably so that he could listen to them duke it out and then decide where he stood. But how much else did they do in support of Kerry.

As I see Clark as something of a Clinton candidate, I also wonder the same for him. Did the DLC show signs of Clark support?

Personally, I see both of them as almost too liberal for much of the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

129. oh, I get it... it's all about pouting

Since none of the "Big Name Big Money Democrats" came to support Wellstone (according to you) that makes them republican corporatists?

Unlike the Republicans, you will not see the DLC publically support ANY of the more liberal members of the Democratic Party when they are targeted by the Republicans.

I've never seen the DLC publically endorse anyone.

You act as though an endorsement from the DLC would have benefited Wellstone?

I give Democrats more credit than that. When the choice is a Democrat or a Republican, rank and file Dems aren't waiting on endorsements from the DNC, DLC, DFA, or anyone.

[bvar22]

134. "oh, I get it... it's all about pouting"

No. Its about money, power, and control of the national agenda,
but if all you can understand is "pouting" we have nothing else to discuss.
Bye
:kick:

[wyldwolf]

136. well, of course

You don't want their agenda, but you do want their power and influence.

So, yeah, you're pouting. You believe they didn't play ball with Wellstone, so they're no damn good. But you still want their money and influence.

You do know that the DNC contributed lots of money to Wellstone... right?

[Zhade]

65. Like we shouldn't hate b*s*, that LYING TRAITOROUS MOTHERFUCKER!

I mean, seriously! We shouldn't hate a guy who lies 100,000+ innocent Iraqis into the grave?

WTF?

[Zhade]

64. This piece is so full of false assumptions, I don't know where to start.

"...Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong."

That last sentence is ridiculous. I'd like to see one bit of evidence that "the left" believes, as a bloc, that 'because America is strong it must be wrong'.


"Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong."

Perhaps that's because of the hundreds of violent military actions undertaken in the name of securing America's "vital interests" (read: commercial interests)? Perhaps the idea of spending more on 'defense' than the next 25 countires combined, at the expense of the social safety net, is loathesome to those who support equality and opportunity for all Americans?


"Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act -- if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations."

Maybe the UN is 'ineffectual' because America has, in fact, abused its authority within that body too many times?


"And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world's neediest people to grinding poverty."

Yeah, because we all know that globalization as it's now practiced certainly doesn't 'erode our own prosperity' through bleeding jobs via outsourcing and the elimination of America's industrial base, right? Oh, and no way is 'free trade' fucking over third world citizens every second of every day by forcing them into wage slavery.


I'm too damn pissed to deconstruct one more line of this BULLSHIT.

[Donna Zen]

61. Time out for a reality check:

1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.


Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant , but they should not serve to avoid the real issues.


Extremists object strenuously when this is done to them, of course!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

IOW, it is important to keep the topic on the issues rather than the personalities. I do not like the policies of the DLC, which advance, as Michael Moore pointed out, a system in which two parties represent 10% of the American people while the other 90% of us take a hike.

The difficulty I have with much of the comment in this particular thread is the dependence on alleged "facts" over substance.

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html

[Q]

76. Here's the reality:

More bullshit from the Bush Apologists/Enablers:

BTW...did you know that Saudi Arabia is 'leaning' towards Democracy?

This stuff sounds like it could come straight from the Bush White House...

-------------


Behind the Curve
By Peter Ross Range


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253225&kaid=127&subid=170


Pardon my optimism. I know the wave of change sweeping the Middle East can still go bad. But you have to be thrilled at the way the train began moving this winter. Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine -- even Egypt and Saudi Arabia are leaning toward democratization. These are historic moments, and the big question for Democrats is how we avoid landing on the wrong side of history. Because of the loudness, bitterness, and short-sightedness of our party's absolutist antiwar wing, we've gotten ourselves behind the curve -- and way behind the Republican Party.

Consider this: If the Iraq project succeeds -- war, transformation, democratization -- guess who will get all the credit? George W. Bush and the Republican Party. They don't deserve it all. Many Democrats -- elected ones and others who opine for a living -- supported the war. And Bush merits criticism for mismanagement of war preparations and the occupation. Still, if Iraqis pull through the last bloody phase of the insurgency and create the first working Arab democracy, and inspire other nations to follow suit, Bush will get all the roses. His errors and even the missing weapons of mass destruction will be forgotten. This war, this transformation project, this Middle East revolution may forever be remembered as a Republican undertaking.

But it shouldn't be. The transformation project could have been a Democratic undertaking as well. What's holding us back? Our past leaders had no trouble grasping the direction of history. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and even Clinton proved again and again that Democrats were the party of internationalism and security while Republicans were still beating their isolationist drums. Yet today's left-wing Democrats are frozen in the headlights of a president who has outflanked them on Wilsonian idealism; they are paralyzed by their own fixations on past errors. For many, this comes down to one word: Vietnam.

Nowhere is activist liberalism more glued to its past than on foreign policy, and on the use of force. Some Democrats are still so traumatized by the Vietnam experience that they can't update their inner paradigm for a changed world, one in which we face a global threat not unlike fascism and communism. Osama bin Laden may have no divisions and no armadas, but that doesn't make his movement less of a threat to us. One bioweapon, alas, may be what it takes to convince loud and influential doubters on the left.

It's time for liberalism in Democratic politics to take a good hard look at itself. Those in what writer Todd Gitlin has called "the cosmopolitan class" -- educated, upper-middle-class people who make their livings in academe, culture, or politics by using mainly their brains -- must finally grasp that they are minority members of a minority party. Liberals on the Democratic Party's left today are mainly fighting rearguard actions to hold onto the glory days. Bill Clinton successfully shifted the paradigm for fighting poverty, for example, with policies that promoted a booming economy, not a Great Society. The liberal left hates that. It offends the religion of liberalism as codified during the great battles of yesteryear.

Liberals also need to shelve their Bush hatred. It subverts clear thinking. The great issues facing the nation are not about Bush; they are about policy. In the Middle East, that means they are all about the Iraqis -- and the Lebanese, Egyptians, Palestinians, Israelis, and others. Instead of obsessing on Bush, liberals should be asking: What are our policies doing, or not doing, for people on the ground in the regions we're trying to help? Do the Iraqis really care if Bush mangles his English? Bush's words grate horribly on my dainty ears, but listen to what an architect in Beirut, educated in Paris, and a liberal by American standards, emailed to me at the height of Lebanon's recent crisis: "It was so cool of President Bush to support the liberation of Lebanon. He saved the day!" This young Arab doesn't know or care that readers in every Starbucks in Cambridge and Berkeley will recoil at any line that calls Bush cool; she cares about the future of her country. We should too.

It's time for Democrats to begin asking themselves the question: What if this thing works out? Where will we be then? Whether they originally backed the war or not, Democrats now need to give more than grudging support to developments in the Middle East and acknowledge that, whatever the original reasons for the invasion, its secondary effect may be a very positive one.

If there was ever a crossroads moment in modern liberalism, it is now. The world is changing at a blistering pace. The old-time religion is falling farther and farther behind. There may be a lot more grief in the Middle East before it's all over. But a big train of transformation is leaving the station -- Democrats can get on it or be left behind.

Peter Ross Range is editor of BLUEPRINT.

[bvar22]

80. calling ALL hippies,

yippies, Genxers, activists, gays, alternative lifestylers, liberals, progressives, femininists, ERA advocates, Pro-Choicers, FDR Democrats, LBJ Democrats, Paul Wellstone Democrats, Kennedy Democrats, Kucinich Democrats, Al Sharpton Democrats, Jesse Jackson Democrats, Barbara Boxer Democrats, all minorities, alternative energy advocates, bicyclers, handicapped, single moms, blue jean wearers, face painters, women with unshaved armpits, vegans, pacificists, REAL Christians (pacificists), the Working Class, environmentalists, protesters, dissidents, criticizers, users of Free Speech, the millions of Michael Moore fans, pop concert goers, rock & rollers, the tatooed, the pierced, the eccentric, the outcast, artists, marchers, Quakers, REAL Catholics (pacificists), UNION members, believers in Universal HealthCare, Universal Education, public ownership of Utilities, and ANYONE ELSE who doesn't march in lockstep with the DLC........
NOW HEAR THIS!!!!
The DLC insists YOU are the minority in the Democratic Party, and are hurting everyone else. You are no longer wanted in the Democratic Party. Find someone else to send your money to and vote for!

[Q]

149. The problem is that the top leadership in the party...

...has fallen for the DLC agenda. Kerry and Hillary come to mind. Their marching orders are to 'go along to get along' with the concept of 'preemptive war' and other policies so as not to look 'weak' on national security.

Meanwhile...thousands are needlessly dying because congress gave ONE MAN the right to declare war and attack any country HE deems to be a danger to our security. Not only that...but they no longer require PROOF that any particular country poses a threat.

[Nikki Stone 1]

82. "Shifted paradigm for fighting poverty" = 21.9% child poverty rate

as of this year.


"Bill Clinton successfully shifted the paradigm for fighting poverty, for example, with policies that promoted a booming economy, not a Great Society. The liberal left hates that. It offends the religion of liberalism as codified during the great battles of yesteryear."

[Q]

105. The 'great battles of yesteryear'...

...are what the DLC wants us to forget. They hate the idea of a Great Society that at least attempts to share the bounty of America's resources with the commoners. But the New Dems have something ELSE in mind: they want to maintain Reagan's trickle-down economy and corporate welfare.

[Donna Zen]

84. First a question

• What does this post have to do with my post? I'm missing something.

^^^^^^^^^^

To the author of this piece, Peter Ross: The writer assumes what the MSM parrots: that the only road to ME reform was with this outrageous invasion. I believe that there were better ways to help the people of the ME in moving toward self-determination.

Also, to the author and anyone who sides with his thinking: declaring victory at the beginning of what will be a long process, is dangerous thinking.

ps. Sounds like he's been talking with Tom Freidman, another liberal hawk--well, as long as it's not his kid in a flag drapped coffin, or his family being bombed.

[Q]

90. I was simply showing the DLC's 'reality'...

...and I wasn't sure whether you were referring to my post. But no offense intended.

Neither the Neocons or the New Democrats really give a crap about Iraqi self-determination...or democracy for that matter. Isn't it strange how they're suddenly interested in democracy everywhere BUT the US?

And like the Neocons...the DLC is using feel-good rhetoric to mask their true intentions in the Middle East. None of these wannabe fascists even care enough to count the bodies of the victims of their shock and awe and carpet bombing of civilian areas.

The DLC is dragging the party down and they're even willing to join the other side in trashing the left in order to do it.

[Donna Zen]

85. Oh sorry Q

You thought my message was meant for you...It wasn't. I put it there as a general statement. My mistake.

[Q]

91. No problem...

...and thanks for joining the discussion.

[stillcool]

99. i totally agree with your assessment......

and believe that it couldn't have happened any other way. If there truly were an opposition party, if congress had any over-sight powers, we would not be here. The lawmakers make, break and bend law to fit the parameters needed to accomplish what they and their pockets need. The marriage of Government, Military, and Business has never been so strong. How these people rationalize the actions this government takes is a real dilemna for me. My only guess is that for the most part their scope and influence is limited. The real juice is in the CIA, & the Defense Dept, and the corporations they represent.
And, everything we see today, has deep roots that have been cultivated and tended to for a long time. The scale and the confluence of power dwarfs what influence can be brought to bear by the elected who are unconnected.

[Q]

104. You give it too much credit to call it an 'assessment'...

...it's more of an early morning rant. We might still be here today if there was a Dem opposition party...but the subject of discussion would be difference and we would have more hope about the future of the party.

I won't presume to understand the motivation of those who rationalize corrupt governments and illegal, immoral wars. It's beyond me how that we can both be witnessing the same things and come to completely different conclusions.

We've seen unprecedented ethics violations and corruption on a scale that boggles the mind. We've seen high crimes and treason. Yet...an opposition party still doesn't appear to perform their Constitutional duties and responsibilities of oversight and checks and balances. Even worse...a faction of the 'party of the people' no longer even pretends to represent the people.

But one thing is crystal clear: our country is under the control of a few wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals. They're using 'our' military...not to defend our country...but to enrich themselves and their allies. They give only lip service to the ideals of democracy and a government of, by and for the people. Too many Americans are beginning to see through that facade and they're being made an enemy of the state by the Neocons and Neodems.

[Dr Fate]

113. I doubt it- even the corrupt DEMS don't want to lose their jobs.

DEMS cant be "in on it"- because they just lose more & more seats and lose more & more power.

I'll bet even the DLCers would rather keep their jobs. It's not a conspiracy- it's just "me tooism" gone completely out of control.

My guess is that they are just a bunch of idiots who got the idea somewhere that they could win elections w/o the base.

[Q]

121. Does 'tooism' include participating in illegal wars...

...and allowing the Bush government to escape justice? That sounds more like collusion and complicity.

Perhaps you haven't noticed...but those Dems that have been working with the Bushies haven't lost their jobs. In fact...the only ones that HAVE lost their jobs are those who actively opposed Bush and his cronies.

As I've mentioned elsewhere...I don't believe in coincidence theories. The DLCers aren't simply going along to get along with the Bush regime. They not only support his illegal wars and other harmful policies...they've joined WITH them in the character assassination of anyone that opposes these policies.

[Dr Fate]

122. John Kerry, John Edwards, Max Cleland & Tom Daschle come to mind

They all supported the war to begin with- they all lost their jobs- or potential jobs. Just what do you think these four men got out of this "arrangement" that you think exists?

It was policy "me tooism", not a conspiracy.

Your analysis is incomplete.

[Q]

123. Kerry and Edwards didn't 'lose their jobs'...

...Kerry is still a Senator and Edwards quit to run. Cleland and Daschle weren't DLC.

What you seem to be saying is that it's okay to ignore or break the law and circumvent the Constitution if it's only 'tooism'.

And another thing: you are ignoring many issues in order to come to this 'tooism' theory. There ARE individual Dems who 'support' the war and aren't part of the DLC. But the majority of Dems in support of Bush's wars are in the DLC. And they're not simply in support of the Iraq war...the key here is that they support and defend the Bush Doctrine of 'preemptive' war.

Read some of the links and quotes in this thread. Like Bush...the DLCers believe that they have a 'right' to attack other countries that they 'perceive' to be a threat...without having to actually PROVE in beforehand.

[Dr Fate]

124. Kerry prefers to have less power?

Edwards prefers to be out of work? Now you are splitting hairs- they gave up power.

Daschele & Cleland agreed with the DLC on the war, intitially. Cleland certainly supported Bush's tax cuts- just like the DLC.

I agree with you often, but not on this one. I was not offering excuses- I was offering a theory that makes more sense- Its not a conspiracy- it's just a cluster-fuck.

You have yet to explain away why big-time DEMS would go along with Repubs just so they could lose their jobs.

[Q]

126. I would imagine that some Dems went along...

...just to look patriotic and 'tough' on national security matters.

But the DLC is set apart from the rest of the Democratic party. They not only have their own little PNAC doctrine...but they are mounting a concerted attack against ANYONE against Bush or his policy of preemption.

The DLC is fully aware that they're supporting an illegal war and the war criminal running it. In order to cover up this fact...they've put together their own smear machine to trash and intimidate any Democrats who dare speak out against the agenda they share with Bush.

It's not accidental. It's not a coincidence. It's not tooism'. It's the willful cooperation between the Neocons and the DLC to keep this nation on a wartime footing.

[Dr Fate]

128. To be "in on it" you have to gain somthing. What did Kerry gain?

What did Edwards, Daschele or Cleland gain from agreeing with the DLC/GOP???

I agree with the essential spirit of what you are doing- but your logic is just a little off on this one.

[Q]

130. It's not what individuals gain...it's what the DLC gains...

You need to ask yourself: does the DLC support the Iraq invasion/occupation and the doctrine of preemptive war for the benefit of the people?

If you want to see what the DLC is currently up to...listen to Lieberman and Hillary pandering to the right.

As to Kerry...I think he may be having second thoughts about the DLC...much like Gore did after the 2000 election. Taking the DLC's advice to hold back on direct criticism of Bush's lies and deceit and pandering to corporations may have lost the election for him.

The DLC isn't looking for any individual to gain unless they can take credit for it.

[Dr Fate]

138. Right- so none of those guys I named are in cahoots with Bush then.

They are merely victims of a misguided strategy.

While conspiracies DO exists- sometimes events are not planned, but the result of being just plain rudderless.

I think the DEMS like I mentioned were ruderless as opposed to being "in on it."

[Q]

146. I can't tell...

...if you're pulling my leg or just misinformed. You go right ahead and believe anything you want. I have no problem with you believing that professional politicians with the backing of millions from corporations are 'rudderless' or clueless or suffering from 'tooism'. I'm sure you're not alone in thinking that way.

It probably won't matter in the long run anyway...because the great experiment of representative democracy is over. I'm surprised that it lasted as long as it did.

[Dr Fate]

147. No- I'm being dead serious- not everything is a conspiracy.

And I believe this b/c I really don't see what Kerry, Edwards,Gore, etc are gaining from being "in on it" with Bush.

You can believe they are "in on it" if you want- but you have yet to explain what they have gained from this alleged partnership with Bush.

[Q]

148. I believe that you're serious...

...but ask yourself this:

How is it that some drunken sod from Texas was able to attain almost dictatorial powers in four years, break the law with impunity and completely escape justice? After you answer that question...ask why there has been little or no opposition since 2000?

Perhaps you should reread the premise to this thread? You're the one that brought up particular politicians and inferred that it was a 'conspiracy theory' that they were 'in on it'. This thread is about the Neocons and Neodems. Kerry and other DLCers are only involved to the extent that they can get funding and other bennies from this organization.

The DLC works like the Heritage Foundation in that the Players are seldom mentioned in relationship to GOP or Dem politics. Like the Shadow Government Bush formed right after 9-11...they work behind the scenes to influence policy and purchase politicians that agree to push aspects of their agenda. As for the DLC...pushing the 'war on terrorism' and 'preemptive war' is part of their agenda. That's why you have Dems like Lieberman, Kerry and Hillary pushing the war in spite of all the contradictions and lies that have been exposed. They depend on the political cover from both the DLC and the corporate media.