Transcript for Clark's smackdown of Perle at the HASC now available

[Clark2008]

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0f.htm

Some choice quotes:

Since then we have encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an Army of God, the Mujahedin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed al Qaeda.
(Clark)

****

Since then we have encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an Army of God, the Mujahedin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed al Qaeda.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must. (Clark)

There are more, but I've got to go take my son to a soccer game.

Have fun reading!

[Maccagirl]

1. Please let this wonderful man be the public servant

we need and he wants to be.

[jen4clark]

2. Bitter disappointment

I can't believe C Span didn't air this hearing/testimony and it doesn't look like they will. The media is getting worse by the day (if that's possible), to the point where a major, important hearing is kept from the public view because it might remind people that men and women are dying in a war right now that was based on lies.

C Span is funded by the cable companies so I'm sure is somewhat controlled. Since the testimony last Wed. they have been showing re-runs over and over rather than air this.

[Sparkly]

8. Me too!!

It's incredible, especially considering some of the obscure things, dull things, and downright crappy things they show, that they won't show this!! :shrug:

[Tinksrival]

3. This link is for September 23, 2002 testimony ????

[sundancekid]

4. it's a great read, but not the April 6, 2005 testimony -- guess we are all

waaaaaaaaaaaaaay anxious to get our hands on THAT transcript, but it does not yet appear to have been published.

Thanx anyway for posting this reminder -- same 2 persons, very different success rate when we examine this old testimony (from Sep. 2002) -- will no doubt be the same results when we look back to the 2005 "rematch"

[Clark2008]

18. My apologies.

I must have misread the site where I got the link. And, I didn't have time to read through it before taking my son to soccer (his team won, btw and he got one of the goals).
Anywho - it's still an interesting read and proves what Clark's true feelings about the Iraqi war were back in 2002.

[kevsand]

5. There is a large piece of the April 6, 2005 transcript here:

Probably most of it, but hard to say. Not sure if this is viewable by non-members, so give it a try:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnitedForClark/message/44446?simple=1

[jen4clark]

6. Here's the audio

It's in Windows Media Player - scroll down to Wednesday, April 6 and click the mic.

Wednesday, April 6- 10:00am-2118 Rayburn- Open
http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/


The Full Committee met to receive testimony on Iraq's past, present and future.

Witnesses:

General Wesley Clark, United States Army (ret.), Former Combatant Commander, European Command(pdf)
Honorable Richard Perle, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Policy(pdf)

[ChrisPhx]

7. I just went over there too and copied the link

directly to the audio:

http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

Direct the whole world to listen to this, it is very interesting and the sparks fly!

The whole thing is over 3 hours.

The meeting doesn't come to order until 12 minutes into the audio.

Before that there is just background noise and a little talk you can catch.

[Sparkly]

9. If I may point out a couple of key spots...

Some notes I took:

1:14 - Mr. Jones of North Carolina...

1:21 - "ranking member" (I can't remember what that was but I wrote it down)

1:34 - Perle criticizing Clark re: dialogue

2:15 - Clark praised as being far more correct than Perle, Perle gets a smackdown (and has a meltdown)

[jen4clark]

11. Mr. Jones

is PISSED!!

Perle: "I don't understand the source of your anger."

Jones: "I wish somebody would apologize for the disinformation that was given (yes we all make mistakes and I understand how difficult is to get good intelligence). We made a mistake. We're there we've go to finish the job. We're there but I've not heard anyone say that."

Mr. Jones has signed over 900 letters to families that have lost someone in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

12. That was quite something!!

I think it was Cooper (?) who went after him later on, about 2:16? Perle's whole defense was basically "Nu-UH! Did NOT!" I thought he was about to throw a tantrum or break down and cry.

[Clark2008]

27. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)

Yes - we still have quite a few Democrats in Tennessee - and, apparently, the Dems we do have are tough as nails. ;)

[jen4clark]

10. Cool

Thank you Chris! I just want everybody in the country to hear this! There is a very obvious reason C Span didn't air this - they definitely do not want this getting out!

They talk about peak oil, PNAC - General Clark delivers clear, calm smackdowns to Perle several times. Mr. Jones from North Carolina is awesome! Talks about double-agents, the lies told to get us in there - he's tore up over the whole thing. Perle is pure slime.

[ChrisPhx]

19. "DUAL MUST CARRY" AND "MULTI-CAST MUST CARRY"

Maybe these rulings, which could have caused your cable system to drop carriage of C-SPAN, C-SPAN2 or C-SPAN3, are the hammer hanging over their heads that is being used to control their programming, ie the threat of revisiting the issue?

"February 10, 2005

FCC DECISIVELY REJECTS "DUAL MUST CARRY" AND "MULTI-CAST MUST CARRY"
Today the FCC rejected the so-called "multi-cast must carry" proposal which if approved would have forced cable operators to give broadcasters enough space on their systems to deliver several broadcast signals instead of just one. The vote was 4-1 against the proposal. The Commission decided that the Communications Act did not authorize them to impose that version of the must carry rule into the digital age.


The FCC also voted 5-1 to reject the "dual must carry" proposal. This proposal would have required cable operators to give every local broadcaster a second channel on their systems during the perhaps years-long transition from analog broadcasting to digital broadcasting.

C-SPAN is gratified by the Commission's decisive ruling that the government should not grant a preferred status to broadcasters over cable programmers. C-SPAN has been consistent over the years in promoting the First Amendment rights of cable programmers. Today's vote was a vindication of that position. We look forward to a fair competition with all others, including broadcasters, for channel space on cable systems for our networks (especially C-SPAN3—a digital service).

However, these votes may not mean that these issues are settled. It is possible that Congress could be persuaded to revisit the must carry requirements as part of its review of the digital transition. If so, C-SPAN will continue to advocate for an approach that permits fair, market-based competition and that respects the First Amendment rights of cable programmers and operators."

http://www.mustcarry.org/mustcarry.asp

[jen4clark]

20. Do you think

the fact that the hearing was over 3 hours could be a reason they didn't air it?

btw, I'm not sure I understand this. Does it mean that if the FCC perceives C Span to be biased they could change the ruling so that cable operators wouldn't "have" to carry the C-Span channels? Isn't C-Span funded by the cable channels? I wonder if they play a part in what C-Span is "allowed" to air?

[ChrisPhx]

25. It was long

Does that stop them?

I've been trying to "subscribe" to email alerts about their programming, but the link doesn't work (since yesterday afternoon).

I don't totally "get" the must carry, dual carry thing. Looks like by forcing cable providers to allow two programs for broadcast channels and/or more channels for local broadcast, resulting in less channels overall for cable vs broadcast, and then they could drop CSPAN.

It does say "created for cable, offered as a public service" on the CSPAN web site.

Here is a link to some results of a pew poll regarding CSPAN:

http://www.cspan.org/about/research/index.asp?code=FINDINGS

Of course, we've had no reason to NOT trust FCC or any part of the Federal government?

[TorchTheWitch]

32. the chatter is interesting too...

Turn the volume all the way up and you can listen to Wes chitchatting with various folks (I feel like an evesdropper listening to this)...

07:58 - Wes mentions his son, says he's a great dad, and it seems there's another baby on the way (did anyone know that Wes would be a grandaddy for a second time?). Whoever the woman was he said this too offered congrats on the next new little one.

3:35 - Someone asks Wes if he intended on taking on a Democratic leadership role to which he replies that he was offered the opportunity to speak out, so he's speaking out, and he ran for pres. for the opportunity to speak out on national security issues.

As for the substance of the hearing... Wes made Perle look like the dimwitted gasbag that he is. Not once did I hear a single thing from Perle to backup a word he said... it was pretty much "this is what's what 'cause I say so". Over 3 hours of talking points from him with no explanations, examples, evidence - nothing.

[jen4clark]

13. WooHoo

Clark laying out PNAC plans to the committee!

Perle acts like he doesn't know what Clark's talking about! lol!

[Totally Committed]

14. Has anyone heard if C-SPAN is going to air the video

of this hearing or not?

I know a lot of us wrote and asked, but I haven't heard back... has anyone?

Thanks.

TC

[jen4clark]

15. No one's heard

It doesn't seem at this point they will air it. The schedule each day consists of hours and hours of reruns and it's already been 4 days.

It's just sickening that this information is not going to be heard even by those who care enough to watch C Span. I think the fact that there's so much information that will make this Regime look like the fucking fools they are, plus the information about PNAC that General Clark lays out for the world to hear it's just going to be another one of those stories that dies a quiet death...

[Sparkly]

22. Email the link

and the WaPo article, and salient time points for people to cue into (since the entirety is so long)... More at the Clark Supporters forum.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

16. Thanks for the link. I was irked to miss it live....n/t

[RAF]

17. This quote says it all.

"There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must. (Clark)"

I supported Wes Clark the first time around (long before the "Clark movement") and I wouldn't think twice to support him again.

America is truly missing a shining star in Clark as our president.

[Sparkly]

21. Welcome to DU, RAF!!

:hi:

[RAF]

24. TY

it's much appreciated.

[Dinger]

23. Why In The Hell Won't Anybody Air This??? (nt)

[Donna Zen]

26. Why? Why talk about the war at all?

Why? Why is the war no longer on the news?

It is simple really: no one wants it there.

No one!

Before I approach the “why,” it is important to review where we are in terms of problems. The US is a debtor nation, and like all debtor nations, we are beholden to those who are floating our loans. We dare not complain too loudly about the tactics of the Chinese or our other bankers because they now have the money-stick to whop us into submission.

As a country we bare the disgraceful burden of not insuring our children, feeding our hungry, caring for our sick, and providing for the retirement of our elderly. Medicare, CHIPS, Social Security are all begging as their funding feeding tubes are about to be cut. And yet, we borrow and spend over $4,000,000,000 a month to pay for this war.

In short, our country grows weaker, our poor become poorer, the income gap widens, and our problems loam larger. It is all tied to the war; it is all contingent upon foreign policy.

Do the republicans want to talk about the war? No way. As long as the American public are confused about who did what and when, they are safely on top of the national security heap.

Do the Democrats want to talk about the war? No. Very few had the political guts to cast a vote against this crime, and for the most part, they are willing to stay silent to protect their friends, many of them the “stars.” Besides, with the sign on the door stating: "Don’t talk to us seriously about foreign policy." Please don’t ask them to connect the dots to Iraqi octopus that now strangles domestic policy as the body politic decays. Democratic stars are carefully avoiding all mention of the subject in hope that they can run around shouting, "It’s the economy stupid" and no one will notice the hypocrisy. It should also be noted that even the supporters of the Democratic stars on this forum, tell us to forget about it. Let it go.


Wes Clark understands the nature of this beast called the Iraq War, he sees the long arms of the octopus on future foreign policy, and most of all, he fully comprehends the proximity of the Iraq dots our spotty economic prospects.

This is the short answer to your question: why? Because Clark tells the truth in a time where the lie reigns supreme.

[kevsand]

28. As usual, you are absolutely right in all respects,

both in the long and short answers. Clark has always told the truth regardless of the environment. My one concern at this point is that, in some respects, that makes him the most dangerous man in America.

[Donna Zen]

29. Truth to power?

Wes Clark's concern is that we will hide the truth from ourselves, and thus, forget 150,000 Americans caught up in an elective war. To do that, we will fail to learn any lesson from this ongoing lie.

Yes, I hope that Wes is safe...well, as safe as any of can be. But as he said the other day, he is a grandfather with another grandchild on the way. Our country, those babies, and the millions of more like them, come first. Oh, that there were more people who put others ahead of their political careers and fundraisers, of course, if there were, we would not be in this bloody place.

[ArkySue]

30. Thanks for this!

Oh, and nice pic too! :kick:

[Jesus Saves]

31. interesting - nt