Clark says White House twisted facts and silenced critics to pursue Iraq w

[bicentennial_baby]

"Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, in his harshest criticism yet of the Bush administration, said the White House has relied on twisted facts and demonized its critics to pursue war with Iraq.

In remarks prepared for delivery Friday, Clark said the administration's handling of foreign policy has put Americans in danger and may be criminal. He called for an independent review of the administration's "possible manipulation of intelligence," including information used to justify war with Iraq and the possible leak of the name of a covert CIA agent.

"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a case for war based on false claims," he said in remarks prepared for delivery to a group of military reporters and editors. "We need to know if we were intentionally deceived." "


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/02/national2154EDT0879.DTL

[Nlighten1]

1. Wewt

Rock on General Clark.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Best part:

"``This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority,'' he said. ``That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy, and very poor lighting. That's why you need night-vision goggles to see what's going on over there.''

[BattyDem]

3. Wow!

Ok, I'm a Deanie ... but that is a GREAT quote! Go Clark!!!

[catforclark2004]

4. The General ain't taking no prisoners!

He's going to out them all....nothing better happen to him!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

5. Well, it's ABOUT F**KING TIME.

I know at this point it's doubtful this will mainstream, but it's just so frickin' good to hear it said in public by ANYONE with juice. I've been waiting for almost three years to hear this sort of ballsy criticism spoken out loud.

I'm starting to think this country ain't completely doomed after all.

[Waistdeep]

7. It will definitely go mainstream

Notice the phrase: "... may be criminal...". That's not accidental. Clark just started an artillery bombardment.

[calimary]

52. Well, let's just look at this. It is NOT stains on a blue dress, okay?

About time our guys started hitting back HARD!! And I'm a Deanie, but I deeply appreciate this.

Dear ones, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: CALL YOUR REPS!!! REMIND THEM OF THE POLLS THAT SHOW LARGE MAJORITIES WANT AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR!!! CALL AT LEAST ONE RETHUG ABOUT THIS! I just called TWO of 'em - Orrin Hatch's office AND Pat Roberts' office. REMIND THEM OF THE NUMBERS THAT ARE NOT - repeat - NOT-NOT-NOT in their column!!!!!!!

And you can do it TOLL FREE!!!

1 (800) 839 - 5276, or 1 (800) 648 - 3516

They'll switch you for free, which is nice because sometimes you'll be put on hold once you're switched to whoever's office it is.

Or go to www.congress.org and the directory - you'll be able to find phone numbers AND fax numbers for the local AND Washington offices of anybody on the Hill.

Friends, we've JUST GOT TO DO THIS!!!!! They need it IN THEIR FACES that the numbers are with US, NOT THEM!!!!

[not systems]

6. Right on!!

Clark is alright with me as long as he continues
to bring the battle to Bush.

I'm a Dean voter.

[catforclark2004]

10. But when the General Speaks.....people listen!

That's the great thing about the dude......He ain't falling on deaf ears. Main street and mainstream will listen.

[colorado_ufo]

39. Credibility is crucial.

Clark has paid his dues, and he will get the media's attention. His credibility will make him hard to contradict.

[central scrutinizer]

8. semantics

This is great, but Clark is wrong on one thing: * did not twist "facts". There were no facts, just lies made up out of whole cloth.

[catforclark2004]

12. Semantics, Shemantics......

First PNAC discussions and now this.....the General's on fire, and you know it! Semantics, Shemantics.....He telling it better than anyone else could...or would.

[Creamed Corn]

50. "Facts are meaningless.

You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -H.S.

[pocoloco]

9. Hot Damn!

go get'um Wes!

[proud patriot]

11. Good for him

:D

[tinnypriv]

13. Very very nice

Good job Clark :thumbsup:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. Holy. Fucking. Shit.

Pardon my potty-mouth...but DAMN.

I mean that's just...DAMN.

:bounce:

DTH

[Guaranteed]

40. The times they are a changin'....

The Dem cannons have been deafening in the last few weeks...crescendoing...but they're nowhere near their loudest yet.

[Flying_Pig]

15. Alright, someone finally throws down the glove! Interesting, that

it's a man who just became a Democrat. And where have *most* of the other long-time Dems been?? I'll tell you. Taking AIPAC money, and supporting PNAC's (AIPAC and Likud's best friends) goals for world domination, and vis-a-vis this support, they were supporting G.W. Bush (are you listening Lieberman, Pelosi, Edwards, Feinstein, et al?).

If Wes Clark walks half as good as his talk, and if he shows determination to destroy the PNAC cabal, and break Likud's stranglehold on our foreign policy, the man will get my vote and support!

[StephNW4Clark]

17. If you want to see how Clark thinks (esp. about PNAC & Iraq)

check this out.

"Clinton administration: broad minded, visionary, lots of engagement. Did a lot of work. Had difficulty with two houses in congress that didn't control. And in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy -- promoted by the Project for a New American Century -- much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II." - Gen. Clark

Josh Marshall's take on this:
"When I interviewed Clark that passage was the one struck me most and the one that stood out in my mind. The analogy hadn't occurred to me before. But it's extremely apt. And the backroom politicking over Iraq is something I know a bit about.

Why it stuck in my mind was that it showed not only a deep grasp of foreign policy issues but an equally canny sense of the informal and extra-governmental ways policy gets hashed out in Washington. More than anything it signaled an understanding that what we've been seeing for the last two years is part of a much longer history stretching back into the late 1960s.

The point is that the CPD and PNAC advocacy were both cases in which outside pressure groups --- groups of neoconservatives --- basically B-teamed the given administration, getting around their flank by working congress and the media to force the administration's hand or make certain policy options politically unviable."

Check out more Clark at
www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[Flying_Pig]

23. This is good. Now I'd like to hear his thoughts about Likud/Sharon,

and the need to remove their influence on our Congress, electoral process, and foreign policy. Probably won't do that though. Last time someone tried (Dean), AIAPC and the JDL (and their allies in the media) went after them like a dog on a t-bone.

[mmm]

18. I must agree

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Edwards doesn't take AIPAC money

nor has he been a rubber stamp for the PNAC. Yes, he voted for the war resolution, but this is a baseless accusation.

This sounds like the standard "those guys in Congress" crap we've been hearing regularly from a certain candidate; it's smearing by association.

Why don't you research this and respond?

Last I noticed, Edwards doesn't take money from ANY PACs, which puts him ethically head and shoulders above the other candidates on this particular count.

(Good speech from Clark, by the way; it's nice to have it driven in that they wanted to "do" Iraq from well before 9-11. The best version of this I've heard was Max Cleland saying that the M.O. of the administration was to "scare the pants off" the American people to be able to get their way.)

[kodi]

16. clark's got it right, & coming from a general, all the more powerful

i still am undecided but i have heard nothing from clark's mouth that causes me to disagree with him.

clark must be drivng the neo-cons crazy. they can't confront him directly as a coward or traitor as they normally do their adversaries, and he is leading with his chin on national security affairs in a way that just dares them to.

apparently, clark and his inner circle spent the last year analyzing a myriad of issues, gop attack methods and measures, and the precise rhetoric to counter them effectively.

i am impressed. clark is laying done the lines of battle and is gaining the high ground in these sorts of discussions by dismissing politics and focusing on policies.

if he keeps this up, i really don't think bush can lay a glove on this guy.

[StephNW4Clark]

19. But won't it be fun to see Bush try to debate Clark?

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db031002

Check out Doonesbury's latest...

[catforclark2004]

22. I'm salivating

and tossing and turning.....cause I've been waiting for that one for 3 doggone years.

When Clark get done debating Bush, they'll have to try and find Bush....who will be hiding behind the podium....softly whimpering, "Dick, oh, Dick, Where's my teleprompter....I was supposed to have my teleprompter or at least an earpiece".

[kodi]

25. the verbal nuke is "well, mr. president, just what war did YOU serve in?"

when bush attacks clark as weak on US defense.

in 1984 i watched jesse helms use approximately the same line to destroy jim hunt in a nc senatorial debate.

hunt never recovered and lost an election by 6% he was expected to win by 6%.

if clark uses that line against bush, bush's head will explode in anger and he will lose his cool on tv in front of 100,000,000 people.

[chenGOD]

28. Thanks for that...

good job I wasn't drinking anything, or you would have owed me a new monitor...


That was funny as hell. (don't get doonesbury over here in South Korea).

[calimary]

53. It'd be funny if it weren't probably TRUE!

The drumbeat seems to be getting louder, doesn't it?

AND, figure it this way - this story has been raging all week. On boil, not simmer. Rush comes and goes, Arnold comes and goes, but TV coverage is still on this. Yesterday with all the other crap in the news, including a reemergency of the Kobe story, they still had reports on this.

AND, if anybody noticed - the Kay report, while the rethugs were carrying on about the one shard of possibly "good" news in it - (we found lots of evidence of INTENT, but - uh - no weapons, can we have some more time and more money?) was well-covered. Not just quantity but quality. Virtually every news outlet (except FAUX, of course) covered it from the angle of "still no WMDS." Every one I saw. It's like when we complain that - buried down in the 15th paragraph is the real meat of the story that WE see, but the top two paragraphs and the headline all trumpet something pro-bush. Well, this time, it's the opposite. Those crucial first few paragraphs and the headline go right to the bad news in the Kay report.

I think things are shifting. This won't go away, it's just getting bigger. Bigger denouncements from louder voices, can't avoid those polls (that say large majorities want an independent counsel), and the investigation itself is spreading. Besides, the adversary here, to the White House is not just some liberal group. It's the CIA. The CIA is in this to win, and they'll make sure they get their pound of flesh. Because one of THEIR OWN has been hurt, this is now personal.

As they say, get out the popcorn...

AND DON'T FORGET TO CALL YOUR REPS!!!! You can add your OWN voice to this, which has become quite the pile-on!

[KittyWampus]

20. Clark Dissects PNAC In TPM From Yesterday

Basically labels the Neo-Cons as 19th c. checker players who landed on the shores of the Middle East and expecting to play hopscotch across various countires.

He also points the finger right at Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

[madaboutharry]

21. I really want to see

if he gets an opportunity to talk like this during the next debate.

[EagleEye]

24. About time someone in addition to Dean is saying this.

I still say Dean deserves the credit for being first and loudest of the major candidates. Dean showed the courage to say these things when it wasn't popular.

[MasonJar]

26. Hip! Hip! Hurray!

I believe Clark like Dean and Graham got in this race tosave America from the cabal...maybe some of the others too. How we have hoped that our Dem leaders would stand up to Stump. Clark has been very bold, saying "criminal" which we outside the beltway know to be true.

[goforit]

27. Yesssss.....Gen. Clark!!!......Thank you for stating this publically!!!

Keep delivering truth and eventually all of the GOP will
have to fess up!!!

They all are liable and I would be the first to turn them in!!!

[HootieMcBoob]

30. nice

just what needs to be said :kick:

[Stuckinthebush]

29. This Dean supporter

is liking what he's hearing from Clark.

Go get 'em General!

[neverforget]

31. Clark rocks!

Give'em hell Clark! :yourock: :bounce:

[The_Casual_Observer]

32. I don't remember that Clark had the balls

to say ANYTHING like this during his stint as news analyst on the Aaron Brown CNN show. I think it might have had a bigger impact back then. Perhaps he was fooled back then. Perhaps he should have been reading DU.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

33. Two Things

1) We didn't know back then what we know now. I know, some very righteous and infallible human beings had their strong suspicions, but that's still a big stretch from what we know now.

2) He was paid to be an analyst, and a reasonably objective one at that. Now he is a partisan. Apples and oranges.

DTH

[The_Casual_Observer]

35. We know exactly the same things now as then.

"We didn't know back then what we know now"
"He was paid to be an analyst"

The only thing that has changed is Clark. Convictions and the truth
don't have to be paid for they are offered for free.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

36. Your Initial Contention Was That Clark Was "Fooled"

While I don't believe that, that's certainly evidence that you agreed there was something to "fool" him with.

We now know there are probably no WMDs; it was uncertain, before. That's kinda huge, you know.

DTH

[sendero]

46. I wonder....

... if Clark has voiced those concerns back then how long he would have had his job or if they would have even been aired.

I remember that time and there was NO DISSENT on television, none. Don't forget the climate.

[Cappurr]

41. I watched CNN throughout the war and the build up

And Clark was on sometimes for hours at a time. Believe me, he did speak out against the war. He made it clear we shouldn't go without the UN and he also questioned the "intelligence" that suggested there were WMD in Iraq. And he said if there really were, attacking him was the surest way to force him to use them.

[Unknown Known]

34. BushCo DID twist "the facts"

The "facts" were as Joe Wilson and the CIA/DIA had reported. The "twisting" came from Cheney/Libby and OSP. And this is what Tenet was yelling about today without coming out and accusing at this time. That the blame for all these mistakes keeps getting thrown on "bad intelligence" thus blaming the CIA.

The record shows that the CIA's intelligence was good - it was the "twisting" of the intelligence (by OSP/neocons) by BushCo for their own political/economic purposes that created this total mess.

Tenet is pissed and is not going to let this die. Be on the lookout - when you actually hear about "OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS" in the media - then expect the walls of Jericho to come tumbling.

[Donna Zen]

38. Policies...just the policies

Clark wants us, you and me, to discuss the policies. He feels it is vital to our democracy. I'm not sure he sees the politics the way most of us do. Honestly.

I'm calling this election Clark 101. I've learned more about how a government works from plowing through Clark's utterings than I need to know. And yes, he did know all of this for some time. Marshall's take from his writing today revealed that he too was enlightened:

"The analogy hadn't occurred to me before. But it's extremely apt. And the backroom politicking over Iraq is something I know a bit about.

Why it stuck in my mind was that it showed not only a deep grasp of foreign policy issues but an equally canny sense of the informal and extra-governmental ways policy gets hashed out..."

But the most important aspect of what Clark is saying is found between the lines and in his writing. Clark has stated that since the end of the Cold War, the US has never developed a foreign policy. He started working, along with someone else on the JS, to formulate a new policy, but he said that the final product was never completed. So for about seven years, Clark has been thinking about that policy. If what I'm hearing in snips is part of that final product, I will fall to my knees. The other day he called for a Dept. of Foreign Aid. He has said repeatedly that our support of humanitarian needs and human rights in other countries is more effective in winning the peace than our military. "You can't win hearts and minds while you're dropping bombs on people." (WKC) He also sees a need to restructure our troops to reflect the long term requirement of peace keeping/nation building units. I believe he has been very clear in advocating a strengthening and a broadening international alliances, and creating a new structure to include the countries of the ME. One that offers the Palestinians a new means, as opposed to violence, for attaining their political goal, an independent state.

International law trumps diplomacy and diplomacy trumps force.

PNAC came in the backdoor only because we currently have no policy that can keep them out.

[DemCam]

48. Clearly stated, Donna.

Thanks

[muchacho]

42. Good for Clark.....won't vote for him

I'm glade Clarks there to take on the Bushites, but I don't think I could ever find myself voting for any person that was a recent high-ranking officer in the contemporary military.

Like not voting for any ex-CEOs, I think the culture your used to dealing with may not transfer well to governance.

[NNN0LHI]

45. You got it. Lets find a hot dog vender to run. He should be clean enough

[bicentennial_baby]

43. Kick

:kick:

[ozone_man]

44. 20/20 hindsight.

Where was Clark when there was a chance to stop this war from happening? Glad to hear him standing up to Bush now, but it's kind of late for the Iraqis.

[He loved Big Brother]

47. Good for Clark!

Every candidate should be repeating what Dean has been saying for months, seeing as how he Dean right all along. :)

[_NorCal_D_]

49. All right!

Clark has the credibility to him them where no other candidate would dare!
:bounce:

[The Magistrate]

51. An Excellent Statement By Gen. Clark

It will be a pleasure to see him campaigning next fall.

[Mari333]

54. It sure worked on the MORANS who watch FAUX

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/foxnewsgraph.bmp

[RetroLounge]

55. Way to go Governor Dean! Oh wait, you mean Clark

said this too? Oh, okay. Way to Go General!

Kudo's to Clark form this Dean Supporter. I'm glad he's saying this. It may get thru to more people in addition to the one's who've already heard Dean say this. Glad Dean has made it safe to dissent for the rest.

Now let's get the other 8 candidates to pound away on Bush, too.

and the Dems in the Senate. and the Dems in the House.

[FuseONE]

56. hmmmmmmm

A Clark/Dean ticket is looking VERY nice right now.

Clark is surprising me, kind of....he's going right for the jugular.

the only thing he said in that article that i wasn't wild about..."we need to know if we were deceived." we already KNOW we were deceived.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. Smart Play To Have a Small Out Like That, IMO

What if Bush "miraculously" uncovers WMD next October?

DTH

[RetroLounge]

58. What if Bush "miraculously" uncovers WMD next October?

Good point. Always smart to CYA...

[AndyTiedye]

59. More Likely Bush* Will Drop WMDs on Us Next October