Clark *is* the Military Industrial Complex (Wall Street Journal)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

"Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business"
Wall Street Journal today
"Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze"


CLARK IN WAR PROFITEERING BUSINESS

"In announcing his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight. ... General Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology corridor start up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business"


911 EXPLOITATION FOR PROFIT

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp...he joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information."

"'He has made efforts at putting us into contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself', says Acxiom CEO Charles Morgan."

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?

"In aiming for the White House, Gen. Clark follows a long revolving-door tradition of government officials going back and forth between the public and private sectors. For now, at least, he plans to mix business and politics. 'At this early point in the campaign, Gen. Clark will remain on his boards,' campaign advisor Mark Fabini said this week."


CORPORATE BOARDS CLARK SITS ON

Acxiom - customer databases sold to Homeland Security (Director)
Entrust - internet security (Director)
Messer-Grieshein Gmbh - industrial gas (Director)
...

CONCLUSION FROM WHOCOUNTSTHEVOTES

The WSJ questions whether or not Clark and his companies have actually made much money in these businesses, seemingly not that much. Please note that this article is NOT written by the editorial department (which has no credibility) but by the WSJ reporters (very credible). Article by Jacob M. Schlesinger and Sara Schafer in Washington and Greg Hitt in Little Rock.

All the Clark spam from the last few months about Clark being a progressive and acceptable to the left was just marketing. Clark embodies everything that is wrong with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and the corrupt crony capitalism that hires former insiders to lobby the Pentagon for contracts, in the same way Cheney has been doing with Halliburton.

This war profiteering added to the fact that Clark holds neo-liberal positions on "free/fair trade", is pro-NAFTA and seems to support the neo-liberal institutions like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank makes it clear that Clark is the furthest thing from a progressive populist.

I'm sure he's better than Bush, and perhaps he has the best shot of winning. Expect a Clark term to be slightly more liberal than Bush's.

Kucinich was right again when he talked about Clark and the "primacy of the Pentagon" - I wouldn't expect Clark to want to cut the corporate welfare out of the Pentagon budget, since he and his collaborators are trying to get on the gravy train themselves.


Edited for typos.

[madfloridian]

1. Interesting.

911 EXPLOITATION FOR PROFIT

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp...he joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information."

I believe someone here posted this before. This bothers me. It got no attention, and it should.

[RandomKoolzip]

2. With all the hubbub surrounding Clark, I'm glad to hear a dissenting

voice about him. Frankly, I've always been a bit suspicious of the ProClark people; Wesley has a contibutor to the Republicans, he's a MIC booster, etc. Is this what we want for our party, i.e. more "defense" spending? What about schools, what about preventing war and promoting peace and goodwill? What about a living wage? Or will all the govt money go to more fuckin' bombs and tanks and depleted uranium weapons?

My money's still on Dean, for what it's worth.

[Enraged American]

3. Clark can go to hell. n/t

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. What about Dean can go to hell because he is not...

all that liberal?????

[peabody71]

12. Dean never said he was.

Clark on the other hand...

[shanti]

13. how did dean come into this???

good god....this sniping disgusts me.

[Enraged American]

23. I don;t support Dean either. I support Kucinich n/t

[PROGRESSIVE1]

25. I'm SICK and tired of all of this Clark Bashing!

Who the HELL has a monopoly on anything???

Proove that Clark is some "scumbag"!!!!

He should NOT be looked at negatively just because he is a General!!!!

[Forkboy]

45. the flipside is also true

He should NOT be looked at negatively just because he is a General!!!!

Nor should he be looked upon favorably just because he is a general.Most Clark supporters,to their credit,like him for other reasons as well thankfully.

[ArkDem]

4. But it comes from

the WSJ.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. Not the editorial page, the WSJ reporters - the best in the world

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is a joke that's at the level of the NY Post - it's a completely separate division than the journalism department of the WSJ, which is one of the best in the world, and has been for many years.

If you have doubts about the truthfulness of the article I quoted from, go ahead and point out what you think is incorrect.

[ArkDem]

7. I was being sarcastic.

I agree with you.

[barbaraann]

5. If you Google for Lippo Worthen Stephens BCCI Clinton

you get some unpleasant stuff. For example:

http://www.jcs-group.com/what/confidential/lippo.html

[carpetbagger]

70. Googling Clinton=VRWC hits

Like that one.

[Demobrat]

8. This creeps me out. Don't we already have a war profiteer for president?

I look forward to seeing the Clarkies dubunk this.

[cally]

10. I'm shaking my head in disbelief!!!

Remember the guy was in the MILITARY! and was pushed out. What kind of job do you expect him to get. Open a restaurant or go out and work on what he knows.

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp...he joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information."

"'He has made efforts at putting us into contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself', says Acxiom CEO Charles Morgan."


Of course, he did. That is NOT bad. Only if it was inferior, hurt someone, or was dishonest. He also promoted alternative energy vehicles for the military. Guess what, I would do that in a flash because I know the military is the biggest buyer. If they will support alternative energy vehicles then you can develop a market and bring costs down on the vehicles, in general.


Let's compare this to the Industrial ties of other candidates. They have all had years of campaign contributions and questionable votes because of it. I am not trashing any candidate and I'm not quite sure I support Clark yet, but that he had to retire and went out and worked seems an absurd argument against him.

He's missing the 'industry' part of the military-industrial complex. I know that the Bushistas have both sides of that.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

33. Reasonable People: Read This Post

It sums up this non-issue nicely.

DTH

[AP]

34. If he really wants to be president and a Democrat, he could have

run a farm, and then run for state office, and then governor and built up a record on, oh, civil rights, like Carter did.

You know, Carter ran for office because he couldn't believe the racism in GA. That's why he's a Democrat. (Incidentally, Clinton also went into politics as a reaction the racism he witnessed in the south -- I think, during his first summer during college, he went home and was appalled by the race baiting of the Republican runing for some state-wide office. He became the driver for the Democrat in the race. I may be combining different moments, but, I believe Clinton went to the Republican's rally and after hearing him say something particularly disgusting, he went up to him and said, 'you make me ashamed to be and Arkansan' (or something like that).

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

68. I agree mostly

The article made it seem he was a pretty small player, for small high-tech companies as opposed to the giants like Bechtel or Halliburton. If he promoted alternative energy vehicles, good for him. Clark is no better, and no worse, than most of the candidates I would expect. This is certainly business as usual, and there's no way that Clark could have done it otherwise I expect. It's still crony capitalism at it's rankest, especially since it's in the military, which shouldn't be a profit center for well connected companies.

"He's missing the 'industry' part of the military-industrial complex. I know that the Bushistas have both sides of that. "

I don't think his missing the industry part, but he sure as hell isn't doing the same thing as Bush right now. But I was under the impression that Clark had some clout and power, and if he doesn't, he'll just be a puppet for the DLC - that's the job of VP, remember Lieberman?

[gratuitous]

11. It's called misdirection

Clark is a savvy enough businessman to see that the crooks in the White House were hell-bent on launching a spurious invasion, so he did some investing in companies that would profit from the war. The major difference between Clark and Cheney? Clark wasn't in a position to launch the war personally for his own gain -- he saw an investment opportunity.

Ordinarily, the Wall Street Journal applauds people who make sharp investments. I wonder what the difference could possibly be in the case of Clark that would make them call him a "profiteer"?

[oasis]

15. Good observation gratuitous...eom

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. Clark didn't make "investments" - he was hired as a lobbyist

He was hired to use his personal network of former co-workers and clout inside the Pentagon to lobby for the corporations that were paying him to.

This is the definition of crony capitalism, and yes, it's all too common.

[Waistdeep]

14. Did you quote precisely?

I don't have immediate access to the WSJ. Are the capitalized headings from the article or are they "helpful" additions --- e.g.
"CLARK IN WAR PROFITEERING BUSINESS"

Added on edit: because I am amazed that the WSJ would even admit the concept of "war profiteering" to their pages.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. I quoted from the article, the headlines are mine

obviously. All the quotes from the article are in ... QUOTES. :)

[DisgustedTX]

18. Ahh - the sweet smell of redemption.

All my dislike of the military-industrial complex combined into one tidy article about 2004's Ross Perot.

[Skwmom]

19. The Wall Street Journal

I don't suppose they'd have a hidden agenda or something.

[Forkboy]

21. Their reporters are very good

their opinion pages are shit.

[Brian Sweat]

20. Do you have a link?

Your only supposed to post 4 paragraphs and link the rest?

[RichM]

22. Excellent post -- one of the few really constructive ones on Clark.

I agree with your conclusion: "slightly more liberal than Bush" -- but not drastically or fundamentally so.

All in all, this would fit well with what one can historically expect from Democrats, who are not really all that different from Republicans. A Clark administration would probably be much less blatantly warmongering & less corrupt than Bush -- but would not represent any kind of fundamental change of direction. Rather, it would represent a temporary tactical shift by US capitalism, which rightly fears, in some quarters, that Bush's looting on their behalf may be doing more harm than good. So it would merely represent a "pause that refreshes," a way of temporarily defusing the fear & increasing hatred the US is earning in the world -- without in any way challenging or repudiating the forces that stand behind the Bush administration.

[maha]

24. DON'T TRUST what you read on WSJ.

It may be true, but dig around and confirm from other sources.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. ha ha yeah nice try maha

I selected relevant quotes from the article, in context, and added my own conclusions. If there are any factual inaccuracies in the quotes from the WSJ, PLEASE, just point them out. I dare you :)

[maha]

27. I might have time, I might not.

I know how WSJ can spin "facts" to turn truth on its head. If WSJ is your only source, I'm not biting until I see it in another source. Do you have another source?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. Are you claiming Clark isn't on these defense contractor's boards?

Are you really trying to say that the WSJ incorrectly reported the quotes from Clark's campaign, the quotes from his bosses in the defence companies? Are there *any* facts I quoted that you doubt?

You're just attacking the messenger, and believe me, I'd trust the reporters at the WSJ over some random internet poster any day. Don't believe me, spend a buck and pick up today's WSJ.

In any case, your objection is weak.

[Forkboy]

29. "I might have time, I might not."

can't get a more obvious dodge than that.

[Q]

31. My first crack at a 'candidate-bashing' thread...

- Actually...Clark isn't doing anything MOST connected politicians do as a matter of course: standard operating procedure in DC.

- What's WRONG with this is the problem of politicians using their government connections to enrich themselves and their friends in private industry. Cheney is the best example of the 'revolving door' problem between government and private corporations. In and out of government 'service'...he was hired by Halliburton...not for his expertise in the industry...but for the connections he brings with him as a 'former' high government official with knowledge of classified information not available to the general public.

- Clark seems to be a little less obvious about his lobbying for defense contractor special interests...but there's still a bit of a stink to it given his 'insider' knowledge that makes him a commodity for 'war profiteers'.

- Private industry and Government grow closer every day....with blatant favoritism and cronyism becoming the norm. Those who promise to help keep the current office holders in power or pretend not to notice their criminal acts...get the juicy contracts and favors guaranteed to swell their off-shore bank accounts beyond their wildest dreams.

- Is Clark part of this? It's hard to tell without more information.

[Skittles]

30. THE WSJ - F***ING WHORES

I wouldn't line a BIRDCAGE with that rag. F*** the WSJ. They level all this shit at Clarke while ignoring BUSH INC.?????

[Eloriel]

35. Yep, quite an, uh, "oversight" on their part, isn't it?

Even so, it doesn't make what they wrote about Clark wrong, does it?

Eloriel

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

48. Nope, they talk about Cheney and Halliburton all the time

Before the war started, they had a full page write up of the companies who were getting contracts and their connections to the administration. If either of you actually read the WSJ you would know that.

[Skittles]

62. F*** OFF

I read enough of that rag to know they are media WHORES.

Did they whore for Bush before the election or not? Did they report on all that garbage BEFORE THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN?

As far as Clark goes - if you believe everything you read then perhaps everything they said about Clinton was true too. Give me a BREAK.

[Forkboy]

64. lol

I think it's funny that you edited your post but let the fuck off stand....that's why I love ya :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

67. thanks for bringing that up

You are obviously unfamiliar, and it will be good to fill you in. The ridiculous and slanderous and false attacks on Clinton were written up in the editorial page, which has been pointed out, it basicly a separate company. The actual reporters of the WSJ and the news sections *never* printed any of that shite.

Educate yourself and pick up the paper and read the article - it was not at all anti-Clark, and they didn't say anything "bad" about him - except they did mention he hasn't made all that much money yet.

I'm sorry if you don't realize it, but the WSJ, obviously excluding the editorial page, is one of the best news sources in the world, and their reporting is top notch. They clearly reported that had a full recount been done in 2000 as the Florida court ordered, Gore would have won. And the editorial page did a great job of spinning that.

Again, the article was RATHER POSITIVE about Clark.

[madfloridian]

32. A little more on Acxiom

I had not heard of this company until lately.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/rarey/rarey5.html

SNIP...."But even this association might be covered up in these days of managed news. No, what scares Kissinger the most is the control and history of Acxiom itself. The company may be more than just a client. Mack McLarty sits on its Board of Directors, which implies some kind of investment to protect.

While the name of the company means nothing to almost all Americans, perhaps a couple of the names under which it operated earlier will generate a spark of recognition. Before it morphed into Acxiom, the company was named Alltel. Still nothing? Then how about its original name, Systematics? Now memories come flooding back of the PROMIS software scandal and those associated with it.

The powerful PROMIS software was developed by Bill Hamilton’s company Inslaw. It was virtually stolen by the U.S. Treasury Department. It was then combined with software from Systematics and farmed out to the CIA for final modification (installation of a backdoor feature)...."

[Eloriel]

37. Holy shit!

Thanks. (I think.)

Eloriel

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. i've been saying this for months here that....

"Clark will be the icing on the cake of the 'Military Industrial Complex' that Ike warned us against"...

[Tinoire]

39. Great stuff. Please post the link to save us time.

Really want to read this in full tonight. Thanks!

[Nashyra]

40. Bottom line

The Repukes are afraid that Clark can beat *. If you want to be idealistic or ultrlistic go ahead and bury your head up your asses. Maybe Clark is not liberal enough or progressive enough but he is 100 times better than the evil piece of crap sitting in the WH. The question is do we want some one who can beat * and then proceed with a more left, liberal agenda or do we want four more years of the *. My choice is Clark and when he wins the WH we can pressure him to the left. With the Rpukes in we don't move anywhere near the center or the left just further to the right. Wake up the real world is the f*&^%$# pits.

[Tinoire]

44. Scared shitless huh?

Explain to me why they're absolutely gushin over him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=363798

Reagan was also more... benign than Bush and I would prefer suffering an unasthethized root canal than to vote for him.

That bucket carries no water.

The American people are so sick of Bush that this is our best chance to vote in the most progressive candidate we have. Progressives aren't going to waste this chance just because the DLC wants to remain in charge.

[IranianDemocrat]

41. Wow the clark haters are going as far as quoting the WSJ.

What's next? Mein Kampf?

[Aidoneus]

42. are these facts untrue?

or would you just rather wish they were? :shrug:

[Forkboy]

43. Notice not a single Clark supporter has refuted anything yet

[Aidoneus]

46. noticed that too

unless condescending & dismissive arrogance now counts for "refutation"..

[grasswire]

47. no link?

No link?

If not, where did the text come from?

[Sterling]

55. unless condescending & dismissive arrogance now counts for "refutation".

It appears it does with the more right wing DUers. Just like their counterparts in the Repuke party.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. WSJ: First to report about the Binladens and Carlyle Group

The Wall Street Journal covers corporate crime better than any other newspaper around the country. The WSJ was the FIRST to report that the Binladens were in business with Bush in the Carlyle Group, the first to break the accounting scandals, the first to break the news about the mutual funds scam.

The article I quoted from was rather pro-Clark - their biggest complaint about him was that he hasn't made very much money for his companies yet.

Sorry to get in the way of your "attack the messenger because I have no retort" post though. Perhaps you should call me a GOP disruptor now, or maybe a looney-toons idealist? That would be on the same level as your post.

The truth hurts doesn't it?

[Sterling]

49. One Clark supporter has a pic of Clark in front of a tank

with the letters MIC painted on it saying” Colin they are on to us, time to march on Washington".

I pointed out the connection to him, I wonder if he has since removed it.

I wonder if most Clark supporters even know what the MIC is much less why it is not the best choice of leadership.


:shrug:

[Unknown Known]

51. This from the Whore Street Journal

The biggest pack of repuke asswipes in the world!

This is the rag that employs a woman-beater and perennial Clinton-basher on their staff -



John "I never saw a woman I didn't want to bang and bang-up" Fund

[Forkboy]

52. Yes

but what about what they say....you know,the message thingy?

[Unknown Known]

53. Funny but this rag never printed articles like this about Carlyle!

Gee, why weren't they this "investigative" about George W. Bush?

[Sterling]

56. Ehhmm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=361395&mesg_id=364451&page=

Sucks to be clark right now. I don't think it's gonna get any better.

[Unknown Known]

61. Sorry, but I don't just take people's word - show me the links please

I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. I'm just suppose to believe what you say without any evidence to back it up - yeah, right.

[Forkboy]

58. Again..that's all well and good

but will you,or can you,comment on the actual message?

[Unknown Known]

63. From what I see in this so-called "article" is basically nothing

to substantiate their claim. Example:

Their claim -

<b>CLARK IN WAR PROFITEERING BUSINESS</b>

But NOWHERE in the rest of that paragraph is there any SPECIFICS, just generalities. Namely,

<b>As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight.</b>

How?

Then this -

<b>For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business"</b>

Well, I would think so - he spent his whole adult life in the military. He must know something about it.

Don't you see that they have STATED THEIR PREMISE and then used nothing but innuendos to substantiate it - use "war profiteering" and "military business" in the same paragraph.

This is why 70% of Americans believe Saddam was involved with 9/11. The right uses these techniques of semantics and sentence structure to cloud and confuse. And they are very successful at it!

[Forkboy]

65. I agree

and I like links as well.Just hate seeing people refute anything without actually refuting anything.

[opihimoimoi]

54. These Pubs are scared shitless of Clark, he being one of the best the Dems

have to offer.

Take a hard look at the Loser in office now and compare.

Compare a loser to a winner.

need I say more

Go Clark

[Forkboy]

59. Yeah but compared to Bush I'M fit to be president

and we don't want that do we :evilgrin:

[neuvocat]

57. This IS the Wall Street Journal, you know.

It the same rag that calls people "Lucky Duckies"-something that DU cited in one of its top 10 lists of conservative idiots.

Its just good to consider the source.

[Forkboy]

60. consider the source considered

now would someone PLEASE address the post in hand.

[Generic Other]

72. In his defense, you did say he hadn't made much money?

So, he's less corrupt than your average politician.

He hasn't turned up on the board of directors at Diebold, has he?

Do you think he's being offered up as a candidate because the DLC doesn't think Lieberman can win? Is he going to get Clinton's endorsement?

[Bertrand]

66. Re: This Article

As a civilian/businessman, his duty is to sell the product he was hired to sell. If he wanted to be in the business of war profiteering, it would probably do him best to actually ADVOCATE the war.

Name me one politcian that doesnt have a conflict of interest.

[MrPrax]

69. Has anyone Googled?

WSJ, cheney and the usual suspects...
Why such candid reporting by the WSJ on a Democrat carpetbagger?

Cheney, Perle, Abrahms, Poindexter, rummy, the Bush brothers, etc etc--
Hell it would be nice if they mentioned Harken in the same detail they did Whitewater

In other words, it seems Clark is no better or worst than his opposites and much rather put his OWN people in...

But Clark bashers should watch what they say...
Entrust - internet security (Director)!!!
Yikes...!!!

[sujan]

71. ah ha

still 'Anybody but bush'?