Kucinich: 'Clark was part of Iraqi Rebuild plans in July'??!! WTF!?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

"I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July."

-----This is what Dennis Kucinich said in today's debate. I pulled it out of the transcript of today's debate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

So Wesley Clark is advising the petro-nazis on their clean-up operation?

[sasquatch]

1. He's friends with Wolfowitz, Rumsreld and Cheney

He said they're good people and that he can work with them:puke:

[JohnKleeb]

3. agh

I keep on getting more and more iffy on Clark,

[_NorCal_D_]

121. Hmmm.

The first rule of politics: Don't believe everything you hear.

Clark had since retired and was working for CNN. How could he be wholly responsible for drafting the Iraq war strategy?

[Tinoire]

125. You need only do a quick google

on all the corporations Clark was a Senior Advisor, Board member or member of during the time that he was also on CNN.

Also, no one accused him of drafting the "Iraq war strategy". I'm sure this document will pop up soon so we can examine it.

Here is the quote again but in full:

-------------------------------
Would you vote--will you vote yes or no on the $87 billion? And if the answer is no, what's the message you would send to the troops who are there today?


KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html
---------------

Current Activities
General Clark currently is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm, and serves on the Board of Directors of Messer-Griesheim, Acxiom Corporation and SIRVA Corporation. He is also Chairman of the Board of WaveCrest Laboratories, which is developing alternative fuel sources including highly-efficient electric motors for military applications and future hydrogen-fueled automobiles.
Non-profit activities
His non-profit activities include trustee of the International Crisis Group, board member of the National Endowment for Democracy and district senior advisor to the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington D.C. In 2003 he established his own non-profit, non-partisan organization, Leadership for America ((another one of those mysteriously vanishing sites but Google cache saved a copy for us here)). The organization's aim is to stimulate discussion about America and offer solutions to the challenges our country faces today.

http://www.coloradoforclark.com/Media/bio.htm

Apparently he doesn't seem to want to advertise his status with the Markle Foundation: National Security in the Information Age though he's listed as a member on their home page.

[oasis]

143. General Anthony Zinni discussed Iraqi rebuild plans on "Nightline"

with Ted Koppel. He said that it is standard proceedure for the military brass to go over "rebuilding" plans in case their is a war.

[Trek234]

150. Well no shit

You think???

Too bad Clark was no longer a General when the document was produced.

I don't blame you though. Some Clarkies STILL call him a General. This is probably because 1. They want to mislead people (which makes them as bad as repubs) or 2. They have the same delusions Bush supporters have when they see Bush as a "war hero".

[Donna Zen]

145. Really?

That's exactly the response the Limbaugh-liberals want you to have.

They are wonderful at what they do...see, I praised them.

[Skwmom]

38. I guess when you're trying to get someone to take your advice

it's better to call them an asshole.

[Zorra]

67. Really? Is there a link

to this information? If he actually said that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney are good people, I have a very, very large problem with that.

[Pastiche423]

71. Link

"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..."

Clark:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

[Zorra]

82. OMG. OMG

Those people are some of the most evil people in the world. I will never, ever vote for Clark. Up to this point, I could have blown off everything else. But not this. This is the F^<K/&g PNAC we're talking about here! The P effing N A C ! With all due respect, are you Clark supporters nuts? Do you know this? Have you been hypnotized by television or something? Please read this carefully, and then please explain to me why this does not matter to you:

"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..."

Clark:

"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark

I'm sorry, but this is really no good. These people that Clark says he likes are the people that have stolen my Democracy, are ruining my country, and have killed tens of thousands of people, including my own countrymen and women in New York on 9/11. We have plenty of good Democratic candidates to choose from. Please choose one that does not like members of the PNAC.

THE PNAC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11. THEY HAD OUR PEOPLE MURDERED SO THAT THEY COULD FOSTER THEIR EVIL AGENDA

These people are rotten. ROTTEN. The very mention of their names makes me crave Holy Water. I don't believe this. OMG

[E_Zapata]

88. Exactly. The neocons 1st tried to use Lieberman as their mole/disruptor

Clark was waiting in the wings, and joins the demo race when it beomes clear that Lieberman ain't going anywhere.

In addition, the neo-cons know that a bush re-election is a crapshoot at this point. Clark was in the wings also waiting to see if Bush could pull his ass out of the crapper.

It's the most ingenious election stealing scheme in history -- get candidates in both parties. Let's see: if the repub candidate wins, the neo-cons win. If the demo nominee wins, the neo-cons win. A voter got a bigger choice of candidates in Saddam's Iraq!

The question is: Why does the Big Dog support Clark as much as he does?

[Julien Sorel]

90. He's obviously in on it, too.

[MoonRiver]

99. ??????????????????????????

Makes perfect sense. :crazy: Place an incredibly popular general into the Dem primary race, where nobody was ahead of * in the polling. But, when Gen. Clark starts to surge ahead of, not only the other candidates, but *, turn around 180 degrees, and start bashing Clark in the rightwing media.

So, summarizing: first they promote Clark, who can probably easily defeat *; then they proceed to trash him (just for jollies, perhaps). :tinfoilhat:

I can hardly believe the things I'm reading on this board anymore.

[KoKo]

135. Saywhat......think about what you said again.....is it that unbelievable??

If you take Clinton out of it......is what you said believable? I don't think Clinton supports Clark as much as people here say....He's a fellow Arkansan .......that's what I think the Clinton connection is....but even if I'm wrong....doesn't it make perfect sense to have Clark in there.....have the RW and Media bash him...(which will make him more popular with Dems (they think that because when Dean was bashed he got more money....so they think bashing Clark might work the same way). Clark gets Dems defending him......moves to the front of the pack......and guess what.....???

They get a Repug lite in the White House. Much easier for them than if Clark had run as a Repug against Bush.

Look.....at this point I believe the Repugs would pull every trick in the book.....so we need to keep in mind.....it's possible......but we will have to wait and see how it all shakes out.

[_NorCal_D_]

122. Yes, let us all

put on our tinfoil hats.

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

That's better :)

[Zorra]

93. Aaaargh......

how deep does it go, bubba? lol

It's the most ingenious election stealing scheme in history -- get candidates in both parties. Let's see: if the repub candidate wins, the neo-cons win. If the demo nominee wins, the neo-cons win.

We have to elect an uncompromised dem, that's the bottom line. No alternatives.

Check out this quote from Subcomandante Marcos, a really intelligent man.

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[Mairead]

104. "Why does the Big Dog support Clark"

It took me awhile before it really sunk in, but it finally did: Clinton is not our friend. Clinton is a Republican.

I think your 'most ingenious election-stealing scheme in history' is right on. How can anyone possibly beat 'head I win, tails you lose'?

[_NorCal_D_]

123. Clinton is a Republican now?

Oh boy, this tops the conspiracy theories!

I suppose the years of constant right-wing assaults against Clinton were nothing but a charade?

[Mairead]

149. Yes, I suppose he still is. He certainly was during his time as President

If you can't see that, then I'd guess you're under 35.

As to the constant right-wing assaults...funny that none of them amounted to more than theater, isn't it? Nice, distracting theater.

[_NorCal_D_]

155. I would hardly call

attempts to impeach Clinton 'theater'.
:eyes:

[Mairead]

157. Okay. But I would -- they had no grounds for doing it at all

[Zuni]

108. I think you need to calm down

Of course Clark knows some of these people. They might be very nice people in person. That doesn't mean that Clark is their ideological twin or in on any of their schemes.

[maha]

114. I agree; the hysterics are playing into Karl Rove's hands.

My conspiracy theory du jour is that everyone on DU posting anti-Clark messages is a Karl Rove stooge. So there.

[diamondsoul]

133. Take a deep breath and drink some holy water if you must!

You're panicking over something that is likely not a good reason to have a heart attack.

Certainly Clark considers these people generally "good" people. It's what he has had to do for decades. What you don't understand is the politicking involved in military service. He still thinks that way because that was his career, for the most part. He's politicking, just like he did when he was an Army Officer, because it's the most expedient way to get things done. That's one of the first things a smart military member learns, how to play that political game.

It's the same principle as "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.", you be nice as much as you can even if you think the person is the most vile creature ever to grace the earth. It's not quite making friends with the enemy so much as it's making them consider YOU a friend. When done properly, you can pull concessions where people would have thought it impossible because the opponent knows they can't refuse to concede without making themselves look horrid.

It's a strategy, period. Clark is an excellent strategist, and that's what we're seeing right now.

[Trek234]

151. "please explain to me why this does not matter to you"

Remember some Clarkies are "republicans for Clark" which make up a fair amount of his supporters. That could explain it a bit.

Also some people honestly don't give a damn about PNAC. As long as someone other than Bush is doing it then it's A-OK.

[ObaMania]

97. If I was running for prez..

.. I'd think that would be part of my strategery to bring swing voters to my camp. Wolfie, Rummy, and MIA Cheney can be good people, but you don't have to agree with their policies!

And on the helping draft a plan. He's a decorated General and former Supreme Commander of an occupation for crying out loud! We shouldn't speculate on what his part was in this. But it would be stupid to assume that they wouldn't want to go to him for input.

JMO, of course!

:pals:

[Must_B_Free]

2. So?

So what if Clark is a Military Industrial puppet put up by the evil cabal, at least he can win!

Won't victory be sweet?!?
:shrug:

[revcarol]

5. Yeah, until

it turns to ashes in our mouths.

And then we will say," Why didn't we see...?" and "If only I had voted my principles instead of electability..!!"

[Eloriel]

6. Yeah. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

But it's a really intelligent, smooth, former military kinda fire. You'll like it. He's a real leader. And he can beat Bush.

Eloriel

[eileen_d]

8. n/t

n/t

[diamondsoul]

10. No, they were confirmed with a single

statement by Congressman Dennis Kucinich on national television with no effort to rebut or refute it's accuracy by General Clark. I watched it with my own eyes. Congressman Kucinich has not spoken a falsehood once through this entire campaign, nor to my knowledge at any time. I trust his word, plain and simple.

Does it turn me completely against General Clark? Not at all because I've built too much respect for him for a single thing to demolish it that quickly. What it does do is make me wonder about his positions and why he felt compelled to involve himself in any way in a war he supposedly did not approve of.

Yes, I still think he's an excellent Presidential candidate, although I have to admit I'm not sure he's in very good form at this point.

[JohnKleeb]

14. Youre a fair person diamond thats why I like and respect you

I am very partisan honestly but I do try to be fair.

[eileen_d]

15. I'm glad you have that much faith in your candidate

I edited the post you replied to delete it, BTW.

I am curious when this document was prepared and what the nature of the content was.

[JohnKleeb]

18. She as I said is quite a fair person diamond is

I have a large amount of faith in Dennis Kucinich too, many suggest that people who dont like Clark are anti military leftists. I am a leftist but I am not anti military, one of my heroes was a soldier and thats how he died, I love the GI bill, and I wish more could be done to help and honor the vets. I also support increasing military salary. Its the amazing amount of weapons we spend money on that makes me confused and for DoD cutting.

[eileen_d]

20. i have no problem with anyone's "fairness"

I deleted the post that suggested otherwise, it was just a snarky moment. I would just like to know a little more about the document, that is all.

[diamondsoul]

23. We all have our snarky moments.

Obviously I'm a little defensive of Kucinich, and on the isue of honesty very strongly so. When I first found myself interested in him, I seriously hunted for evidence that he's not quite as honest as he appears. I have yet to find any.

I'm right there with you about that document now, though, and I suspect that's precisely what Kucinich wanted to cause. He wants people to ask about it because he thinks we should know about it. Let's see if the press was paying any attention.

[eileen_d]

24. I'm with you there

Sorry again for being snarky. I am undecided but like Clark, and since he's just entered there are lots of attempts to discredit him, so I'm probably a bit defensive too. At least this time it's Kucinich and not Drudge bringing it up. I hope the facts do come out. Thanks

[w13rd0]

30. Wellstone...a "leftist"...

...cosponsored many veterans bills with Cleland I understand. The right is the benefactor of a misperception that says because they support massive pork projects for large military contractors (like Halliburton), they are "pro-military". That's nonsense, they have no love for the "troops", and they are "pro-waste" and "pro-death" and that's about it...

[JohnKleeb]

32. Russ Feingold is big on vets issues too

Remember w13 it was our Democratic party who supported the GI Bill and it was then almost respectable GOP who opposed it. In fact many leftists are committed to veterans issues, I know I am, I think about how we should honor and help them, make sure the troops are paid fairly, and try to avoid war so pain let it be internal or external doesnt happen to people. FDR's greatest quote is I hate war imo.

[lostnfound]

59. and soldiers should not be exposed to DU (depleted Uranium),

nor injected with poisons, nor lied to by recruiters, nor charged for food while in the hospital, nor dishonored by coverups about the nature of their death, nor left untrained to 'nationbuild' and occupy a hostile population, nor punished for reasonable free speech about their conditions, nor encouraged to torture captives, nor forced to pay for their own basic equipment, NOR LED BY INCOMPETENT CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP WITHOUT A PLAN.

[JohnKleeb]

61. yep

I couldnt say all of lost but you nailed it.

[kiahzero]

28. I don't think it's an issue of honesty

I don't think it's an issue of honesty: rather, it's a question of what wasn't said. As fun as sound bites are, the nuance is often far more clarifying.

I won't categorically say that Gen. Clark wouldn't contribute like that, and honestly, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if he had. He reminds me of Biden in that he's willing to work with the government in power to try and influence it to do the right thing, rather than simply oppose.

Note that I'm not criticizing Kucinich, since I like a lot of his stands. I just happen to support Gen. Clark, for a myriad of reasons.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

12. Y'know, I tried to temper my misgivings after WPitt's plea for ABB ...

and recognizing the moth-to-a-uniform-flame problem of a population in fear. But I can't buy into Wesley any more...nope. Evil friends and blood on his hands...pfeh!

[Zorra]

39. LOL

The 11th ticket:puke:McCain/Snowe, Democrats in 2004! ?

[seventhson]

4. A Link is Necessary...

I's like to see it.


I would suspect the MPRI are involved too...!

[revcarol]

7. MPRI? WHAAAT is that?

Sorry, have been off line for a couple of weeks.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

9. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

...from transcript of today's debate...

[eileen_d]

11. I'd like to know a couple of things

What was the content of the document and
When was it written (the quote says "released in July")

Edit: And a third thing: does being the author of a document on postwar reconstruction make Clark complicit with the Bush administration agenda? (This is related to the "content of the document" question)

Just a stickler for facts here...

[carpetbagger]

35. I'd like to know who the co-authors are.

It sounds like he's saying what a majority of democratic candidates for president are saying, and what they said before the war. The thing will be costly, it'll take a long time, and once we get stuck in it we'll have to keep in there until we can get some stable government in place.

We broke it, we bought it. We've left the Iraqis to anarchy and warlordism after each "victory". We've taken over their country. We need to fix it to at least the point where they have some working government that can keep law and order to a reasonable degree while respecting human rights to some reasonable degree. Once a democratic president takes office, this should start to happen. The UN would be more than happy to take over the political functions, leaving us with more of a South Korea type presence, with occasional police and military work. This should taper off.

[Karmadillo]

13. Kucinich dares to speak the truth again. One more reason not to vote

for him, I guess.

[JohnKleeb]

16. You mean one reason to throw him off as unelectable

For me its one more reason to be proud to support Kucinich and be happy I made my choice in him.

[Zorra]

44. Truth in Government?

What a novel idea. Sorry, it's unelectable.

:dem: Kucinich

[JohnKleeb]

47. shocker huh lol

[_NorCal_D_]

124. I would think that Kucinich

has credibility, however after I believe this accusation, I want to see some hard proof.

Maybe he can get it on his website?

:shrug:

[Must_B_Free]

17. just saw it!

and they showed Wes Clark smirking back after he said it!

[JohnKleeb]

19. what the hell is that

Well I got my millionith reason to like Kucinich. *takes note* Kucinich rocks.

[Myra]

21. I wanted Clark to respond to that

Still do.
But he didn't.
I would like to understand exactly what the heck
Kucinich was talking about since I respect him,
and then hear Clark's version. I don't think the General
should have let that charge hang out there unrebutted.
And I hope he gets more forceful as he enters his
10th and 11th and subsequent days in politics.

Ok General, please explain yourself and be less vague.
And Congressman Kucinich, please keep being you.
You're real good at it.

[diamondsoul]

26. Here's my prediction

IF people start asking about that document, General Clark will announce "While I didn't agree with the premise of the war itself, I believe my first duty is to the troops serving in Iraq, once they have been ordered into combat. For that reason I felt my experience and expertise were a valuable contribution towards bringing as many of them home alive as possible."

And it will fly because people will like the sound of it.(plus it may well be the truth of his thoughts) For me it's another source of disappointment in him at this moment.

[Nottingham]

22. I think Kucinich just wants to let the facts be shown!

Clark has a bunch of baggage on him!

Kucinich has nothing to lose bringing out the facts! :bounce:

[JohnKleeb]

25. DK fights hard as anyone

He brings up to what is to many unknown or seldom mentioned yet very important. Let us reward this man, let us give him a chance, and let us have him be our president.

[Zorra]

52. Kucinich probably knows

a lot about Clark. "Congressman Kucinich is the Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee
on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations. ..."

:dem: Kucinich

[Julien Sorel]

27. Talk about a loaded question

So Wesley Clark is advising the petro-nazis on their clean-up operation?

This is another non-issue that will be used by the anti-Clarkites to 'prove' that Clark is a PNACer in disguise. He apparently co-authored a paper (which no one here has read), that says, basically, that we need to stay in Iraq until the country is rebuilt. Excepting Kucinich, whose 2% support is evidence of how popular his position is on this issue, I believe that is the position all the candidates have taken.

That evil, evil man. Let's see all the rest of them attacked for taking the exact same position, now.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. Why Should They?

After all, Clark is the only Republican in disguise. I mean, he said nice things about Republicans once, and I hear he even voted for some of them between one and two decades ago. QED.

DTH

[Zorra]

54. Yeah, and he

worked for Paul O'Neill in a Reptilican White House during the Ford Administration too.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. Horrors!

I cannot believe a general would actually dare work for a Republican over 25 years ago! This is unspeakable. Have you notified the press yet?

DTH

[Zorra]

63. No, I

read it in the press. Don't worry, Clark will be the next President. It's a lock.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

64. That War Criminal? Hah!

OK, I think I've had my fun with this. ;-) Thanks for playing along!

DTH

[MoonRiver]

101. I recall a lot of *'s fascist gang having gotten Senate confirmationss.

It really is a global plot. The fact that Pigboy is smearing and bashing Clark with all his might must just be an attempt to throw us off the trail. :eyes:

[no name no slogan]

131. And I heard Clark talkin' smack about yo mamma, too

That's the beauty of a non-politicized military: you can (and have) to work with presidents from ALL parties. Just because you work with them does not necessarily mean you agree with them all the time...

:)

[diamondsoul]

33. Billy, Please don't do that to us.

Kucinich brought out something he thought people should know, period.

Now, having said that, I AM disturbed that General Clark involved himself in that mess at all, just as I'm disturbed that any of the candidates voted in favor of the IWR. The difference is that Kucinich brought out a policy difference between himself and General Clark. At no time did he ever say Clark had acted in any way inappropriately or somehow underhandedly. The point was he didn't agree with that position and since Clark had a hand in writing that paper, he should have been presenting it as his position on the Iraq mess. We don't know that he isn't, but apparently Kucinich thinks there is something about that document people should know before we head for the polling booth. I trust Kucinich to show me what I need to know.

I likewise trust General Clark to conduct himself honorably. That's what I've seen him do in the past and I hope he'll continue that way. I believe he will. I'm not tearing him up over this, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't throw poll numbers out just to upset Kucinich supporters who may or may not have anything to do with the thread or subject.

To rebut the "popularity" of Kucinich's position, who cares? Popular isn't always right, and Kucinich is absolutely right in this instance. General Clark is not going to accept that the United States Military cannot and will not achieve its objective in Iraq, and I percieve that as a weakness among several of the candidates. Kucinich stands alone in stating the facts.

[JohnKleeb]

37. popularity aint everything

The fact that Kucinich stands for what is right is good enough for me to support him, I dont play by old school rules that if youre popular youre better. It does upset me a bit but you know fuck the polls my support for Kucinich aint guided by money or by poll standing but my heart, knowing and thinking about what we can do and the great heroes of the past, men like FDR, RFK, and Paul Wellstone among many others.

[Julien Sorel]

53. In an election, in a democracy period, popularity is

everything. These are not black and white issues here, but issues of judgment and values. Under those circumstances, 'popularity' is the ultimate arbiter. By the way, pointing out that this is a fringe issue had a very good point: the Clark bashing that goes on here is almost always on non-issues. That Clark co-authored this paper is an irrelevancy -- in fact, it would probably help him, since it reinforces his credentials as an expert on rebuilding. But here, it becomes a 'troubling development.'

Unless this paper said a lot more than Kucinich let on, it was a cheap shot by a candidate watching his campaign go down in flames, who wants to take someone else with him. Some of the people on this thread were talking about how this somehow reinforced their love for Kucinich; personally I found it to be a cowardly act. He could have made his 'point' without referring to this paper, but he had to try to get a dig in at Clark with the extremists.

By the way, whenever I hear people here use the term 'troubling development,' it reminds me of when Bush and his gang were beating the war drums. Remember that? No matter what news came out of Iraq, there would be one of the administration hacks on air spinning it into a 'deeply troubling development.' It was obvious that there was no news coming out of Iraq that would please the administration; similarly, there is no information about Clark's past that won't be spun into a 'troubling development' that needs further investigation. 'Clark uses double ply toilet paper!' 'Wow. that's a troubling development. Does he have a deep disrespect for the environment and trees? I think we need to look into this a little more deeply. I'm concerned about this.'

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[JohnOneillsMemory]

41. "a paper no one here has read...that says basically..." Notice YOUR bias?

Hey, I'm asking serious questions that I want answers to because my bias, admittedly, is that if you rise to the rank of general in the US military, you've necessarily been involved with directly or complicitly with some ugly ugly shit.

WHY? Because if you study the policies of the US gov't and military of the last 50 years, you find a consistent record of suppression of democracy through terrorist tactics and the infliction of devastating and merciless military power. EVEN UNDER CLINTON, HIS BUDDY. SORRY TO SAY. EVEN CARTER GOT HIS HANDS BLOODY.

Sorry if that sounds like what Tom Delay calls 'blame America first hate-speech.' I've read enough Noam Chomsky, Michel Collon, and CIA tell-alls to know this.

General Wesley Clark must prove to me that he is not a war criminal as he was charged by legal groups, not Miloslavic, and that he doesn't have old or new blood on his hands.

You obviously start from the position that he is innocent until proven guilty. I have the opposite view because of the historical context stated above.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Psst! He's Already Submitted to Trial and Was Cleared!

Next canard, please?

DTH, Who Is Sick of Anti-Military Bigots

[JohnKleeb]

45. I am not anti military

[DoveTurnedHawk]

46. I Was Not Talking To You

:-)

DTH

[JohnKleeb]

48. I know why some people dont like Clark and it aint got a thing to do

with the military. Well a bit but its not the direct cause. Trust me I havent got a problem with people in the military, youve been here a while DTH right maybe even longer than me than maybe you may remember my sig. I have mentioned the tale of my cousin Mike Strank who was a flag raiser on Iwo Jima and who later died.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. Umm, John, Please Read Post #41, Which I Was Referring To

It's quite clear that poster has a problem with the military.

DTH

[JohnKleeb]

57. da I see

Ive seen this label used on people before but thanks DTH, being fair to me thats good.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

58. I Always Try to Be Fair

Except to the irredeemable anti-Clarkers, of course. ;-)

DTH

[JohnKleeb]

60. thanks

. Thanks though, I try my best too its hard believe me.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

65. Cleared? Doesn't mean innocent, sorry. I'm against the policies, not the

military people. I understand why you might think that sounds like bigotry. I spend hours a day researching the policies and actions of the US gov't and my criticisms are based on the accrued knowledge. I find it sad that so many people with a strong sense of civic duty and morality put their lives on the line in the armed services without realizing that the government they are serving lies to them about why they are sent in to battle. It may sound like knee-jerk leftist rhetoric BUT: the policies of the US gov't have ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS been to protect corporate interests. Not the sentimental and noble platitudes we are indoctrinated with as toddlers and schoolchildren. Do the research. It will make you outraged at the lies and slaughter. Ask General Anthony Zinni who just gave a speech to a professional officer's club denouncing this Iraq war as the same clusterfuck of lies that he endured in the infanty during Vietnam.

[Zorra]

66. Well said.....

does anyone doubt this?

[Zuni]

110. I disagree

The US government has protected corporate interests, but many times the conflicts and policies go far beyond that. It sounds like your reasearch is limited to chomsky, Zinn etc.

[lostnfound]

70. Perhaps Clark fans could share their thoughts on the MIC thread?

I am genuinely hoping for some thoughtful replies on the military industrial complex thread from the Wesley Clark fans like you and BillyBunter. I genuinely believe that a general can sometimes be the most anti-war person around; and I do see that Wesley Clark has many good qualities.

In discussing the 'military industrial complex', we are not discussing soldiers -- who, I believe, should be treated very well and respected -- but rather, the profit-and-power structures which underlie our war machine and our weapons industry -- like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, UT Sikorsky, Carlyle, etc.

So I would like to know how deep of a problem do you see the MIC as being? (Do you think that Ike was wrong to warn us of it?) And if you see it as a serious problem, what are the consequences, and what will it take to make a change?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

84. Got a link to support that?

When and where was the trial held, what was Clark charged with, and where was he incarcerated while awaiting trial?

I know that he was part of charges brought before the ICTY, who basically said they refused to even investigate the charges, but wher and when was he actually brought to trial?

[Zuni]

109. exactly

He is clean as a whistle.

[Julien Sorel]

62. This is not the best reasoning.

Let's re-create it:

The military does some bad things. Clark was in the military. Therefore, Clark has done some bad things. Therefore, Clark is guilty of this bad thing, even though we don't know that it was a bad thing.

Sound a little weak? It should -- but that's your argument. You're saying Clark has to prove to you that he isn't a war criminal -- what does that have to do with this paper about reconstruction in post-war Iraq???

[JohnOneillsMemory]

69. There were war crimes committed in Kosovo under Clark, 'cleared' or not.

That is the first point.

Secondly, the US military (comprised of selfless and civic-minded people who are lied to about their mission) serves an amoral oilagarchy that is as amoral as Halliburton and always has been despite the propaganda we are raised with.

Put these two points together and THAT IS MY CRITICISM. Not 'anti-military bigotry,' which is something Tom Delay uses to whip Dems with as 'unpatriotic.'

I hope this makes more sense to you, I'm trying to be clearer.

[Julien Sorel]

73. What does this have to do with this paper

Clark is alleged to be co-author of? The connection seems to be lacking.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

75. One can infer that Clark has secretly been advising on the occupation.

This is bad because:

1)Until Kucinich publicly outed him, this was secret.
2)This is an illegal war with tens of thousands of innocent victims.
3)The financial cost is devastating the US economy.
3)The aftermath cost in dollars and lives is being lied about.
4)Clark is therefore working with the BFEE on damage control as an insider with a cabal of PNAC petro-nazis.

Does that seem logical?

[Julien Sorel]

79. I'm still unsure of some things.

I want to make completely sure that I understand you. Please tell me if I have your argument straight:

Clark was in the military. The military is sometimes guilty of war crimes. Clark co-authored a paper having to do with the reconstruction of Iraq. Because Clark was in the military, then, we can conclude that A) Clark's co-authoring of this paper is somehow indicative of evil; and B) Clark is somehow responsible for 'lies' being told about the reconstruction. Moreover, also because Clark was in the military, he has to prove that he isn't guilty of participating in some sort of 'coverup.'

Is that what you're saying, more or less?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

81. Sorry, I'm watching ColinPowell on Letterman lying. Now...

"I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July."

-----This is what Dennis Kucinich said in today's debate. I pulled it out of the transcript of today's debate.

I reprint what Kucinich said. He said that Clark (who first said he'd probably vote for the Iraq war and than flipped in a heartbeat) signed a security document that the petro-nazis are giving to congress telling them that they should sign on to a 5 year occupation costing a quarter of a trillion dollars. Clark just announced as a Dem candidate and blew everyone else off the map. DOES THIS SOUND KOSHER?? OR DOES THIS SOUND LIKE SHADY WTF COLLUSION??

[Julien Sorel]

83. A complete non-answer.

I'm going to assume, then, that my post above this one was a correct summary of your position and leave it at that.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

87. Clark secretly advises congress accept 5yr $245billion occupation??

That is a non-answer? This means nothing to you? That he did this in secret before announcing his candidacy while the illegal Iraq war is the single biggest issue the Dems are in contention against the BFEE?!
Respectfully, I think you have rose-tinted glasses about ole Wesley rather than me having a tin-foil hat over my eyes. But thanks for the dialogue, citizen. I do try to see past my own biases and reach for more info. and I sure want a whole lot more here as I hope you do, too.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

85. When was he "cleared"?

I have seen the report where the ICTY refused to investigate, but I don't remember there being any trial or investigation that "cleared" him.

Perhaps you have a link that might show me when this trial was.

[FDRrocks]

92. NON ISSUE?!?!

How is this not an issue? Does it not matter who gets in office, as long as they SAY they are a Democrat.

[Must_B_Free]

29. KUCINICH: 245 BILLION DOLLAR BOMBSHELL!!!

$87 BILLION IS THE FIRST INSTALLMENT

[Skwmom]

36. Under International Law

Once you go in and occupy a country, you become responsible for taking care of it. What are we supposed to do - pull out - leave the country in a mess and then make it a hotbed for terrorists groups.

Look how long we've been in Bosnia.

[Dr Fate]

40. Shall we ABANDON Iraq like Bush Sr. did Afghanistan?...

..creating a breeding ground for the likes of Bin Laden?...

...I have a feeling the Clark Plan would go better than either of the Bush plans...

I like Kusinich- but we cannot pull out of Iraq. Atleast a DEM president will be able to get much more international support...

[JohnKleeb]

42. what if more and more troops die

I know this is well meaning.

[Dr Fate]

49. Less US troops wil die if we have a REAL coalition...

...I agree with what Kerry has been saying- we can go to the UN, use diplomacy, and get rid of the perception that we are an occupation force...Bush cannot and will not do this- a good DEM can and will...

I really would like to help Iraq, but Bush has screwed things up so badly...he did it the wrong way- LIES, arm twisting, coalition -wrecking, media spin...We could have dealt with Saddam in a better manner- like how most DEMS and the UN wanted to...

It looks like DEMS are going to have to fix this mess- I do believe that abandoning Iraq would be similar to what Bush Sr. did in Afghanistan- and look what happened there...

[JohnKleeb]

55. I dunno

I would like to help them too I really would. I dunno it may be hard to get rid of that perception.

[lostnfound]

72. and like Bush Jr., too, who has certainly abandoned the Afghans

though not the pipelines, of course.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

86. This is a lie.

Afghanistan wasn't a breeding ground for Bin Laden AFTER the US abandoned it, Bin Laden was bred by the CIA DURING it's powerplay in Afghanistan.

When the CIA pulled out, so did Bin Laden, who returned to Saudi Arabia. It was after Saudi Arabia kicked him out that he returned to Afghanistan.

Still, no point in letting the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[BattyDem]

51. You know ...

I really want to like this guy, but the more I learn about him, the more uneasy I become. :-( I'm not talking about the flame bait that's been posted or the ridiculous rumors going around, I'm talking about the stuff that actually turns out to be true - and the fact that he still hasn't made it clear where he stands on the issues.

I know he's been trashed because he voted for Reagan, he used to be a Republican, and other silly little things that occurred ages ago. Any one of those things is minor ... a non-issue. But when you put all those things together, it's a bit unnerving.

I agree with diamondsoul - not only am I disturbed about Clark getting involved in the Iraq mess, I'm disturbed with all the candidates who voted to go to war and give Bush* a blank check. I feel like they sold us out!

About Kucinich's remark: I'd like to know what the document actually said and when it was written. I want to like Clark and I don't want to write the guy off because of one or two things that bother me, but as these things add up, they're becoming harder to ignore. I really wish he was "out there" more, you know? Doing interviews, making himself known, clarifying his positions, etc. I know he's only been in the race a week and I'm willing to cut him some slack. I just hope he "reveals" himself soon.

[diamondsoul]

68. In Clark's defense, as I predict upthread

he himself will tell us,

He didn't involve himself until troops were already on the ground and being killed. I've witnessed General Clark as a Commander, and he's a first rate leader in my experience. One of the reasons he IS so good at leadership is that he puts his personnel first. I'm not at all shocked that he would lend his experience to writing up a strategy intended (at least by him) to keep as many of our soldiers alive as possible. I suspect my own misgivings are more a result of the depth of my hatred for Bush and his administration than anything about General Clark himself.

My frustraton now is knowing there is something about that document Kucinich wants the public to know, period. I don't care what the reason is, HE thinks it's important to the people and I trust him for that.

[BattyDem]

74. Exactly ... Kucinich thinks we should know

and that's what bothers me. Kucinich is just like Wellstone - a man of the people. He does what's right ... not what's right for his political career. I trust him and since he thought it was important enough to mention, I'd like to know more.

Now that you mention it, I think I'm nervous about Clark advising the Bush* Administration because of the way I feel about them. Anyone who's even the slightest bit connected to them makes me uneasy, but I know that's not fair because there are some good people who are trying to make things better and since Bush* is the pResident, he's the guy they have to work with. :-(

I do hope Clark will explain the situation. As I said before, I really do want to like him.

[JohnKleeb]

76. Thats why we support him Batty

Hes a man of the people, I admire Wellstone and he is one of my big heroes. In fact DK grew up very poor, yet heres a nice fact for you put himself through college and ran for city council at 21 he didnt win but a year or so later he won again, and he was a councilman until 1977 when he became mayor of Cleveland. I wont tell the energy crisis story: long story short DK made an unpopular yet in the end right decision. People didnt realize it until the early 90's when DK came back as a state senator. In 1996 he became a congressman. I am also told that DK lives a modest life style.

[FDRrocks]

77. The support of Clark

to me, and don't flame, since I am entitled to my opinion, is that that some Democrats just don't care who gets in. It could be Colin Powell with a D before his name.

I don't like Clark. I also don't like Dean. I love Mosley-Braun and Kucinich. But MAN, run Dean at the worst. Fuck Clark. He will put a D before his name and prance around. It doesn't matter that we have a person we can call a Democrat in office. What he stands for matters.

And Clarks integrity seems to be null. B/T this and the whole "I would be republican if Rove called me" deal, I would support a cantaloupe with a flag painted on it over Clark.

[JohnKleeb]

78. hey man I wanna talk to you online for a sec than head to bed

I didnt know you liked Mosley-Braun. Shes a good one. I wont flame you I understand your concerns.

[FDRrocks]

80. Yo I went on at 3:11

you werent there. talk to you... later today! lol

[Padraig18]

100. You're right!

Clark is a committed 'lifer' who has shown time and time again that he cares about the TROOPS, and I have no problem with it if he gave advice to BushCo that was intended to keep those same troops as well-supported and safe as possible.

[diamondsoul]

132. I have one single problem withit, and it has nothing

to do with Clark's integrity, it's purely about military thinking.

As a military commander and strategist, General Clark has been conditioned that American forces can never back down from an objective, period. We MUST ALWAYS complete the objective, in his mind. I understand this, and in most cases where the military is concerned I would likely agree with it.

In THIS specific instance, I can NOT agree with that mindset. It is absolutely and utterly impossible for the United States Military to complete the objectives set forth for Iraq without unredeemable cost to the American people. I respect General Clark, and I believe I understand his reasons for involving himself in this situation, however, I wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment and plan for the future of our forces and Iraq.

The ONLY way the objectives set forth for Iraq will ever occur at this point is if the United States relinquishes all control over Iraq and the rebuilding efforts to the United Nations, and supplies funding for the endeavor as needed. We MUST remove our forces from Iraqi soil or peace will NEVER happen. The only candidate who seems to realize this is Dennis Kucinich.

Here's the thing about military thinking, you're trained to think in terms of acceptable losses, but surrender is never an option. Military people think in terms of "enemy" and "friendly". Enemy=bad people, friendly=good people, only the trouble is, what appears to be an "enemy" at first glance may not be a true enemy at all. What many people who support remaining in Iraq do not comprehend is that the attacks against our military are NOT coming just from Saddam loyalists anymore. A lot of these attacks now are coming from average Iraqi citizens who are outraged over what has been done to them and their country. They didn't start out hating American troops, but they most assuredly hate them now, and with good reason. Too many of us forget to consider what we might be driven to do if we were in these peoples' places. I know what I would do, and I know what these people are feeling right now. I'd be attacking the invading forces myself. Like it or not, that's what we are now, "invaders".

Until we get the HELL off Iraqi soil, we will remain "invaders" to these people, no ifs ands or buts. Clark will not ever admit that and withdraw. It simply isn't in his mind to admit defeat of American forces objectives, he doesn't know HOW to accept that.

[IndianaGreen]

89. We already know, thanks to video tape, that Clark liked Bush in 2001

Matt Drudge turned out to be right after all! The infamous quote in which Clark gave a glowing tribute to Condi Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush, was shown on MSNBC in all its glory tonight courtesy of the RNC. No doubt about what Clark was saying this time!

Clark may be the Democrat's George W. Bush. Like Bush in 1999-2000, Clark was annointed as the candidate for the Establishment in order to stop the insurgent campaign of Howard Dean. Dean is cast as our John McCain. The Establishment Democrats will do whatever it takes to derail Dean.

Now we have Kucinich disclosing that Clark was part of the PNAC colonial plans for post-Saddam Iraq, while last night, the Clarkjungen in DU was openly bragging that Clark could draw enough Republicans, Reagan Democrats, and independents into the Democratic party to more than offset the liberal wing of the party.

I don't think any of us should lend any support to the Clarkjungen's efforts to turn the Democratic Party into a Repucrat party.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Jose Diablo]

154. Kucinich is telling us something

You are right Indiana.

I was kind of hoping Clark could fill the VP ticket to round-out Kucinich as president. Security will be an issue in the election.

But the more I hear, the more I become troubled by what I percieve about Clark.

It would not be well, to have a *Bush lite anyplace in power after 04.

And the idea that our own democratic DLC may have planted a pro PNAC *Bush lite, sounds plausable. Does the PNAC agenda cross party lines? I think yes.

It is not enough to dump *Bush, the neocon/PNAC agenda must be stopped.

For now, all I need to know is I support Kucinich.

You know, sometimes its hard to know what to do. Voting is a big responsibility.

[quinnox]

94. I would like more information

before making a judgment. What was this paper exactly - was it a blueprint, a plan, a proposal or what, and what exactly was Clark's part in it?

I agree this is significant, but I would like more info. Maybe the press can do their job for once, and follow up. Or maybe Clark will explain. But he has to be asked the question, maybe in the next debate.

[IndianaGreen]

95. Kucinich may be wrong here!

General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

Kucinich may be wrong in here! If Dennis is referring to the Iraq’s Post-Conflict Reconstruction Plan prepared by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in July, he may have mistaken William Clark for Wesley Clark. William Clark is a Senior Adviser for CSIS, but he is not one of the authors of the report.

Here is some info on CSIS:

CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, formerly deputy secretary of defense, who has been president and CEO since April 2000. It is guided by a board of trustees chaired by former senator Sam Nunn and consisting of prominent individuals from both the public and private sectors.

http://csis.org/about/index.htm

William Clark, Jr.

Senior Adviser

Expertise: Political, economic, and security affairs in Asia

William Clark, assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs (1992-1993), joined CSIS in August 1993 and was Japan Chair until 1995. Clark, now president of the Japan Society, continues his affiliation with CSIS as senior adviser on Asia with a focus on India. He has held many senior diplomatic positions, including ambassador to India (1989-1992), principal deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs (1986-1989), deputy chief of mission and chargé d'affaires in Cairo (1985-1986), and deputy chief of mission in Tokyo (1981-1985). His government service has been recognized by the President's Distinguished Service Award (1985), the Department of State Distinguished Honor Award (1989), and the Department of State Charles E. Cobb Award as the leading promoter of U.S. business interests abroad (1992). Clark is a graduate of San Jose State University and the National War College. He holds a honorary Doctor of Letters from San Jose, 1992. He speaks Japanese.

http://csis.org/html/4clark.htm

Here is part of the report:

Foreword

At the request of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, I led a team of experts in the field of post-conflict reconstruction to Iraq from June 26 to July 7, 2003 to assess the reconstruction efforts there. The other members of my team were Frederick D. Barton, Co-Director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at CSIS; Dr. Robert C. Orr, the Director of the Washington
office of the Council on Foreign Relations; Dr. Johanna Mendelson-Forman, a Senior Program Officer at the United Nations Foundation; and Bathsheba N. Crocker, a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow
at CSIS. The attached report synthesizes the issues we focused on during our 11 days in Iraq.

http://www.csis.org/isp/pcr/IraqTrip.pdf

[GeronimoSkull]

96. Wesley Clark is a senior advisor of CSIS as well

But I seriously doubt Kucinich is going to confuse him with someone else, or that Clark wouldn't correct him if he did.

[Tinoire]

98. GEN. WESLEY CLARK JOINS CSIS - Senior Advisor

I honestly trust Kucinich not to make a mistake about who authored that document. Just want to point out that both Clarks are on the CSIS and Wesley is actually more senior than William.

CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (CSIS) is another neo-con organization, which released a long analysis of terrorism in December. Foreign terrorists are described as those who "resent pre-eminent U.S. power and/or have disdain for the West".


CSIS Press Release July 10, 2000

GEN. WESLEY CLARK JOINS CSIS
Former Supreme Allied Commander Named Distinguished Adviser

WASHINGTON, July 10, 2000 — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who commanded the first major combat operation in NATO history, was named today a distinguished senior adviser at CSIS.

Clark, Supreme Allied Commander Europe from July 10, 1997, until May 3, 2000, will work with the Center across the full range of its programs, concentrating particularly on international security. Clark was in overall command of NATO’s military forces in Europe and led approximately 75,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations participating in ongoing operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. In 1999, Clark commanded the alliance’s military response to the Kosovo crisis –Operation Allied Force.

Clark also was head of the U.S. European Command, responsible for all U.S. military activities in 89 countries and territories covering more than 13 million square miles of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East and involving approximately 109,000 U.S. troops.

Clark served as commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to July 1997, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible for most U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. From April 1994 to June 1996, he was the staff officer responsible for global politico-military affairs and U.S. military strategic planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also led the military negotiations for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton.

Clark graduated first in his 1966 class at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He holds a master’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools.

Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards), Distinguished Service Medal (two awards), Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards). In addition, Clark received more than 20 major military awards from foreign governments, including honorary knighthoods from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands as well as the Commander of the Legion of Honor from France.

“Wes Clark combines extraordinary skill as a soldier and military strategist with vast experience in public policy and distinguished scholarship. We are fortunate to have the benefit of his association with the Center. He will be a great asset to CSIS as we engage the foreign and security policy agenda facing the nation in the new century,” said CSIS president and CEO John Hamre.

http://www.csis.org/press/pr00_42.html

CSIS Advisory Board

The Advisory Board is composed of both public and private sector policymakers, including 11 members of Congress. The Board is co chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills.

Corporate Officers

John J. Hamre, President and CEO
Robin Niblett, Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning
Erik R. Peterson, Senior Vice President and Director of Studies Program Greg Broaddus, Vice President for Operations, Treasurer
Jay Farrar, Vice President External Affairs
Judy L. Harbaugh, Vice President for Development

Counselors

CSIS Counselors are world-class strategists who have formerly held top-level government posts. They bring to the Center an extensive reserve of expertise and experience.

William E. Brock
Harold Brown
Zbigniew Brzezinski
William S. Cohen
Richard Fairbanks
Henry A. Kissinger
Sam Nunn
James R. Schlesinger
Brent Scowcroft

Senior Advisers

Senior advisers and associates are an integral part of the CSIS family. They provide substantive counsel and input on the full range of Center projects.

Distinguished Senior Scholars

Fred C. Iklé (in residence)
John Kornblum
Bernard Lewis

Distinguished Senior Advisers

Wesley Clark
Anthony Zinni

Senior Advisers

J. Carter Beese
Arnaud de Borchgrave
Charles Bowman
M. Stanton H. Burnett
Richard R. Burt
William Clark, Jr.
Diana Lady Dougan
Luis E. Giusti
Ernest Graves
Amos A. Jordan
Max M. Kampelman
Robert H. Kupperman
David McCurdy
Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty (special counselor)
The Duke of Westminster


Lagniappe:

"NEOCONSERVATIVES" - WHAT AND WHO THEY ARE

<snip>

"Neoconservatives" are mostly former leftists/liberals who converted to conservatism during the '70's and when Ronald Reagan became President. In domestic policy they tend to be moderate "welfare" Republicans. However, their major concern is foreign policy. They strongly favor US military interventions overseas and becoming the world’s policeman. They promoted the First Iraq War and are constantly the instigators for more confrontation with Iraq, Iran, the Sudan, and other Moslem states. They were among the chief instigators of the Kosovo War.

"Neocons" almost never explain reasons for terrorists' hatred towards America, because that would bring questions about the "costs" of having a world empire. So they "explain" terrorists as just "crazies" who enjoy killing people, just because they oppose freedom and American values. Typical is Washington's neo-con CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, which released a long analysis of terrorism in December. Foreign terrorists are simply described as those who “resent pre-eminent U.S. power and/or have disdain for the West.”

<snip>

Neoconservatives are the dominant force over establishment Republicans in Congress (although here again Kosovo weakened them a bit) and in most of the major conservative think tanks. Their main base among think tanks is the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE ( a policy paper in January, 2001, urges American attacks on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Gaza. Others are the HERITAGE FOUNDATION (see more below--modified after Kosovo), ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER, and BROOKINGS INSTITUTION. Of the large think tanks only the CATO INSTITUTE and LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE actively oppose their positions. The Kosovo disaster caused HERITAGE to pull back from its former strongly interventionist positions, e.g. favoring NATO expansion. "Neo-con" power comes from their knowledge and political credentials in matters of foreign affairs (European, not 3rd World or Asian) and because of their influence over the giant Foundations (Bradley, Olin, Scaife) which provide major funding for pro-interventionist think tanks. Also some gain major financial support from many weapons manufacturers. The NEW YORK TIMES reported recently how such industries were a major factor promoting NATO expansion to East Europe and then paying for the recent NATO anniversary celebrations in Washington. There are billions to be made in outfitting weapons for new NATO members, and they'll want Washington to lend/pay for it.

The old military industrial complex is now called the MICE, military/industrial/congressional establishment. This was particularly evident during the bombing of Serbia when freshmen and sophomore Republican congressmen were mainly in opposition, while all the old Senate Republican Committee Chairmen supported it.

"Neocons" are the brains of the "War Party." They are well organized, very well-financed, and very focused. Their members know what they want---American Empire, Cold War level military spending, lots of new weapons, and a globalist policing mission that would project American military power deep into Asia and all points in between.

<snip>

http://www.iconservative.com/neoconservatives.htm


Public Speaker
A highly sought public speaker, General Clark appears before groups as diverse as the American Enterprise Institute and Federalist Society, to corporations, to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
http://www.coloradoforclark.com/Media/bio.htm

I already posted a ton of stuff about Clark's associations with many neo-con organizations. The prime one is the Markle Foundation which is a big time fan of Homeland Security and "fighting terrorism" and is the sister organization of the Brookings Institute (with its co-signers of the PNAC plan), parent organization of the Israeli neo-con Likudnik Saban Center Also not to forget Clark's association with Jackson Stephens and the fact that he sits on the board of Acxiom:

Acxiom’s stake in terror war under fire
Little Rock’s Acxiom Corp. has spent most of the two years since the attacks of Sept. 11 looking for government contracts to help fight the war on terror. It has found the contracts. Now it has a fight on its hands. The data-management company is involved in a growing dispute over the release of information on millions of airline passengers to a Defense Department contractor last year.

Acxiom sold that contractor demographic data on roughly 2 million airline passengers — about 40 percent of those involved — as part of its role in the war on terror.

As a result it now faces criticism from a Washington, D. C., privacy rights group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

<snip>

Wesley Clark, an Acxiom board member and now a presidential front-runner for the Democratic Party, had lobbied for the company, according to those reports, in the areas of "information transfers, airline security and homeland security issues."

<snip>

Calls to Clark’s campaign staff were not returned Tuesday.

<snip>
In the past, the company has claimed to have information on 96 percent of U.S. households.

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_business.php?storyid=42585

Interested people should start googling away before opening the gates of Troy. IMO, Wesley Clark is PNAC through and through. The boys in charge right now are NOT going to cede power easily and I hope people aren't naive enough to believe that they're above having a back-up plan with a Trojan Horse within the Democratic Party. I seriously think it's Clark and will have no part of him. There is too much information out there about this man and concerned Dems who love our country and our Party need to start scrutinizing this "unknown" very closely. If he passes your test of scrutiny- fine, but he has failed mine more miserably than any of the other candidates.

The war, aka "Humanitarian Intervention" in Kosovo was step one of PNAC's plan to destabilize Asia and the Middle East.

Prepare for your sons to be drafted as people like Clark cavalierly talk about the "endless occupation" of Iraq with its huge costs in money and human lives.

"We're the envy of the whole world but we are trapped in a jobless economy and an endless occupation and that is the problem we have to address," Clark said.

"I'm running for president because this country needs leadership. It needs honest leadership, it needs visionary leadership, it needs leadership with experience," he said to cheers from the crowd.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32052-2003Sep18?language=printer
----

The Military Industrial Complex at its best. I can not and will not support this. Kucinich has been fighting this his entire political career and, like you, I am proud to help him in this fight. We are fighting noit only for the soul of the Democratic Party but for our country and for world peace!

Here's some guy who voted for Reagan for crying out loud and praises him, sits on the board of some neo-con organizations, comes as a shiny bright General pushing Homeland Security, ready to "save us" from Islamic terrorism (and ourselves I guess) and is being shoved down our throats by the DLC now that Lieberman has been totally exposed and who tells us he liked his PNAC colleagues and would be happy to work with them again. When? Under his administration? No thank you. I am unfortunately willing to bend to a known DLCer like John Kerry who enabled Bush but was at least a proven social progressive but I will not, in good consicence, stoop to an unknown entity with all this baggage. I won't help hand the keys of the Presidency of the United States to someone with no track record we can scrutinize and who has such disconcerting associations.

Peace

[FubarFly]

103. As always, thanks for the info Tinoire

Clark is part of the MIC, and as such some of his associations are bound to be shady. That doesn't make him shady. If Clark was fighting from the inside, he could have more sway than someone with less influence fighting from the outside. This information raises a red flag, but in no part is it conclusive of bad bahaviour on Clark's part. There is nothing here outside the realm of innuendo; there is no direct connection proving Clark is a proponent of PNAC policies or plans. I don't believe we should be afraid of Clark simply because he was working with neo-cons- wary, yes.

Yes he worked for Acxiom, but what did he do for them?
Yes he spoke to the AEI, but what did he say?
Yes he wrote a post-war analysis about Iraq, but for what purpose?

The ability to beat b*sh is not in and of itself enough.
As recent polls show, ANY Dem can potentially beat b*sh.

However to ignore or prematurely dismiss the unique potential of Wesley Clark is wrong also.

More scrutiny is certainly needed.

[Tinoire]

106. I respect you for that

I respect anyone who searches and scrutinizes without burying their head in the sand.

I can't answer your questions now because I am dead tired but you and anyone else who cares should google and make up your own mind. I'm not out to steal anyone's vote for the candidates I prefer... This isn't about that. I am frankly very worried about Clark. I worked with these guys when I was in the military and Clark was no angel nor was he the "liberal" his supporters are spinning him as.

As a General, there was a lot Clark could have done to implement a few liberal policies for the troops. Colonels with less authority than he had did so. Anyway, thanks for your post. Peace

[FubarFly]

113. To be honest, there are things that worry me also.

And I won't hide from the truth of what I find. Good or bad.

It's interesting that Dean supporters get hammered for mistakingly supporting a centrist in liberal clothing. Whereas most Dean supporters I've encountered know he's a centrist.

I wonder how many Clark supporters will be dissapointed when they find out Clark isn't a true liberal either?

[Tinoire]

116. I would hope,

if this happens, that all of them would be dissapointed otherwise I would be very disheartened- as dis-heartened as I am with people who, despite all evidence to the contrary, cling to their initial belief that Dean is a liberal.

I have the utmost respect for Liberals supporting Dean who admit that he's no Liberal but that for x,y, or z reason they support him. I can buy that. I just can't buy head burying or people who knowingly, willingly, pass on propaganda.

A fight for the soul of the Democratic party and for our country...

Just re-watching the debates now. I am so glad Kucinich brought this up.

Peace

[CWebster]

105. Damn

and here is the tragedy---the only thing that impresses these gung-ho Clark troopers is that he has a silver star and he will show up Smirk for his hero role-playing on the aircraft carrier.

As if what the idiot boy aspires to act out in his Reaganesque fantasies of military glory and bravado is the level the Democrats should compete with him on--and the same time they are unwilling and too naive to realize what a dangerous undercurrent there is beneath the General's shiny stars.

What the General's candidacy will accomplish--as indicated on this site, is a potential rift in party unity if those, who recognize the significance of these dark connections, are unwilling to play the ABB game.

[Tinoire]

117. That's my fear also

A huge rift in the party over this. I don't believe that people who got out and protested these wars are going to roll over on this one.

Bush is just one head of the Hyrda. The entire MIC/PNAC apparatus must be opposed if we want America to get out of this.

IMO, this is 10 times more dangerous for the Democratic party than Nader in 2000.

[LWolf]

152. You've nailed this one, CWebster.

Clark makes me uneasy enough that I don't know if I personally can manage the ABB game with him. And I'm a lot more determined to hold my nose for the eventual winner than the rest of the folks I've been working with...independents and 3rd party people coming into the fold to defeat *.

[Zuni]

112. Kosovo as a PNAC plan

I do not buy it. The area destabilized itself. it would have been worse to not intervene, as there is at least some stability there now.

[Tinoire]

118. Read the British papers on Yugoslavia

the area was already rocked but the ultimate destabhilization came from us. We went in there, once again with our good Anglo-empire friends- the British, without UN approval and totally destabilized the region.

We called it "humanitarian intervention" to cover what we were really doing. Please read up about it. Please consult the DU archives where people were discussing this before it became an issue for the 2004 Presidential race and when we had no bones to pick.

[Zuni]

139. the Ultimate destabilization

started in the early 1990s when Croatia seceded, and the Serbs attacked. Then Bosnia seceded, and the Serb militias went on a rampage.

The NATO campaign ended years of destabilization caused by a severe vaccuum in turned caused by the collapse of an authoritarian government.

But the hatreds that fueled the conflict go back hundreds of years, to the wars between Slav and Turk.

This region is one of the most volatile anywhere in the world. It was the scene of the conflict that led to WWI, a scene of major carnage in WWII and in general the scene of hundreds of years of the most brutal ethnic conflicts.

I believe that if NATO did nothing, the situation would have been worse. The Serbs stepped up their 'ethnic cleansing' campaign in response to NATO, but NATO stopped it altogether. The NATO victory also helped the Serbian people remove the government from power shortly afterward.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

134. Not just 'that nutty Ramsey Clark.' IAC has a lot right. Worth a look...

WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FINDS U.S. AND NATO GUILTY

Posted: 6/12/00

Final Judgement
Findings
Recommendations
Schedule and Presentations (full texts)
Judges
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm
Prosecutor team

A panel of 16 judges from 11 countries at a people¡¦s tribunal meeting in New York June 10 before 500 people found U.S. and NATO political and military leaders guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia in the March 24-June 10, 1999 assault on that country.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the lead prosecutor at the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes Against Yugoslavia, urged those present and those they represented from the 21 countries participating to carry out a sentence of organizing a campaign to abolish the NATO military pact.

Ben Dupuy, former ambassador from Haiti, Rev. Kiyul Chung of Korea, and auto worker Martha Grevatt, who heads the AFL-CIO¡¦s organization Pride at Work, read the three parts of the verdict (included with this release).

Participants taking the witness stand included eye-witnesses, researchers who visited Yugoslavia, renowned political and economics analysts, historians, physicists, biologists, military experts, journalists and lay researchers. (A list of all the judges, and the witnesses and their topics is included with this release.)

Many of these witnesses have in the past 15 months presented to audiences worldwide a complete picture of the war NATO waged against Yugoslavia. For the tribunal, however, all limited themselves to a single area of expertise that made up a single part of the evidence against the political and military leaders of the United States and the other NATO countries.

Taken together, the judges decided, each single part contributed to construct a proof that beyond a reasonable doubt proved the guilt of the accused, just as the proper placing of single tiles can build a mosaic.

The witnesses described how NATO forces used the media to spread lies to demonize the Serbs and their leadership in order to prepare public opinion to prepare for war. Then they showed the real economic and geopolitical interests of the imperialist powers--the U.S. and Western Europe¡Xin seizing economic control of the area from the Balkans to the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

Finally they demonstrated how Washington rigged the ¡§Racak massacre¡¨ and then used the so-called Rambouillet accord¡Xin reality an ultimatum demanding NATO's military control of all of Yugoslavia--to provoke the war. Taken together this all proved a crime against peace.

They also showed the use of illegal weapons, the purposeful choice of civilian targets and the destruction of the environment and the civilian infrastructure that add up to war crimes. And the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people from Kosovo and Metohija that prove crimes against humanity.

The witnesses¡¦ presentations were accompanied in many cases by slides and videos displayed on a large screen on the stage of the auditorium at Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Manhattan. This screen was easily visible both to the judges, who sat on the stage, and to the hundreds in the audience, many of whom stayed throughout the nine-hour day.

In addition, pictures and videos were on display in the hall outside the auditorium, and documentary evidence was offered in books or in research papers.

The International Action Center, founded by Clark in 1992, organized this final session of the tribunal. There were also participants by those who had organized similar tribunal hearings in Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Greece, where thousands declared U.S. President Clinton a war criminal last November in Athens.

In addition to the witnesses, there were also important guest presentations from representatives of the governments Yugoslavia and Cuba. In addition, Ismael Guadalupe from Vieques, Puerto Rico showed in a powerful speech how the practice runs against his small island laid the basis for U.S./NATO aggression around the world.

According to the IAC organizers, total registration, including justices, witnesses and staff was 511. Invited speakers, witnesses and judges came from Haiti, Spain, Turkey, Korea, Puerto Rico, India, Germany, United States, Canada, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Britain, Belgium, Iraq, Greece, Austria, France, and Portugal. The U.S. government refused visas to four people from Ukraine, whose message was read from the stage.

There were also representatives of the Roma people¡Xoften referred to by the derisive term "gypsy." Shani Rifati, a Roma witness who was born in Pristina, capital of Kosovo, told how NATO occupation has led to the expulsion of 100,000 Romas. He pointed out that the verdict condemned the persecution of Roma people, the first time this has happened in any international tribunal.

Five different television crews taped the entire proceedings, including Serbian television and a three-camera crew from Australia, as well as alternate media sources in the U.S. like the Peoples Video Network.

FINAL JUDGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY TO INVESTIGATE U.S./NATO WAR CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF YUGOSLAVIA

Final Judgement

The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia, meeting in New York, having considered the Initial Charges and Complaint of the Commission dated July 31, 1999 against President William J. Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Massimo D¡¦Alema, Prime Minister Jose Maria Azmar, the Governments of the United States and the other NATO member states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO leaders, and Others with nineteen separate Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other international agreements and customary international law;

Having the right and obligation as citizens of the world to sit in judgement regarding violations of international humanitarian law;

Having heard the testimony from Commissions of Inquiry and Tribunals held within their own countries during the past year and having received reports from numerous other Commission hearings which recite the evidence there gathered;

Having been provided with documentary evidence, eyewitness statements, photos, videotapes, special reports, expert analyses and summaries of evidence available to the Commission;

Having access to all evidence, knowledge and expert opinion in the Commission files or available to the Commission staff;

Having been provided by the Commission, or otherwise obtained, various books, articles and other written materials on various aspects of events and conditions in Yugoslavia and other countries in the Balkans, and in the military and arms establishments;

Having considered newspaper coverage, magazine and periodical reports, special publications, TV, radio and other media coverage and public statements by the accused, other public officials and public materials;

Having heard the presentations of the Commission of Inquiry in public hearing on June 10, 2000, and the testimony, evidence and summaries there presented;

And having met, considered and deliberated with each other and with Commission staff and having considered all the evidence that is relevant to the nineteen charges of criminal conduct alleged in the Initial Complaint, make the following findings:

Findings

The Members of the International War Crimes Tribunal find the accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen separate crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt. These are:

1. Planning and Executing the Dismemberment, Segregation and Impoverishment of Yugoslavia.

2. Inflicting, Inciting and Enhancing Violence Between and Among Muslims and Slavs.

3. Disrupting Efforts to Maintain Unity, Peace and Stability in Yugoslavia.

4. Destroying the Peace-Making Role of the United Nations.

5. Using NATO for Military Aggression Against, and Occupation of, Non-Compliant Poor Countries.

6. Killing and Injuring a Defenseless Population throughout Yugoslavia.

7. Planning, Announcing and Executing Attacks Intended to Assassinate the Head of Government, Other Government Leaders and Selected Civilians in Yugoslavia.

8. Destroying and Damaging Economic, Social, Cultural, Medical, Diplomatic -- including the Embassy of the People¡¦s Republic of China and other embassies -- and Religious Resources, Properties and Facilities throughout Yugoslavia. 9 Attacking Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population of Yugoslavia.

10. Attacking Facilities Containing Dangerous Substances and Forces.

11. Using Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs and Other Prohibited Weapons.

12. Waging War on the Environment.

13. Imposing Sanctions through the United Nations that are a Genocidal Crime Against Humanity.

14. Creating an Illegal Ad-Hoc Criminal Tribunal to Destroy and Demonize the Serbian Leadership. The Illegitimacy of this Tribunal is Further Demonstrated by Its Failure to Bring Any Case Regarding the Oppression of the Romani People, Who Have Suffered the Highest Rate of Casualties of Any People in the Region.

15. Using Controlled International Media to Create and Maintain Support for the U.S. Assault and to Demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs, Serbs and Muslims as Genocidal Murderers.

16. Establishing the Long-Term Military Occupation of Strategic Parts of Yugoslavia by NATO Forces.

17. Attempting to Destroy the Sovereignty, Right to Self-Determination, Democracy and Culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Roma and Other People¡¦s of Yugoslavia.

18. Seeking to Establish U.S. Domination and Control of Yugoslavia and to Exploit Its People and Resources.

19. Using the Means of Military Force and Economic Coercion in Order to Achieve U.S. Domination.

The Members hold NATO, the NATO states and their leaders accountable for their criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in the strongest possible terms. The Members condemn the NATO bombardments, denounce the international crimes and violations of international humanitarian law committed by the armed attack and through other means such as economic sanctions. NATO has acted lawlessly and has attempted to abolish international law.

Recommendations

The Members urge the immediate revocation of all embargoes, sanctions and penalties against Yugoslavia because they constitute a continuing crime against humanity. The Members call for the immediate end to the NATO occupation of all Yugoslav territory, the removal of all NATO and U.S. bases and forces from the Balkans region, and the cessation of overt and covert operations, including the ¡§International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia¡¨ in the Hague, aimed at overthrowing the government of Yugoslavia.

The Members further call for full reparations to be paid to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for death, injury, economic and environmental damage resulting from the NATO bombing, economic sanctions and blockades. Further, other states in the region which have suffered economic and environmental damage due to the NATO bombing and economic sanctions on Yugoslavia must also be awarded reparations. The Members condemn the threat or use of military technology against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the NATO powers against the people of Yugoslavia.

The Members urge public action and mobilization to stop new and continued sanctions and aggressions by the U.S. and other NATO powers against Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Puerto Rico, Asia, Sudan, Colombia and other countries. We ask for the immediate cessation of overt/covert activities by the U.S. and NATO in such countries.

The Members believe that the interests of peace, justice and human progress require the abolition of NATO, which has proved itself beyond any doubt to be an instrument of aggression for the dominant, colonizing powers, particularly the United States. The Pentagon, the central and key element of NATO and the greatest single threat to the people of the world, must be disbanded.

The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent preservation of the reports, evidence and materials gathered to make them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest possible distribution of the truth about the U.S./NATO war on Yugoslavia.

We urge all people of the world to act on recommendations developed by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social justice on which lasting peace must be based.

Done in New York this 10th day of June, 2000



LIST OF 16 JUDGES

1. Ben Dupuy--Haiti--Former Ambassador at Large for Haiti under the first government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and currently secretary general of the Popular National Party (PPN) of Haiti.

2. Angeles Maestro Martin--Spain--Elected member of Spanish parliament from Madrid and a leader in the movement to end sanctions against Iraq .

3. Cimile Cakir --Turkey; journalist for newspaper serving Kurdish community and member of Turkish Human Rights Association. Imprisoned four years in Turkey for human rights activity..

4. Rev. Kiyul Chung--Korea--Rev. Ki Yul Chung, chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Congress for Korean Unification in North America.

5. John Nickels--Roma--U.S. representative of the International Romani Union and also a judge in the Romani community in the U.S.

6. Jorge Farinacci--Puerto Rico--leader of the Socialist Front of Puerto Rico and a long-time leader of the independence movement in Puerto Rico.

7. Ray Laforest--Haitian-American--labor unionist in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a leader of the Haitian Coalition for Justice, an organization that fights police brutality in New York.

8. Uma Kutwal -originally from India, Uma Kutwal is president of Local 375 of the Civil Service Technical Union District Council 37 of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

9. Dr. Christa Anders--Germany--doctor of medicine and an organizer of the German/European Tribunal.

10. Raniero La Valle--Italy--Former senator who has served 14 years in the Italian parliament and an anti-war leader in Catholic circles and spokesperson for the Italian War Crimes Tribunal movement.

11. Dr. Wolfgang Richter--Germany--Chairperson of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity and a leader of the War Crimes Tribunal movement in Germany.

12. Martha Grevatt--United States--National Secretary of the AFL-CIO for Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans Labor Organization called Pride at Work, and active in the United Auto Workers.

13. Michael Ratner--United States--Civil Rights Attorney on the National Board of the Center for Constitutional Rights and he took the U.S. government to court for violating the War Powers Act in its undeclared war against Yugoslavia.

14. Yole Stanesic--Yugoslavia, Russia--Montenegrin poet and writer living in Russia, member of the tribunals in Yaroslav, Kiev and Belgrade.

15. John Black--United States--retired President of the Health and Hospital Workers Union in Pennsylvania, responsible for bringing many thousands of hospital workers into the union. As a teenager in Germany he was active in the anti-Nazi underground resistance.

16. Dr. Berta Joubert--Puerto Rico--psychiatrist working in public health and organizer of Puerto Rican and African American anti-racist activities in Philadelphia.

The Prosecutor team:

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and founder of the International Action Center.

Pat Chin--originally from Jamaica, International Action Center spokesperson for solidarity with Haiti and Yugoslavia and other issues.

Sara Flounders, International Action Center national co-director, participant in numerous tribunal hearings.

Gloria La Riva, a leader of the Peace for Cuba Committee, producer of video NATO Targets.

All were in Yugoslavia either during the war or participating in seminars or meetings after the war. „h „h Short opening remarks by Ramsey Clark, who will be lead prosecutor. „h Opening greetings from Mikhail Kuznetsov of the International Peoples Tribunal organized from Russia and Ukraine and other former Soviet countries.

[Zuni]

140. All extremists of the worst kind

and most of these people are well known stalinists, and would oppose anything America does. I have heard of several of these people or orginizations they come from. I do not trust any of these jurors or prosecutors, because they are probably from an extremist stripe.
Sara Flounders and Gloria La Riva are well known Stalinists.
Ramsey Clark is well known as 'the war criminal's best friend' after defending Nazi concentration camp guards, A Rwandan priest who helped militia slaughter his congregation, Lyndon larouche, Slobodan Milosevic and many others. He has been known to have personal visits to see Saddam Hussein, who he said had great courage. He has hung out with many other dictators.


I, personally would never trust the judgement of anything associated with the extreme stalinists in the IAC, or most of the fringe organizations associated with them here.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

142. Rather than Ramsey and 'stalinists,' what about the NATO acts in Yug.?

I'm wondering about defending Milosovic myself. I'll look into it further. My initial reaction is this might be along the lines of a hit-man being vilified by bigger murderers to hide their complicity, rather like the Bushes and Saddam or Noreiga. Just a model of inquiry to look into.

You've mentioned 'stalinists' often to discredit quite a range of players on the world stage. This seems to be your model for outright dismissal of anyone's credibility. I'm hearing you dismiss lots of people who are interested in social justice and stopping imperialism as somehow being supporters of massive deathcamps. It sounds kinda Red Scare-ish. Would you care to expand on this? I'm genuinely interested in your view, not trying to put words in your mouth.

[Zuni]

144. The IAC is run by

known stalinists in the WWP (workers world party). The IAC people are pro-Saddam, saw no evil in Yugoslavia, send delegations to hang out with the North korean apparatchiks etc. They write glowing propaganda when they get back.

Basically, they are generally pro-dictator, as long as the dictator is in some sort of conflict with America.

[Zuni]

146. I do not think anyone here is interested in social justice

These guys supported the Serbs during the conflict (they held rallies for them with Serbian ultra-nationalists and went there as guests of the Serbian government), they honestly were actually pro-Saddam, they are pro-North Korea.
Most of the non-stalinists are crackpots from the loony fringes of the left or extreme right. The tinfoil hat brigades.

You don't look at that and see that it is a hatchet job? You do not see how utterly stupid some of their charges are (waging war on the environment. Pretending Serbs were genocidal etc.)
The 'jury' were hand picked comrades from shady organizations--like the Pro-North Korean propaganda group etc. Of course the IAC was going to find them guilty.

Of course the Serbs did not do anything. The IAC sees no evil, hears no evil unless it involves the US or Israel.
They are shameless syncophants and are the prime example of the pro-dictator left, which I call 'Stalinist'.

Basically, they will support any dictator, any terrorist if they are anti-western enough.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

115. Yikes. Thanks for a great dossier on Clark, Tinoire.

That hammers it shut for me. Although I do want to hear more from both Kucinich and Clark...grrr.

[sangh0]

127. Tinoire, please read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=409074#410449

[Tinoire]

129. Thanks but not enough

Kissinger and Brzezinski are also on there. I am not judging Clark based on one thing or one association but on the whole. Will continue this later... Gotta go work


The "Clash of Civilizations" theory, developed by Harvard professor-turned President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and his protégés, including Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington, defined the Arab and Islamic world as an "arc of crisis" from the Middle East to the Islamic countries of Central Asia in the then-Soviet Union. Brzezinski wanted to use the "Islamic card" against the Soviet Union, and in so doing, began the policy of promoting Islamic fundamentalists against moderate and pro-Western Arab and Islamic governments. After the end of the Cold War, the Brzezinski/Huntington crowd updated their "arc of crisis," declaring that the Islamic religion is the enemy, in a new war in which religions, rather than political systems, inevitably battle each other. However, trained by British and U.S. special intelligence services and the CIA, and armed by Israeli military networks, the very terrorist drug-runners in the Islamic world who were launched by Brzezinski and "adopted" by the Iran-Contra networks run by Lt. Col. Oliver North, under the elder George Bush's Executive Order 12333, have become the main suspects in terrorist attacks against the United States.

http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000012.html

Two of the most prominent critics of the Bush doctrine are former national security advisors Brent Scowcroft, who served under President George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski*, who served under President Jimmy Carter. An open policy of preemptive war, Scowcroft told the media, "tends to leave the door open to others who want to claim the same right. By making it public, we also tend to add to the world's perception that we are arrogant and unilateral." Brzezinski echoed a similar theme, saying, "Our doctrine of preemption may encourage others to preempt their neighbors, thereby legitimating increasingly indiscriminate use of power."

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/guides/?article=USMilitaryBushDoctrine

[nolabels]

141. I am angry, I heard David Corn wax poetic on General Clark

Mr.Corn said he believes Clark when he says he is a liberal. Mr.Corn said he was spun right out socialist cloth from the US Military. Then to hear people banti the name of Henry kissinger around Ret. Gen. Clark like they are some how connected and know each other. This is such a terrible thing to do

Kissinger & BCCI spells BUSH & 9-11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=377323

What You Need To Know About Wesley Clark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=226326

Btw I really am that stupid

[NNN0LHI]

102. So what the final word here? Are Sam Nunn and Clark both neo-cons or what?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Don

[Zuni]

107. He advised Bush not to 'cut and run'

and accept responsibility for Iraq? Sounds like the proper thing to do to me.
Face it, we are not going to get alot of help from the UN, so we are left to take care of the mess.
I do not want to see them cut and run on Iraq and abandon it. If we invaded, we are responsible for what happens now.

[revcarol]

128. Heard DK in Santa Fe on this cut-and-run business.

He said that the UN could get a big enough force to do all the policing in very short order, and that "some" U. S. troops should remain UNDER U. N. COMMAND. He said, "We broke it, now we have to fix it," BUT under the U. N.

AND Iraqis should decide who gets the oil contracts and at what price.
YOWEE, is that why he is getting no press coverage?

AND contracts for rebuilding should be paid for by us, and awarded by the UN(Bet Bush dirtied his britches on that one!!) AND Iraqis should be involved: they have fine engineers, have been running their own piplines and refineries for years.(Did you see those beautiful buildings before the bombing?)

Get the troops out as soon as the U. N. has assembled its peace-maintenance force.

(Just written to clarify in case some were under the impression that DK wanted to ABANDON Iraq to chaos!!HE WANTS THE OPPOSITE- a chance for Iraq to again be a vital country not subject to the tender mercies of its invaders...)

[returnable]

130. Clark has repeatedly...

...advocated the participation of our allies in Iraq. But there ain't much he can do about it on the outside, can he? He doesn't set the policies!

And until the U.N. actually gets involved with the rebuilding of Iraq, don't you think the US should at least have a plan in place?

Or would you prefer they just wing it?

:shrug:

[Zuni]

147. I can understand that

I would like to see more International cooperation in Iraq.

[Cocoa]

111. at some point, Clark should share his positions with us, too

Kucinich is clearly for pulling the troops out, and Carol Braun is clearly for NOT cutting and running.

Clark apparently has a very clear position on this, and apparently he has shared it with the administration but not with the voters.

It's still fairly early, but I'm a little concerned that Clark may turn out to be the type of politician that feels it's none of our business what his views are.

[Julien Sorel]

136. He has already stated that he

supports staying in Iraq until it is cleared up -- numerous times.

[GeronimoSkull]

119. Thanks for the heads-up, Dennis

and thanks for posting this, JOM

[JohnOneillsMemory]

120. US policy always PNAC-like, only more so now and visible.

This country became NaziAmerika in 1945 when it literally took in many Nazis to form an anti-Soviet intelligence agency and develop Cold War policies and tactics. This country has been an oligarchy from it's founding built on the power of terror and death, genocide and slavery. Rich white men taking what they want with weapons. It's that simple.

Only the Bill of Rights can make this country any different than the next amoral kingdom and it is used only on sentimental civic occasions.

Not understanding this leads many to believe that the current petro-nazi cabal is some aberration. That things were ok under Democratic presidents or atleast the crimes against humanity were moderated. Sadly, this is not the case. Just as John Kerry, representing Vietnam Vets Against the War, testified regarding the Mai Lai massacre that it was the norm and not an isolated or infrequent outbreak of slaughter.

I admit to reading tons of history and lots and lots of
Noam Chomsky www.understandingpower.com
and
Michel Collon http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosmcmb.htm

This is why a US general is not going to have a record of deeds or associations reflecting the values that people on this website cherish. He cannot, by definition, rescue us from the system he's been working in successfully all his life-the fascist US domination of people's all over the planet.

[latebloomer]

137. Thank you, JOM!!

Bush's exploits are hardly a new phenomenon. One has to be bought and sold to the corrupt powers that be in order to achieve political power in this country.

Those who doubt--Read "A People's History of the United States"!

[chadm]

126. Of course he is...

this guy is clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Blue_Chill]

138. OMG WTF IT CAN'T BE OH NO!!!!!

A retired General with experience in post war rebuilding is advising the clean up operation in Iraq? OMG how could this be.

:eyes:

[Rhiannon12866]

148. Congrats on 5000 Posts, Blue_Chill!!!

That is some Milestone!!!:toast:

[Padraig18]

153. By all means!

Lets drive away ANYONE who might have expertise and an understanding of the problem, especially General Clark!! *grin* :silly: :P

[Kahuna]

156. And what's wrong with that? Somebody with some common sense..

needs to advise those clowns. I'm sure that if Clark submitted anything to bushco in writing they prompted deposited it in the circular file.