I am neither a Clark supporter nor a Clark basher . . .

[OneBlueSky]

but I found this article pretty compelling . . . if, as stated in his book, Gen. Clark had knowledge of not one but seven impending wars, why did he not sound the alarm to the American people? . . .

Dishonest to the Core and Probably Nuts: Wesley Clark
The Black Commentator
October 9, 2003

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan… I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned." – Wesley Clark, page 130, Winning Modern Wars.

"If Wesley Clark is to be believed, he kept this Pentagon conversation – and his deep concerns – to himself for nearly two years, going public only when it suited his purposes as a purveyor of books and newly-hatched Democratic candidate for President. There is something – no, there are many things – very, very wrong, here."

(snip)

"Clark’s lips stayed locked shut, for at least a year. Finally, in 2003 Clark got his national podium as a military analyst for CNN. He had the microphone and the cameras, direct access to a swollen, global TV audience anticipating the onset of war. The Big One was about to begin, the rolling conflict that would consume parts of two continents in flame for the next five years. What would the hero of Kosovo do at such a moment?

"Clark chose to cheer the war on like the rest of the media’s retired military consultants, occasionally seasoning his commentary with the barest hints of misgivings – nothing substantive enough to rate front page quotation.

"When he had the opportunity and it might have made a difference, Clark failed to sound an alarm about an invasion he now claims to have known to be a prelude to even wider wars."

- more . . .

http://www.blackcommentator.com/59/59_cover_clark.html

[wyldwolf]

1. I'll sit this one out...

After all, Clark is the only candidate to expose PNAC but it still isn't good enough!

[Kool Kitty]

22. And wasn't this already posted and discussed about

two weeks ago? Sheesh.

[WilliamPitt]

2. "Dishonest to the Core and Probably Nuts"

I love a balanced headline.

[annxburns]

3. I'm tired

This has been addressed so many times it is starting to bore me ....

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[newyawker99]

13. Hi annxburns!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[janekat]

14. Can we say "yellow journalism"?

n/t

[JasonBerry]

17. Hummmm

I know a certain web site that is full of "balanced" headlines.

[WilliamPitt]

18. I'll bet you do

See if you can find a headline like that on the website you're thinking of. One that calls someone "Nuts."

[KittyWampus]

4. Well, Black Commentator Called Carol MB A Barbarian

REALLY astute analysis....

Apparently, Carol is a closet PNAC'er trying to steal the nomination from Sharpton.

[wyldwolf]

5. And we all know how much of a chance Sharpton would have...

...if Braun were not in the race!

Damnit! I said I was sitting this one out!

[Brian Sweat]

6. This is an objective source?

[Mairead]

7. Do you think they've been bought?

Because if not, then they're as objective as anyone else is.

[SahaleArm]

12. Objective mean impartial.

Even the title fails to convey a hint of impartiality. This is a strawman, you don't have to be paid to choose sides.

[knowledgeispower]

8. The bit about Clark as commentator is TRUE

C'mon, don't you Clarkies remember watching CNN at all during the war? If so, do you remember Clark denouncing the war and the Bush Administration for carrying it out every chance he got?

Because what I remember was a guy who cheered on the war and, every now and then, mentioned some minor technicality he, as a former general, would have done differently.

Real bold attack of the PNAC plan alright.

[wyldwolf]

9. No, what I remember...

...Clark analyzing the war from a military perspective.

As CNN's Military Analyst, his job wasn't to make moral judgements on the war, just provide technical analysis.

Now, you can spin that anyway you want.

[ozone_man]

10. I 'm glad someone dug up these CNN news clips,

because I really hated to watch CNN during this. It would appear that Clark was one of those routing for the war, saying that he was sure that the WMDs were there, etc..

To be fair, he did state that he wanted to wait, but after we sent our first batch of troops over there, he seems to have gotten firmly behind the war effort, commenting on how well everything was proceeding, etc.

Also, the fact that he knew about PNAC plan without mentioning it at the time leading up to and during the war really bothers me.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

[Bertrand]

21. i remember deconstructing that fair article

and how the subtitle was disingenuous to what it quoted for example. I forget but i hope someone searchs for that thread because i guess many here still need it to be refuted.

[Padraig18]

11. Gee, it's been what.. a week since this was last posted?

:eyes:

[onebigbadwulf]

15. CLARK DOES NOT EQUAL PRESIDENT

Keep Clark in america's military affairs and out of policy making.

Clark = Sec of Defense

not president.


Enough said.

[wyldwolf]

20. If you said it, it must be true!

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

16. "...only when it suited his purposes

as a purveyor of books and newly-hatched Democratic candidate for President."

clark, the EXPEDIATOR!

Sounds a little familiar, eh?

[IranianDemocrat]

19. Congratulations on posting some right wing propganda.

Good Job.

[Piperay]

23. Crappy...

RW peice of shit from the people that are scared of Clark running against the chickhawk chimp, posting this stuff plays into their hands. :argh: