Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory

[FrenchieCat]

The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

DOES GEN. WESLEY CLARK SUBSCRIBE TO THE WEEKLY STANDARD? Commentary, maybe? Because he seems to know a lot about, as he puts it, the "neoconservative press." Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp

[rumguy]

1. wow that is scary

kudos to Clark for calling them on it...if Bush wins in '04 there will be more war...never ending war...

[Zynx]

2. The reason the Weekly Standard is attacking him is because they know it's

true.

[FrenchieCat]

5. This is what the prospect had to say about it.....

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/12/index.html#002021

December 01, 2003
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A CONSPIRACY? A typical rhetorical gambit you see in lame-brained commentary, especially on the right, is to accuse a person of fomenting a "conspiracy theory" even though said person never alleged any such thing. And it so it goes with this Weekly Standard piece on Wes Clark. It's written by Matthew Continetti, who appears to have been assigned to the "make Clark look like a congenital liar/eccentric nutcase" beat, but is not acquitting himself particularly well. The article, headlined "Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory," takes issue with Clark's recent statement on CNN's
------------------------------------
Here's an editorial from the Sept. 18, 2003 edition of the Financial Times, hardly a bastion of goo-goo leftism:

The Bush administration this week said it remained sure weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be uncovered in Iraq. This attitude may be understandable as a sort of geo-Micawberism in lieu of any actual weapons turning up. But the approach underlying it is now being extended to Syria.
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a congressional subcommittee on Tuesday: "In Syria we see expanding WMD capabilities and state sponsorship of terrorism. As the president has said, we cannot allow the world's most dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes." Sound familiar?

Heck, Bolton's testimony was leaked to The New York Times' Judith Miller by, in her words, "individuals who feel that the accusations against Syria have received insufficient attention" -- i.e., hawks who wanted a tougher line against the country.

[evil_orange_cat]

3. conspiracy theories are so 90's... ;)

he's right tho... :D

[FrenchieCat]

13. I just want to know how come

our Front-runner Dean is not talking about it.

[evil_orange_cat]

18. because ranting about "conspiracy theories" makes you look crazy!

it's one of those political language things... and plus, where's the proof? Sure, I think wolfowitz, rummy, and pals planned to go into Iraq even before Bush was elected. But what good does it do to yell "OMG CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY"?

[el_gato]

24. come on, it's in the open and you know it

unless you are so uninformed as that

[LizW]

28. The fine line between brave and stupid

Look at what happens when candidates talk about this. Wes Clark went to the Pentagon and people told him about the five-year/seven country plan. He all but described who told him and named the countries with specificity -- and the press called him crazy and a liar.

PNAC, and the five-year perpetual war plan and "Pax Americana" are all a pretty big pill for regular, uninformed Americans to swallow, especially with the right-wing press constantly reassuring them that it's crazy and not to worry, look, there's Michael Jackson.

Yes, all the candidates should be talking about this. And they will, but they do it at their (and our) peril until there's more proof, and until the public is more conditioned to take in the enormity of it.

[Eloriel]

23. He has

As outlined here:
When will Howard Dean speak out about PNAC?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=806660#806722


Glad to see ole Wes catching up with him.

Eloriel

[Clark Can WIN]

4. Clark has got some BIG hangin' brass

uhhhhhhhh......................................................stars.


Kudos General, once again for calling the administration out on their positively evil and destructive plans for endless war and occupation.

[webkev]

8. telling it like it is

I'd say a lot of conservative media outlets fear Clark because they know he has the best chance of winning.. and if he does, he will be around until 2012

[HereSince1628]

9. I don't think generals's stars are brassy...at least they shine silver

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. Go Wes

Give that silver spoon toy soldier a big boot back to Crawturd Texass.

[Redbear]

29. Be nice to Crawford.

It's not their fault he chose to live there.

[Stephanie]

7. Big props to Clark for talking about the neocon agenda

And if anyone doubts the truth of what Clark's saying, read on:

PNAC Links Archive:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=80

It's such a stupid ploy on the part of the Bushies to scream "conspiracy theory" anytime they are caught in the act.

[Forkboy]

10. Clark speaking out on this stuff

is one of the things I do like about him.

[FrenchieCat]

11. When will the other candidates

speak up about PNAC?

[Forkboy]

19. who knows?

Hopefully soon but I wont hold my breath.It wouldn't suprise me at all if Kucinich does (or already did).

[Cocoa]

20. Kerry has talked about the "neocons"

And I've heard Biden and others say similar things, thought not claiming inside info like Clark is doing.

[Stephanie]

12. You know, you quote these guys back to themselves

and they call you a conspiracy theorist.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/4/dreyfuss-r.html

The American Prospect
Just the Beginning
Is Iraq the opening salvo in a war to remake the world?
By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 4.1.03

For months Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein, remove him from power, eliminate Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from blackmailing its neighbors or aiding terrorist groups. But the Bush administration's hawks, especially the neoconservatives who provide the driving force for war, see the conflict with Iraq as much more than that. It is a signal event, designed to create cataclysmic shock waves throughout the region and around the world, ushering in a new era of American imperial power. It is also likely to bring the United States into conflict with several states in the Middle East. Those who think that U.S. armed forces can complete a tidy war in Iraq, without the battle spreading beyond Iraq's borders, are likely to be mistaken.

"I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national-security official and a key strategist among the ascendant flock of neoconservative hawks, many of whom have taken up perches inside the U.S. government. Asserting that the war against Iraq can't be contained, Ledeen says that the very logic of the global war on terrorism will drive the United States to confront an expanding network of enemies in the region. "As soon as we land in Iraq, we're going to face the whole terrorist network," he says, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a collection of militant splinter groups backed by nations -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia -- that he calls "the terror masters."

"It may turn out to be a war to remake the world," says Ledeen.

In the Middle East, impending "regime change" in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives -- who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a "cabal." Like dominoes, the regimes in the region -- first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia -- are slated to capitulate, collapse or face U.S. military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory committee, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" In the aftermath, several of those states, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, may end up as dismantled, unstable shards in the form of mini-states that resemble Yugoslavia's piecemeal wreckage. And despite the Wilsonian rhetoric from the president and his advisers about bringing democracy to the Middle East, at bottom it's clear that their version of democracy might have to be imposed by force of arms. <much more at link>

[Stephanie]

14. "we'll just tell the truth about them, and they'll think it's hell."

What's that quote?

[FrenchieCat]

16. That's TRUMAN....

and Clark's.

[tabasco]

27. Truman was an Army man himself.

Artillery officer. "The Buck Stops Here." Imagine that, a President taking responsibility for the actions of his administration. Contrast with the constant weaseling and finger-pointing by the Bush cabal.

[kayleybeth]

15. Damn it

I missed it. Is there a transcript?

[sam sarrha]

17. NEOcon Press. i saw an anchor woman on CNN make a personal comment about a

4 second 'blip' on Hillery's Afghan/Iraq tour... she made a disapproving face and said something like...'that was all for her personal political campaign' MSNBC has rolled over to the NEOcons, I have to check the channel because i cant tell if it is Fox or MSNBC anymore.

[Cocoa]

21. at least they're not calling him antisemitic

they like to trot that one out a lot. They're probably implying it here with Clark, but usually they come right out and say it.

[FrenchieCat]

22. so sad....

The guy that has the most balls is being ignored IMO! Because this is the central problem to our foreign policy and our international problems. That's why we went to war with Iraq......it's all there.

Plus 9/11 and "the New Pearl Harbor" statement within PNAC's documents would make an interest backdrop if we could ever have a "real" 9/11 investigation.

[JNelson6563]

25. That's funny, just yesterday

I personally asked Governor Dean about a 9/11 investigation. I got through to the Dianne Rheam show and actually asked him two questions.

The first was about re-establishing our ties with allies and the UN and getting some help with Iraq etc.

The second was about 9/11. I asked him, if he wins the WH would he see to it we got thorough and honest answers about what happened re: 9/11. You should have heard that resounding "YES!"

He agreed about the stonewalling and commented about how even the existing report has been censored.

Yep, ol' Dean seems to realize folks out here want the truth on the matter and he agrees.

Of course, with that said, I do believe any Dem who got the WH (save Lieberman) would do what they could to get the truth out and prevent more attacks as well. But then again, I don't know of any Dems who have energy policies dependent on "another Pearl Harbor".

Julie

[ProfessorGAC]

26. This Guy Is A Professional Editor?

This piece in the DS is a joke, right? It reads like it's been written by a 6th grader.

"He says this, and we say not, and that makes us right, so there!" One WH official says it's not true, so Clark is nuts?!?!?

This guy wouldn't have gotten a 2nd article on my high school paper.
The Professor

[robbedvoter]

30. They bank on us being uninformed..