Clark, the PNAC candidate - NOT

[disgruntella]

I have seen this characterization more than once on DU, so I'm posting this excerpt from Clark's upcoming book here for "posterity":

The Clark Critique (excerpt in Newsweek)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0bl=-0

I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and 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. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.” It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a “state sponsor,” and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.
He said it with reproach—with disbelief, almost—at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either.

So pick apart his positions on foreign policy if you like, but "PNAC" isn't going to work.

Link to the new book - http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-1586482181-0

[mojowork_n]

1. Consistency, the hobgoblin of small minds

And then again, we have other points of view. Take today's first article from commondreams, for instance:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0921-06.htm

Which quotes Clark waxing exstatic in those heady April days in Baghdad, this spring:

"Liberation is at hand. Liberation - the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice ... is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

About which the writer of the article, Les Payne (Newsday), opines: "Triumph, indeed, is the note Clark sounded throughout the column. At one point, he praised Bush and Blair for their steely resolve in essentially going it alone. His visions in the column suggested ecstasy and celebration, not the doubt and opposition his handlers are now generating."

[disgruntella]

2. That's funny. I don't see "PNAC" mentioned anywhere in that article.

I was making a very specific point, that Clark is not part of some PNAC conspiracy. Your article does not refute that.

[Mairead]

3. er, what, you mean as long as he doesn't carry a membership card, it's ok?

[disgruntella]

4. Yeah, put words in my mouth. I love it.

I was making a very specific point, that Clark is not part of some PNAC conspiracy. Your article does not refute that.

[Mairead]

8. Yours was a sort of Rumsfeldian claim --

that absence of proof was proof of absence. Simply because PNAC isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't play a covert role!

[mojowork_n]

6. Specific point?

Well, OK, but let's take the wider issue first-- How is one to judge who's in on a conspiracy, and who's not, except by the evidence that may be available in their own quoted speeches or writings. You brought up one excerpt from Clark's book. <Big whoop.> As if he wasn't going to do his best there, to present himself as a thoughtful and reasonable sort of individual.

And then again, he's caught, so to speak, a capella, without the benefit or the backup of his whole spin-and-dazzle P.R. full orchestra, and he stumbles, his true feelings come out. The quotes from the article I linked to.

And then, if you really want to talk about casting a laser-beam focus on Clark's record, how about going over his record in Kosovo? His book was all about 'the new issue of human rights in modern warfare', or something like that, but conveniently omitted any sort of full or detailed look at just what it was we were doing in Kosovo in the first place, how the bombing might have been commpletely prevented, how many bombs were dropped on civilian and civilian infra-structure targets, the pathetic success at destroying military targets, as opposed to civilian buses or convoys...

The record does not paint a pretty picture, whatever the ties to whichever sort of provable or unprovable "conspiracy".


http://www.counterpunch.org/cgi-bin/htsearch?config=conf%2Fcounterpunch.org&words=wesley+clark

[Flying_Pig]

5. At this point, anyone who supports(ed) the invasion of Iraq, and the

other countries listed in the PNAC papers, who currently supports the military-industrial complex, and, supports the Likud-run Israeli government of Ariel Sharon (and their AIPAC allies in the U.S.), could be said to support PNAC. All of these entities have common goals. Now, the question is, where is Clark on AIPAC, Likud, and the military-industrial establishment? That's what I want to know, and no support will be forthcoming from this Democrat, for Clark, until I have answers to these questions.

[mojowork_n]

7. "the military-industrial establishment"

The Military-Insdustrial establishment? Why, good heavens, even that post-Pentagon 5-star general himself, Dwight David Eisenhauer, was against that one. He even coined the phrase, or more probably, gave the OK to his speech-writer to go ahead and coin it for him.

I find it an exhausting effort to go after conspiracies, or try to trace secondary roots, or lobbying influences or connections; when it's likely we don't have know the actual historical record, or who was or was not responsible for what given, actual, historical *event*.

I guess it's the same problem, the stuff that gets reported in the news doesn't reflect the actual realities all that well, it just doesn't add up, so people get pissed off.

Let's just hope the candidate who does the best job of telling the truth ends up with the job. (And doesn't then get shot.)

I just don't think that person is likely to be Wes ("4-star Horse's Ass")* Clark.

*Check links in preceding post. Not my line, I'm just borrowing it.