"Black Commentator" exposes Clark and Rangel

[Scott Lee]

Well look what I stumbled onto when searching for Wesley Clark's testifyin' church op photos....


Rangel Carries Clarks Water for Clinton: Hype Trumps Facts in Empire of BabbleOn

Clark is a fraud, a poseur, a wind-up action figure in a suit - who belongs to Bill.

/snip/

Anybody that's against the war that can beat Bush is going to be overwhelmingly supported in the black community." – Rep. Charles Rangel, endorsing Clark candidacy.

What dissonance! What nonsense! What will Bill Clinton think of, next?

The Arkansas Conjure Man with the 125th Street office has sucked every brain cell from Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel’s 73 year-old skull. Rangel, who hopes to follow in the great Adam Clayton Powell’s footsteps as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee should the Democrats prevail in 2004, is betting the whole legacy on a transparent lie – that Wesley Clark is an anti-war candidate. Bill Clinton told him to do it.

Rangel swallowed Bill and Hillary’s potion, gathered up his substantial bulk, and fairly ran through the corridors of the Capitol soliciting endorsements for the Clintons’ designated player. “This general is a protection for America, to challenge this president's policies without being called unpatriotic,” Rangel told the Associated Press, September 19. “I feel like I've gone back to get my big brother who's a four-star general."

more ---

http://www.blackcommentator.com/57/57_cover_clark.html

_____________________________________________________________

As I live and breathe. It suuuuure looks like SOME African-Americans aren't buying the Clark/Rangel (dare I say it...) whitewash!

[JVS]

1. deja vu all over again

[SahaleArm]

2. BC is kissing up to Jesse Jackson, Jr. - Chronology of Events

2/20/03: Moseley-Braun and the Game to Contain Sharpton - Claims CMB is in the race to steal votes from Sharpton - http://www.blackcommentator.com/30/issue_30.html

2/27/03: Al Sharpton’s Battle to Transform the Democrats - http://www.blackcommentator.com/31/issue_31.html

10/2/03: Two Civilized Men Among the Barbarians Democrat debate reveals vast moral deficit - Kucinich & Sharpton - The rest are Barbarians - http://www.blackcommentator.com/58/issue_58.html

10/30/03: Blurb about JJ, Jr. endorsing the suddenly civilized Dean - http://www.blackcommentator.com/62/issue_62.html

11/13/03: Phony excuse to drop Al Sharpton's for Howard Dean - http://www.blackcommentator.com/64/issue_64.html

11/20/03: Dean's New Southern Strategy - Blacks and Whites Together Focused on Education and Health Care By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) - Touting Economics & Healthcare like it's never been done before? - http://www.blackcommentator.com/65/issue_65.html

12/11/03: Dean Makes Racial-Political History - Supposedly giving the best (JJ-Jr.) speech in 40 years (Just call him LBJ, MLK, and RFK) - http://www.blackcommentator.com/68/issue_68.html


That's the definition of a butt-kissing hyprocrisy - Of course it's ok for JJ-Jr to carry the water for Howard Dean.

[Scott Lee]

5. what - no ad hominem for Jesse Jackson Jr. this go round?

You disappoint!

[SahaleArm]

6. Calling BC a suck-up is an attack on JJ-Jr?

How about refuting the timelined agenda? ;)

[Scott Lee]

9. No, but this old post of yours is....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=27013&mesg_id=27232&page=

Gotcha. :)

[SahaleArm]

10. I never deanied that was my post...

:evilgrin:

[SayitAintSo]

3. Didn't you just get locked Dearie ?

It's like the mole game around here :wtf:

[Scott Lee]

4. Yes, over the implied swear word in the title. Its been changed.

*Dearie*

kisses.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Scott Lee]

8. If peddling tripe were a lockable offense, you'd see no anti-Dean threads

*Dearie*

smooch.

[wyldwolf]

11. Cloak and Dagger? RE: Debate

You asked:

Why are you afraid of debating me in public here on DU, wolf?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=27013&mesg_id=27180&page=

As I explained completely in the thread above (before it was locked based on your rules violation), debating on an open forum allows interference from other participants and allows those like you who have little knowledge beyond talking points to easily "escape" just as you are trying to do now.

Your angle seems to be "calling me out" in front of DU. However, I plainly said we'd announce the debate time and place to everyone on DU so they could all watch. So your desire for a public debate (or is it?) is covered there.

So what is the problem?

1. Hit and run posts like yours are more noticeable in a live real time chat environment

2. A live real time chat environment doesn't permit those with only a marginal understanding of the issues at hand to go back and do further research to try and prove a point. In other words, you have to know your stuff right then and there.

3. You obviously have a problem with the simple guidelines of separating facts from opinions and using reputable sources for corroboration.

All this is what you have termed "cloak and dagger" which doesn't surprise me coming from someone of your political positioning.

And, finally, you still avoid showing me examples of where you have ever "cornered" me as you described in your previous locked threads.

So tell me, Scott Lee, why are YOU afraid of a structured debate in a live, real time environment?

Should you reconsider, here are a few starting points pulled from your various posts:

Scott Lee seeks to prove:

Bill Clinton has sucked every brain cell from Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel’s 73 year-old skull.

Never being ELECTED to a political position means one is not qualified to hold an elected position no matter how much governing, domestic, and foreign policy experience one has...

Various mumblings on Clark/Republicans. Clark/War criminal, blah blah blah...

[Scott Lee]

14. I ask again - why are you fearful of a public debate?

The benefits of doing it here on DU are obvious -

Chat rooms dont normally hold more than a hundred or so participants. DU has thousands.

Message forums are great for a debate style because it allows for a structured rebuttal with sources etc, and not just jibber jabber that happens in a chat environment.

So I have to ask, whats' the problem? Are you frightened of this for some reason?

[wyldwolf]

19. And I ask you again...

Why are you afraid of a real time debate?

Essentially because you can't scurry off when you get stumped, that's why.

AND STILL you won't address your "cornered" remark and qualifying sources.

[Scott Lee]

21. Why are you avoiding this in favor of hiding in a chat room?

I don't understand that. You have a chip on your shoulder until somebody calls your bluff.

What's up?

[bushclipper]

22. Wasting your time, Mr. Wolf... he'll dodge like he did before...

Scott Lee uses the same tactics those on the far right do.

They say they want "debate" but all they really want is to see who can make the cutest little remarks.

You description of "hit and run" posts was accurate and he doesn't want to be in setting where he has to provide clear and reputable sources for his hit and run remarks.

[wyldwolf]

25. yeah, I know...

He just said I want to "hide" in a chat room! LOL!

In effect, he wants to be able to duck out for days at a time while he desperately looks for more far left and far right propaganda to "prove" his points.

Seen it all before... and I was rattling the cages at free republic then.

[Scott Lee]

30. Suit yourself. You know where to find me if you want a debate.

And for the record, you couldn't have been at FR if you are chased off this easily. As much as I hate those cretins there, not many of them are so easily chased from a fight (debate).

[wyldwolf]

33. That's the pont: You, like them, equate "fight" with "debate."

Very difficult to get those on the fringes of the political spectrum to understand that there are rules to debate - it isn't a contest to see who can spout the cutest lines and quote their favorite extremist sources the most.

Like them, your mission isn't to present the truth but rather to influence the most people to your way of thinking through unsourced and unproven propoganda.

Which is why you want to be able to take days if needed to formulate replies in a forum fight (I won't call your technique "debate.")

And your posts are becoming quite the source for amusement here at DU.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

40. You're here only if you are allowed to take days at a time to "invent"

... information.

You don't seem to know the difference between debate and discussion.

Sure I do.

Chat rooms are for discussion. See, debate has rules and procedures that are best in sync with the message forum environment.

Which is why every political debate I've ever witnessed was done in a message forum environment and not a real time live environment that only a chat area can emulate online. :eyes:

Popcorn?

Cutesy.

[Scott Lee]

59. No, I'm here quite often. Let me know when you're serious.

In the mean time, I'll kick back and watch the fireworks.

You Clark supporters - I don't know what's gotten into you the last few days. Does the aroma of a coming Dean victory piss you all off THAT much?

[wyldwolf]

68. More "cutesy."

[bushclipper]

44. debates are best in sync with the message forum environment?

WOW!

I can't wait to see the presidential debates in a message forum environment!

What did they ever do without them?

[Scott Lee]

61. as opposed to wolfie's alternative - the chat room

Try to stay up with us, dude. I don't do Cliff Notes for these things.

[bushclipper]

66. Well, sure "dude" (LOL!) If it is to be done online...

...only a live real-time chat area can best compare to a live debate.

[Scott Lee]

76. Not online....see a debate is more structured

and allows time for opponents to speak uninterrupted. Chat rooms allow people to speak at will, no matter the number.

Get it?

[bushclipper]

81. On the contrary...

If a debate is to be held online (which is what the two of you are proposing), then it is the forum that allows people to speak at will as well as allowing a participant to drop off for hours or days to prepare when they are losing ground.

What if in live debates the participants were allowed to leave the stage when confronted with a hard question?

If a debate is to be held online a live private chat area best resembles a live debate. Certainly you tell those in attendance not to interact.

[Scott Lee]

89. Wrong again.

In what actual debate have you seen the audience members talk over the official participants at will?

That's what would happen in a chat room.

[bushclipper]

91. I believe it is you that is wrong...

...or maybe just not considering the options live real time gives. Audience members can talk over the official participants of the debate at will in both a private chat room and a message forum.

I'm "talking over" you and wyldwolf now.

In fact, settings can be made within chat areas allowing many viewers but a set number of chatters.

Regardless, simply informing others present not to intervene would suffice.

A live private real-time chat area most resembles a live debate.

[Scott Lee]

93. Nope. sorry - there's something you're forgetting

In a chat room, a participant can be getting aid from however many individuals they desire. In a debate, that's a no no. The participants must operate alone with what they have with them. They cannot take their response time and get on the phone with their advisors.

You simply cannot gaurantee that would not happen in a net chat room.

As you can see, if one is restricted to online, the best format is out here in the open, on a message board. Sure the timing may not be perfect, but in the end the participants can only deliver what they can deliver.

[wyldwolf]

105. hmmm... Scott Lee, aren't YOU forgetting something?

In a chat room, a participant can be getting aid from however many individuals they desire.

Same here. For all I know, you could have someone sitting right next to you feeding you all of your cutesy line.

The participants must operate alone with what they have with them. They cannot take their response time and get on the phone with their advisors.

Which is obviously a lot easier to do in a forum debate like you endorse.

You simply cannot gaurantee that would not happen in a net chat room.

True, but it is a lot less likley than in a forum setting where hours and days might pass before I'd ever get a reasoned reply from you - if ever. Forget calling someone on the phone. You would get completely stumped then wait until e-mails poured in after you announced your little quandry on your radio show.

As you can see, if one is restricted to online, the best format is out here in the open, on a message board. Sure the timing may not be perfect, but in the end the participants can only deliver what they can deliver.

I've just shown that to not be the case.

[Scoopie]

103. Frightened?

No..
But if I call Dean H & R Puff N' Stuff, I get a warning.
However, I saw some Deanie call Clark a whore...
Still... others have to preface their tone with "this isn't a Dean bash..." and then ask a legit question.
So... afraid to debate you? No.
Will I get banned? Or timed out? Most likely.

[Tinoire]

12. Black Commentator is spot on and very politically astute

Right now I'm poring over all their insighful and excellent articles about the dangers of the DLC. Looks like the cat is more out of the bag than I had thought- what an excellent Christmas present.

Bill Clinton’s sugary fingers are all over the Clark candidacy and Rangel’s less than dignified endorsement. As we wrote:

Clinton’s is in trouble. The Black, union and anti-war base of the Democratic Party has tagged the DLC’s candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, as the personification of betrayal, and he is finished. Rep. Dick Gephardt pins all his hopes on union endorsements based on his leadership in the losing 1994 battle with Clinton and the GOP over NAFTA. Massachusetts Sen. Jim Kerry is considered too close to Edward Kennedy, who is anathema to DLC leadership. And Senators John Edwards (NC) and Bob Graham (FL) no longer matter….

Bill Clinton considers front-runner Dean a captive of the Left – a notion that some lefties also cling to. So Clinton pulls all the switches to light up his hologram, Wesley Clark.

Sharpton was very clear during the Presidential debates and he spoke for many Black people. I even put his quote in my signature line as a subtle reminder to this New Dem party that we're damn serious this time. We are no longer delivering the vote on demand only to be promptly ignored after the inauguration and we do take great offense to the pandering and transparent photo ops.

I very well remember having to go out at the last minute, at Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton's urging to "rock the Black vote" for Clinton and literally begging people to vote. That was in the days when I wasn't aware of ugly words like welfare reform, NAFTA, Free Trade, GATT, humanitarian interventions that were anything but, heavy handed tactics with Europe to foist genetically engineered foods on them because Monsanto practically owned the Clinton administration, $1.3 billion in military aid for the Colombian government, which Clinton demanded not be tied to Colombia’s improving its human rights record. Oh yeah and the ugliest word of them all- DLC. Fool me once as they say...

Many Black people have not forgotten Clinton's broken campaign promises to the Black Community- Haiti is a glaring example. I am still angry that he used one of the issues we were the most concerned about to get our vote, lied that he would grant Haitian refugees political asylum and then promptly resumed Bush's policy of sending the Haitian refugees back.


"I am appalled by the decision of the Bush administration to pick up fleeing Haitians on the high seas and forcibly return them to Haiti before considering their claim to political asylum.... If I were President, I would -- in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that they weren't political refugees -- give them temporary asylum until we restored the elected government of Haiti."
May 27, 1992

"For Haitians who do seek to leave Haiti, boat departure is a terrible and dangerous choice.... For this reason, the practice of returning those who fled Haiti by boat will continue, for the time being, after I become President. Those who do leave Haiti...by boat will be stopped and directly returned by the United States Coast Guard."
January 14, 1993

Your readers may be interested in the following open letter to President Clinton: President Bill Clinton The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Clinton:

It has been more than two years since the overthrow of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti, and more than one year since your election to the presidency here. In that time, military repression of the Haitian people has intensified -- killing, torturing, and imprisoning thousands of innocent Haitians and sending many more thousands into hiding, while you have broken your own campaign promises concerning Haiti and Haitian refugees. During the election campaign, you pledged to make the restoration of President Aristide to Haiti a priority, and you criticized President Bush's policy of forcibly repatriating Haitians fleeing their country. Then, after being elected, and even before being inaugurated, you announced that you would continue President Bush's policy of returning fleeing Haitians without screening for refugee status. You used the same justification as your predecessor, declaring concern for "the tragic loss of life" of would-be Haitian refugees, while returning them directly to the dock at Port-au-Prince where they are processed, fingerprinted, and at times jailed by the Haitian police. Meanwhile, your professed support of President Aristide has wavered. While avoiding strict enforcement of the embargo aimed at the Haitian military and wealthy elites that sponsored the 1991 coup, your administration has repeatedly pressured Aristide to make unwarranted concessions. Aristide has made several such concessions -- such as an amnesty for political crimes and dropping his original prime minister to replace him with a more moderate one. Nonetheless, Aristide is portrayed by the US government as the intransigent one. At the same time, you fail to condemn the Central Intelligence Agency's ties to the Haitian military, and the CIA's use of falsified information in its ad hominem attacks on President Aristide. We wish to express our solidarity with the Haitian people in their continuing struggle for democracy and social justice. We urge you to:

- Keep your campaign pledge to end the forced repatriation of Haitians attempting to flee their country; end the Coast Guard and naval blockade trapping Haitians in their country; instruct the Attorney General to enact Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in the United States. The spectacle of Cubans rightfully being welcomed as refugees upon arrival on US territory while Haitians are turned back to face brutal reprisals must end immediately.

- Express your unequivocal support for the return of President Aristide to Haiti; put an end to statements suggesting that Aristide's future is "clouded" if he refuses to make further concessions to the military; end pressures on Aristide to expand his government to include those with close ties to the military that overthrew him.

- Call for the immediate resignation of Lt. General Raoul Cedras, Col. Michel Francois, and the Haitian military high command; end pressure on President Aristide to expand the amnesty promised for political crimes (a promise made under US pressure) to a blanket amnesty covering all crimes committed during and since the coup. Not only is the broader amnesty not made available by the Haitian constitution, but those who seek it are responsible for an estimated 4,000 deaths.

- Condemn the Central Intelligence Agency for its attempt to undermine declared US policy toward Aristide; instigate a full investigation of CIA and other covert involvement with the Haitian military, both in the past and at the current time.

- Expand the freezing of assets and suspension of US visas to cover all coup backers, military officers, and their political allies, and urge other nations to do the same. The current list of those subject to such US restrictions is quite limited; for example, it does not include Jean-Jacques Honorat, one of the chief architects of the 1991 coup, or individuals in Haiti who have hired a Washington lobbyist to defend the coup regime.

- Work with the United Nations and the Aristide government to ensure that humanitarian exceptions to the embargo bypass the military and go directly to the Haitian people.


Campaign for Peace and Democracy

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR19.2/forum.html

[wyldwolf]

13. So where did the Black Commentator get their info from?

They like opinion pieces. Which they are.

[SahaleArm]

16. The conspiricy is self-fullfilling...

It feeds on itself - If you connect the dots it becomes a cycle. Sites X,Y, and Z post opinions which are later sourced as fact and the vicious cycle begins until X,Y, and Z indirectly source their own opinons as fact.

[bushclipper]

27. You only see the far left and the far right extremes do this...

Why?

[SahaleArm]

28. Facts only get in the way of the model.

If the facts don't hold up under scrutiny, they must by adjusted to fit the model, typically through the use of half-quotes and out-of-context statements. None of this stuff would pass as scholarship in the context of academia.

[wyldwolf]

29. None of this stuff would pass as scholarship in the context of academia.

... or in the real media.

You see the ongoing thread I'm having with Scott Lee on debating.

He won't address my guidline on using reputable sources because once the far lefty conspiracy sources are taken out of the mix, he will have nothing to fall back on.

[Scott Lee]

34. You're right - none of your tactics so far (hit and run) would pass

oh woops, should I have snorted "as scholarship in the context of academia" in there somewhere?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

73. more cutesy...

[Scott Lee]

77. I was hoping for a more spirited response

But oh well. Here's for hoping...

[wyldwolf]

84. more cutesy...

You're good at it! Which means you've had a lot of experience using the technique. (Which means you often have nothing much to say.)

[Scott Lee]

17. So Black Americans aren't allowed an opinion?

Now there's something you don't hear every day!

[wyldwolf]

23. And you didn't hear it now...

Tinoire said Black Commentator is spot on and very politically astute and that he/she was pouring over articles.

I merely pointed out that these "articles" are opinion pieces with no sources to prove the charges made.

This hardly translates into "Black Americans aren't allowed an opinion?"

But, as usual, you had to make a reactionary hit-and-run reply that was totally off base.

[Scott Lee]

31. You "pointed out" the obvious to insinuate that it was trivial.

Come on wolfie, I've seen that tactic before too. You are using a playbook I've already had years of experience with. Sorry to ruin your holiday ;)

[wyldwolf]

37. This is another example of your cutesy hit -and-run replies ...

..that say nothing.

You tried to twist my correct assessment of Black Commentator's unproven and unsourced editorials into black people not being allowed an opinion.

Sad, really, that you take rightwing approaches. But I'm finding out that fringe folks - left and right - are really the same ilk.

[Scott Lee]

43. You attempted to trivialize the site by noting it is an opinion, no?

Why yes, yes you did. And I might add all you did after the fact is point up how angry you are that your candidate is running behind.

Don't be angry at Dean, learn from him.

[wyldwolf]

47. Why, no, no I didn't

I pointed out that unsourced and unproven charges in editorial can only be taken as the writer's opinion.

However, your lame attempt to twist it into "black people aren't allowed an opinion" smacks of deperation.

[Scott Lee]

53. an odd response, considering the majority of anti Dean bile

is founded on opinion pieces. Me thinks ya done stepped in it....again.

[wyldwolf]

56. What a stretch!

Opinion pieces are all over the map, but it takes a special guy to twist a statement into "black people aren't allowed an opinion."

Me thinks ya done stepped in it....again.

Again, show me where:

I've ever been cornered (as you stated previously) and I've evered "stepped in it."

Just another cutesy empty hit-and-run line.

[Scott Lee]

63. Well stop being such an easy target!

"Again, show me where:

I've ever been cornered (as you stated previously) and I've evered "stepped in it."


..said the blindman, struggling to get out of the hole....

[wyldwolf]

71. More cutesy... and dodge, divert, and duck!

[Scott Lee]

78. Hey, I'm not the one afraid to debate

....whistles and looks at the ceiling....

[wyldwolf]

85. Sure you are...

... but you won't agree to give up your unsourced "invented" sources and do it live (so you can't run away when hit with the hard info.)

And STILL you won't address the "cornered" and "stepping in it" and "Blacks can't have opinions" misfires.

[Scott Lee]

90. I can't get you to agree to one, so there it is. Oh well.

It won't be the first time.

[Tinoire]

26. From our own disbeliving eyes at the BS being peddled and bought

Why don't you read the articles and find out. It's all very clearly documented.

In last week’s Cover Story, “Rangel Carries Clark’s Water for Clinton: Hype Trumps Facts in the Empire of Babble-On,” we called rookie Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark “a poseur, a wind-up action figure in a suit – who belongs to Bill” Clinton. We were too kind. The retired general is either a dangerous pathological liar, or…a dangerous pathological liar. Take your pick.

In the current issue of the Village Voice, reporter Sydney Schanberg examines Clark’s just-released book, “Winning Modern Wars,” in which the brand new Democrat claims to have learned in November, 2001 of Bush administration plans to attack seven nations over a period of five years, “beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Apparently, gems like this are not to be shared with the public for free, so Clark kept the information to himself, even while turning out stacks of print pieces and CNN commentaries. Clark claims to have been “deeply concerned” by what he had learned at the Pentagon nearly two years ago, and that at some point in time he concluded that the U.S. was embarked on a “flawed strategy.” But the public had to wait through the invasion of Afghanistan, the long buildup to war with Iraq, his just-yesterday conversion to the Democratic Party, and last week’s presidential debate, for Clark to tell us what he claims to have known all the time in a book list-priced at $25!


<snip>

Funny, Clark never did look too disturbed by the prospect of endless killing. Rather, despite being “deeply concerned” about a “flawed strategy” of constant, rolling warfare (six more to go, not counting North Korea), the career soldier gushed like a girl scout on April 10 about the “scent of victory” in the air over Baghdad, and praised Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for their “resolve in the face of so much doubt.”

It is impossible to believe anything Clark says. The release of Clark’s book reveals his mental condition to be clinical, not merely cynical. Before this campaign is over, at least one of the other nine candidates will wind up calling this man a dangerous loon.

<snip>

http://www.blackcommentator.com/58/58_email.html

[oasis]

15. "save the negative slime attacks for Bush in the general" You're a gem.

[Scott Lee]

18. thank you.

[Tinoire]

20. Dishonest to the Core and Probably Nuts (BC Article)

"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?

<snip>

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. As documented by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), September 16:

Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

<snip>

Clark can be stopped. The Democratic presidential candidate who has the courage to confront Clark with the insane logic of Winning Modern Wars, will do his nation and party a great service. This candidate must be willing to absorb the full wrath of Bill Clinton’s machine – the real power behind Clark’s campaign – and to abandon any hopes of becoming a vice-presidential nominee.

Two names come to mind.

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

Definitely not mincing words.

[SahaleArm]

24. I've read BC's hit piece - the cycle continue.

BC and Counterpunch are linked at the hip and lacking in anything substantial other than false propheting and contextualizing using half-quotes. The two names as of that issue were Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich; since then they're fawning over Howard Dean.

The Black Commentator is one of CounterPunch's favorite websites. We encourage all of you to bookmark the site and become regular visitors.

Rev. Al Sharpton and the Democrats
White Liberals Don't Understand How Angry Black Voters are at the Democratic Party Establishment: http://www.counterpunch.org/commentator02282003.html

[Scott Lee]

32. It's a "hit piece" unless it's targeted at Howard Dean

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[SahaleArm]

35. Arguing like Counterpunch and BC? Hit, Run, and Hide...

I thought you liked to debate? How about something more substantial :P

[Scott Lee]

38. Is BC hiding? Last I checked, the site is still there.

Yup, here it is right here.....just checked it

http://www.blackcommentator.com

What "more substantial" than a debate would you like? That was a bizarre statement that begs clarification.

[SahaleArm]

45. It's called hiding behind empty rhetoric...

Just like BC and Counterpunch.

[Scott Lee]

54. "Empty rhetoric" in the (rose colored?) vision of the Dean opponent

, perhaps. Which means that you're doing a fair bit of playing 'where's the beef' yourself. Let us in on the "emptiness" of Counterpunch and Black Commentator. I mean something more substantial than "'cause I said so".....eh?

[SahaleArm]

55. Hmm, kind of like the article I linked below? n/t

[Tinoire]

65. What empty rhetoric? They've quoted Clark himself

Just because Clark supporters don't like what they're seeing and quoting doesn't make it empty rhetoric. It's all fully sourced, very astute, and very progressive.

[SahaleArm]

74. An illogical leap - based on a tenuous rumor that Clark overhead.

And published by PNAC since 1998; yet nothing showed up for over a year after 9/11. Yet not a peep from the other candidates other than Kucinich when the administration screamed for the Patriot act and invading the middle-east. Yet somehow this makes Clark nuts according to BC? I'm surprised they didn't parrot the Nation's version of the Pristina airport incident... :puke:

[Tinoire]

97. The illogical leap is in your specious defense

based on a tenuous rumour that Clark overheard?
You make it sound like he heard this at the water-fountain and dismissed it as grabage which we all know is not the case.

'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. 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. . . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.' "

Excerpt taken from From “Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire.” c 2003 by General Wesley K. Clark. Can also be found here: http://news-opinion.blog-city.com/read/245476.htm

Still on track? Sounds like Wesley was checking up to make sure the plans were still on and that he wasn't drafting up those plans for the occupation of Iraq in vain.

---

I went to the Pentagon nine days after the attacks and called on a man with three stars who used to work for me ((That would be a 3 Star General in the know)). He said, "Sir, I have to ask you, have you heard the joke going through the halls?" I said, "No, what is it?" He said, "It goes like this: If Saddam Hussein didn't do 9/11, too bad. He should have, 'cause we're going to get him anyway." He looked at me, and I looked at him, and we both knew that it would be a classic mistake if we did that.

I was relieved when we attacked Afghanistan, but I went back to the Pentagon as that war was going on, and this same guy said to me, "Oh, yes, sir, not only is it Afghanistan. There's a list of countries. We're not that good at fighting terrorists, so we're going after states: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran. There's a five-year plan." From that moment on, I couldn't believe anymore that I was just a retired general of the United States Army. I saw something wrong, but I couldn't get anyone to listen, so I started to speak out last September in a vocal way.

<snip>

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1970

I couldn't get anyone to listen???? All that time on CNN he couldn't get anyone to listen? Aw c'mon Wesley- we're not that stupid.

Additionally, don't you find it rather bizarre that armed with this frightening knowledge of what the neo-cons and neo-liberals were up to that, in April 2003, Clark praised both Bush and Blair saying they "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

===
Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK
Anti-War Candidate?
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

<snip>

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

This, by the way was shortly after the Salon interview where he was again praising Bush Inc.


None of this is surprising to to many people. Clark led the first part of the PNAC war which was to destabilize Yugoslavia, prevent the establishment of an Islamic state there and put that rich region under US control.

==

<snip>

What is being played out there is a great power struggle between the US, Russia and Europe over control of the strategically vital Caucasus, which borders on the Caspian Sea, site of the world's largest deposit of untapped oil reserves. At stake in this contest are billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues and the vast military and geopolitical advantages that fall to whichever power gains a dominant position in Central Asia.

Transcaucasia has strategic significance for Western companies and the US and European governments because it serves as a bridge between Caspian oil fields and Europe, via either the Black Sea or the Mediterranean. In October of 1997 Le Monde Diplomatique made a sober estimation of the implications of friction over control of the Caspian for relations between the US and Russia, writing, “American oil companies were interested in the Caspian long before the State Department came up with a coherent policy for the area.... The negotiation of oil contracts enabled Washington to show a direct interest in the region.

“The US government sees it as an extra source of energy, should Persian Gulf oil be threatened. It also wants to detach the former Soviet republics from Russia both economically and politically, so as to make the formation of a Moscow-led union impossible. In an article published in the spring, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger wrote that if Moscow succeeded in dominating the Caspian, it would achieve a greater victory than the expansion of NATO would be for the West.”

<snip>

For several years, rival pipeline projects have been vying for control of oil supplies. US corporations Exxon, Pennzoil and Unocal are involved in an oil consortium of (Chechnya's neighbour) Azerbaijan and 11 Western companies, led by British-US company BP Amoco — the Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium (AIOC). Its aim is to construct a pipeline to carry the bulk of Azeri oil output from the Caspian seabed. American petroleum concerns are currently responsible for more than 50 percent of oil investment in Azerbaijan.

<snip>


http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/chec-n18.shtml

[SahaleArm]

101. Whoa, cut-copy-and paste...

Still on track? Sounds like Wesley was checking up to make sure the plans were still on and that he wasn't drafting up those plans for the occupation of Iraq in vain.

Wrong, the reference was to 'we' as in the US government not himself but nice try; prior to that it was a rumor after Sept-11th.

Additionally, don't you find it rather bizarre that armed with this frightening knowledge of what the neo-cons and neo-liberals were up to that, in April 2003, Clark praised both Bush and Blair saying they "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

The PNAC plan was published in 1998, and has been known to more than Clark. To lay the blame on Clark is disingenuous, especially since all he had was one anonymous source inside the pentagon. Did he have security clearence to get more information? There are lots of minute details that the BC story doesn't delve into. They should have interviewed him to find out what happened instead of editorializing.

[Tinoire]

39. No- they're not fawning over Dean. In their own words

We believe that the “Civilized Men” commentary may have given an incorrect impression of BC’s position on the Democratic primaries. The publishers have voted for many barbarians in the past, and fully expect to do so in the future. “For the record,” we wrote in last week’s e-Mailbox column, “ BC supports any Democrat for the White House in 2004 – except Clark and Senator Joe Lieberman. The latter has already lost.”

http://www.blackcommentator.com/62/62_email.html

BC simply clarified for voters what Dean had really done. Telling the truth is not fawning.

Had they been fawning they would have left out this paragraph.

On the anti-war front, Dean continues to waffle on the nature and length of the Iraq occupation, which makes him an apologist for American Manifest Destiny. Kucinich and Sharpton are the only candidates who call for unequivocal withdrawal.

[SahaleArm]

48. Barbarians comment was published on 10/2/03 - Issue 58

Jesse Jackson-Jr endorsement was published on 10/30/03 (Issue 62) along with the retraction on Dean. It's that type of coincidental phoniness that irks me about rags like BC and Counterpunch, always twisting opinions to fit a model. It's out-and-out dishonest journalism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=27518&mesg_id=27524&page=

[Tinoire]

79. So because they reported that Jesse Jackson Jr endorsed Dean

they're fawning over Dean? Retraction? They never endorsed Dean- they still have problems with his Centrism. You're upset because they've seen through Clark and listed him as one of the two candidates they will NEVER endorse or vote for. They are speaking for many, many voters. It is humorous to watch certain people studiously avoid the issues brought up and dismiss it as empty rhetoric.

Don't forget to add the Nation, Mother Jones, Fair and Antiwar.com to the growing list of what Clark supporters call "out-and-out dishonest journalism". Pretty soon the only acceptable source for information on Clark will be his own blogs with everything else being denounced as empty rhetoric.

[SahaleArm]

86. Like Katrina's version of the Pristina incident in the Nation?

Yes even a solid publication like the Nation can make mistakes like that; especially when developing editorial content masked as objective journalism. In the long run it doesn't matter as BC reaches very few people so the effects of dishonest journalism is minimized. On the other hand when mass media lies, there is a problem as it reaches a significant portion of the voting populus (see Faux, MSRNC, Ted Koppel et al.). I have no problem with who they endorse, just with the truthfulness in which they say it.

Who are these 'many voters' BC speaks for outside of yourself? I'd guess Clark's appearance on the Tavis Smiley show will have more of an impact than a disparaging article in BC.

[Tinoire]

98. We're all over the place.

Some of us are even hiding under your bed :)

You keep saying they lie, they lie but no examples. Surely it must be tiresome to be so constantly having to defend poor Clark against all these evil smears and lies with nothing but rhetoric and angry denunciations as a defense.

[SahaleArm]

99. Hmm - change the course of the topic then blame me...

Are you asking me why an unsourced opinion piece is not fact? Well I can't help you there:) If you can source all the information I'll give you an answer, otherwise unsourced data is just that.

[Tinoire]

102. If it makes you happy to call it an unsourced opinion piece

it's no skin off my nose. The entire charade is being exposed and it's Clark's own words that are damning him. Weak spin and angry accusations against honest journalists just make Clark look even worse. Don't see the sources? Read the articles again(?) and look. A little attentive reading and Lord knows what you'll find.

Maybe you should sign up for and use a few of their talking points. I subscribe to the Clark Army and Defense forces just for the amusement of watching the mental contortions to explain this away today and fend that away tomorrow. Fascinating stuff. Fabiani and Lehane certainly have their hands full, poor things. Clinton was never this much trouble.

It was indeed kind of Clark to write those 2 books and all those articles that serve as great sources for the articles in all those progressive publications. Thank heavens the Clark rule is now obsolete & didn't apply to books, articles, and news commentary!

U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol. This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the ‘Clark Rule’: whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats. After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat.
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/dailyArchive/Sept2003/09-22-03.htm

[candy331]

46. I have been doing research on Clark

also since I have him as my second choice. I have to say that something about Clark just has never set right with me. His waiting to step in the race for one was a puzzle to me. I sure would hate to think that Clark's chain is pulled by the Clinton's though.

[Scott Lee]

58. It's really not Clark I have a huge problem with - its his "followers"

Just read today's threads for evidence. Man, there is a lot of simmering psychosis around this guy's campaign. I'm afraid the coming Dean win of the nomination is going to send many of them postal.

[SahaleArm]

60. Turning a blind eye?

You reap what you sew - that holds true for Dean supporters as well.

[Scott Lee]

67. One more time, in English please?

[SahaleArm]

70. Does the pot calling the kettle black ring a bell? n/t

[Scott Lee]

80. Yes, but what's its relevence here?

You see it was the Clark side that brought up this nothing issue of Dean saying something nice about Christ on Christmas. So what the pots and kettles issue is.....is a mystery at this point.

[wyldwolf]

62. Josh Marshall at talkingpoints memo said it best:

There is an awfully distressing tendency among a minority of Dean supporters to serve up no end of lacerating comments about other candidates and then to react with a sort of stunned and outraged shock when anyone criticizes their guy. It's the flip side of seeing the race in such heroic, if not messianic dimensions.

The primary is actually not concluded yet. And, pace John Calvin, I assume the outcome is not predetermined. So it is still permitted to criticize Mr. Dean and not be an enemy of democracy.

[Scott Lee]

69. John Marshall has clearly not been to DU lately

Where anyone can see a wild increase in the hateful rants from a few Clark supporters, in fact rants that are proportional to the gains Dean is making in the polls and in fund raising.

Mr. Marshall, over here! Have I got some "shock and awe" for YOU!

[wyldwolf]

72. More cutesy!

[Scott Lee]

82. Sorry then, HAS he been on DU lately?

No? Golly.

[wyldwolf]

87. Why not ask him?

Sounds like a no brainer.

Golly.

[Scott Lee]

92. Well golly, let's see what he has to say in email.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. You like the title, huh?

Nice objective journalism. It reassures you that the author is a reasonable person who only seeks the truth wherever it may lead him, doesn't it? I had a friend email me that piece of crap on October 21st. She was new to Clark at that time and a little concerned. She has looked deeply into Clark since then and switched to Clark from Kerry. I saved our exchange about it. Here is part of what I wrote to her then:

"BC: "If Wesley Clark is to be believed, he kept this Pentagon conversation – and his deep concerns – to himself for nearly two years,"

We don't know that to be true. We know that he did not attempt to make it a public issue, but those are seperate and different statements. Again, the seven war scenario was not a secret, radical and progressive media had already reported on it. Wesley Clark had no political career and apparatus backing him, he had no organization. He did not have strong ties to the Democratic Party per se, so he went around the country making connections and building support, creating a platform from which he might be heard. For all we know that conversation in the Pentagon might have figured prominently in his private efforts to knit together an infrastructure to enable a political campaign.

BC: "In fact, the Bush men spent much of the summer of 2002 bragging about their plans to first, smash Saddam Hussein, then gloriously march on Damascus and Tehran – dreams they still cherish. Clark now tells us that he knew then that the Bush men’s threats were understated; that guys like him were actively preparing a five-year military campaign to subdue great swaths of Africa and the Middle East."

I think that statement proves the opposite of the writers intent. Clark was not "witholding" any news of importance. The fact that the Bush administration had an aggresive military campaign was public knowledge, and the knowledge was being leaked by the Bush Administration. They were alreeady going public about Afghanistan onto Iraq, then onto Syria, then onto Iran. Think about it, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. That's half of the Mid-east. At that point it matters little if you throw in minor countries like Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia and the Sudan No one was going to say "I support invading Iraq, Syria, and Iran, but going into Lebanon is too risky."

Here's another contridiction. The Black Commentator states: "There is a fundamental difference between the retired general’s claims and the pleadings of presidential candidates Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. John Kerry. Both now claim they did not intend that their votes for the War Powers Resolution in October, 2002 would lead to a unilateral U.S. invasion. Both charge Bush misled them, the nation and the world about the facts and rationale of the war."

Well if ""In fact, the Bush men spent much of the summer of 2002 bragging about their plans to first, smash Saddam Hussein, then gloriously march on Damascus and Tehran" then how could anyone make the distnction that in October of 2002 regarding Gephardt and Kerry, that they unlike Clark were "misled" about the facts and rational of the war? The truth is Bush's biggest weapon has always been sheer audacity, no one can quite ever believe that he really would be so out and out radical. It's like Hitler's big lie propaganda. Opponents untill recently were left stunned. "OK, we gave you a
huge tax cut. What, you want another one?" "OK, you have to scare those tyrants into cooperating by rattling sabres and parking troops on the borders. But you wouldn't really invade with virtually no international support, would you?" Clark was one of the few voices warning about the dangers of the Bush administration's military and diplomatic policies. Look at the record of Clark's Congressional testimony for proof of that.

Here's another piece of clever hatchet work: "Clark’s misgivings dissolved entirely on April 10. Drunk on “victory,” Clark gushed: “Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at
hand.”

What misgivings dissolved entirely? That's a clever bait and switch. Maybe misgivings that the American army would be slaughtered in the central square were dissolved, but then again Clark clearly stated that the US Military could do the job of ousting Sadam, and he was right of course. Misgivings that we were wrong all along and Sadam actually was hugely popular with the
citizens of Iraq? I don't think so. At that moment Clark, me and millions of other people wished the best for the people of Iraq. The policy of invasion may have been seriously misguided, but invade we did. What would anyone have preferred to see at that moment, scenes of Sadam's henchmen stringing up Iraqi citizens from lamp posts for collaborating with the Americans? I just love colorful commentary like "Drunk on victory" don't you? It virtually implores me to describe the author's as "blinded by bitter hatred".

To be honest, one of the reasons, not a big one but one nonetheless, why I am supporting Clark over Kerry right now is precisely because Kerry did have a ready made platform and vehicle to use to attack the Bush administration throughout 2002 while Clark was still a little known private citizen without a political base. Kerry steered a moderate public course with an eye on how to best run against a tremendously popular incumbent. Clark left the private
sector and enetered the political one precisely to be able to oppose the wrong direction the nation was taking. There were many pieces that needed to be put in place. The National Democratic Party was already in place, with elected leaders and a nationwide organization with significant resources and alliances developed over long decades. The Party waffled while Clark began taking the steps he needed to take to position himself in a way that could make a difference.

The attacks on Clark indicate to me that the Republicans are concerned about him. Gingrich just attacked Clark's book in the Wall Street Journal, distoring his record in Kosovo 180 degrees, blaming him in effect for not engaging the enemy more robustly when in fact Clark risked his career advocating just that.

Anyway, there are some reactions. Gotta go have dinner now

Talk to you later."

When I first wrote the above Gingrich was all newly atwitter blasting Clark in the Wall Street Journal. Sometimes you can judge someone from his enemies.

[SahaleArm]

51. Considering the entire Bush agenda has been published since 1998

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm

Blaming Clark is at best disingenuous.

[madfloridian]

41. Wow, this does not sound anti-war to me.

Linked from that site.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm
From April 2003 from the Times UK
SNIP..."As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats....."

I had not seen this before, and it makes me uneasy.

[SahaleArm]

49. Candidate Dean Is a Warmonger - And other reasons to support his campaign

For a good dose of false propheting: http://www.antiwar.com/barganier/ba090103.html

And no Clark is anti-Iraq war not anti-war, then again that would describe Howard Dean as well :)

[windansea]

52. whoa...and Dean supporters whine about what they see in DU

"I want to apologize to my readers for ever saying a single good word about the double-talking, double-dealing, dubious Dean, a snake in the grass if ever there was one, slimier even than Bill Clinton. Just as Caligula was a piker, as Rome's imperial villains go, compared to the megalomaniacal evil of Nero, so the damage done by President Dean will far surpass that done by any of his recent predecessors."

[Scott Lee]

57. correction: Dean supporters on DU fight the slime they see on DU

What Dean supporters do in other places is really up to them...you know come to think of it, that's a helluvah lot of people, but then again, Dean's got the most support out of the dem candidates.

No wonder the Dean opponents are so cranky on what should be a wonderful Christmas Day.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. Here are the paragraphs that immediately preceded those quotes.

Context is always helpful:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran."

When Clark wrote that piece in early April the press was filled with flat out victory statements; "Mission Accomplished", you might remember that one. Even in that context Clark was warning that the course the invasion of Iraq had set us on was not a simple one, nor a safe one. "Victory" was not assured. He spoke of the confrontational mindset of the Bush Administration regarding other nations in the region. That the U.S. was being positioned to pursue new conflicts, not to pursue regional stability. Clark warned that a sense of "humiliation" in Iraq could set in, that it was unproven whether coalition forces had the dexterity needed to secure a peace in Iraq (we all know now they didn't). And Clark talked about the need to continue the struggle against terror, which for Clark has always meant Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda, not Iraq and Hussein. When he wrote the piece quoted from, the public was largely falling for the Hussein/ Bin Laden Bait and Switch, Clark was saying that the "war on terror" remained unfinished. So yes he was right that there was still a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.


edited because I accidentally originally placed one of my comments within Clark's text.

[madfloridian]

83. An honest question, though.

Do you get the impression he agrees with this paragraph? If so, isn't that the goal of the PNAC? They say Iraq is "the immediate justification" and it is the "gateway" to the middle east. To be honest this sounds like that.
I sincerely like Clark, so when I say that concerns me, I mean it just that way.

SNIP..."But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns....."

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. No, I don't at all

I accept that your question is honest. Clark completely disagrees with that policy. You can read his book himself, below are some quotes from when he first was unofficially "briefed" on the extent of the Iraq "gateway" thinking:

"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.

“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.”

I heard Clark explain that the "not wanting to hear" aspect involved him no longer having a security clearance as a retired officer. But it has been a centerpiece of Clarks frontal attack on Bush's foreign policy that Bush wants to go after States, not terrorists, and he goes on at great length, if you listen to him ,as to way that strategy is completely wrong and will result in the U.S. being less, not more safe. It is the fact that Clark can speak knowledgably and authoritatively on this subject that makes him so threatening to the Bush Administration. You do know that Clark was an early national security advisor to Dean.

[Tinoire]

100. If that were so- why did he go back to the Pentagon for more details?

I went to the Pentagon nine days after the attacks and called on a man with three stars who used to work for me. He said, "Sir, I have to ask you, have you heard the joke going through the halls?" I said, "No, what is it?" He said, "It goes like this: If Saddam Hussein didn't do 9/11, too bad. He should have, 'cause we're going to get him anyway." He looked at me, and I looked at him, and we both knew that it would be a classic mistake if we did that.

I was relieved when we attacked Afghanistan, but I went back to the Pentagon as that war was going on, and this same guy said to me, "Oh, yes, sir, not only is it Afghanistan. There's a list of countries. We're not that good at fighting terrorists, so we're going after states: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran. There's a five-year plan." From that moment on, I couldn't believe anymore that I was just a retired general of the United States Army. I saw something wrong, but I couldn't get anyone to listen, so I started to speak out last September in a vocal way.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1970

[JVS]

88. wow, this thread is all grown up

[Scott Lee]

95. Unfortunately, with a savage tet a tet between four of us

pretty funny LOL

[SahaleArm]

96. I figured it was just some good natured Christmas day fun...

Looking at some of the new threads I guess it turns people off. Oh well :).

[eileen_d]

104. You mean black people don't all agree on politics?

Say it isn't so. :eyes:

[Moderator]

106. I am locking this.....

It appears to me that an argument from another thread is being carried over to this thread. Here are the rules:

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.


DU Moderator