Clark: "I like these people a lot."

[sfecap]

"Gen. Wesley Clark, unplugged" by Jake Tapper, Salon 3/24/2003

(snip)

Tapper:

"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/

[kixot]

1. Hmmmmm.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[maggrwaggr]

2. I'm beginning to think this is a smart tactic

Clark comes across as a guy who actually "likes" these people but just finds their actions so unbearable and wrong and misguided that he's willing to take time out of his busy and successful life to get this country back on track.

Not only that but he's not some dogmatic democrat who by nature hates republicans. He's even voted for some!

This really bothered me at first too, but now I think it's a great tactic. (don't flame me, I've been flamed like crazy for being "anti-Clark" just a week ago).

I think it puts him a leadership position for other disgusted and dissillusioned moderates and even republicans to swing vote and get Bush out of office without feeling guilty they've voted for some "liberal" life-long Democrat.

You know?

It also puts the opposition in a difficult position to bash him. If someone says "I like you but I think what you're doing is wrong" then if the other person bashes them horribly, they look like the psycho. Right?

[sandnsea]

8. Well, it fits, sort of

With the 'these guys aren't real Republicans' theme. It's what I personally use to sway Republicans. So, yeah, you could be right. And he's also used words that might be trying to change the 'liberal' meme to the basic truth of what a liberal really is, someone who doesn't base their decisions on religious dogma. It's what I've wished some Democrat would come along and do, so you could be right. We'll see.

[calimary]

10. That would NEVER stop them.

They think nothing of trashing everything and everybody they don't like. Watch them ratchet it up against Clark, despite how adult he's been. They just don't play by rules of civility. It's like sending a well-behaved pet out against a junkyard dog. When did they ever do anything BUT take the gloves off. These folks fight dirty, and just because Clark has something polite to say about them, don't expect them to return the favor. And if they're scared of him, or if they see him starting to gain more momentum, watch them try anything against him. He should take a lesson from what they did to John McCain. These people don't fight any way but dirty. They wouldn't have KKKarl Rove leading the charge otherwise. And they wouldn't still be burning incense to Lee Atwater.

[loyalsister]

71. Maybe

however, it could really backfire. I have heard- "Bush isn't a bad guy, he's just not doing things I agree with." When the "likability" campaign goes into action, these people are vulnerable to the "guy to have a beer with" competition. Bush could win on anti-intellectualism. There will also be a lot of gray area with Clark and status quo is most comfortable for a lot of swing voters.
I really think it's important that the differences in the intentions of the Dem. and Rep. candidates are understood. It also might not be a good idea to allow this to be a successful tactic. If he is successful, consider the possibility of scattered "friends" finding that there is advancement strategy to be found in temporarily "seeing the light".
Food for thought.

[CWebster]

81. Did you bend over far enough on that one?

It never ceases to amaze me the length some are willing to belittle their own common sense just to squeeze a possible rationale out of an intolerable situation. Clark could claim that he advised the Bush campaign and folks would claim that as an an advantage for the Democrats because he was privy to the inside scoop. Christ, it's pitiful.

Besides it is the Democratic base which despises Bush---that is exactly where Dean picked up his momentum--by giving voice to the rising chorus who was angry and frustrated that no Democrats were standing up to Bush. Who the hell does Clark think he is playing to?

[Dr Fate]

3. More anti-DEM propaganda at DU (link included)

Dig this thread- or check the Clark article at www.mediawhoresonline.com

It exposes how the media is spreading LIES about Clark's alleged ties to Rove- could theses "quotes" be of similar origin (Rove?)????

Weird huh? MWO exposes this LIE- and here we have another article popping up making the same claim- these guys work FAST!!!


Who should I trust- the media, who lied about WMDs AND the Clark/Rove connections specifically-

OR should I wait and hear form Clark himself?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=393418

[dfong63]

14. clark admitted saying it - so stop calling it a lie

[Dr Fate]

18. Fraid not- Rove's friend SAID he admitted it!!!!!!! LIE LIE LIE!

Why not link us to the article so we can all see- where is the link?

[Dr Fate]

25. Nevermind ILL link the LIE for all to see:

Wanna see the journalistic equivalent of friendly fire? It ain't pretty. But here goes.

This week Howard Fineman leads his column on Wes Clark with an anecdote about how Clark allegedly tried to get into the Bush administration, got shot down by Karl Rove, and then in spite became a Democrat.

Fineman's evidence is the say-so of Colorado's Republican Governor Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman.

Now, Owens is a Republican and he's close to Karl Rove and President Bush. So I don't think you've got to use your imagination too creatively to see what agenda Owens might be advancing -- especially since the story doesn't really add up on several other counts as well.

more: www.talkingpointsmemo.com

WOW! this Owens character, a friend of Rove said it 's true- well I'm convinvinced now!!!!

and: www.mediawhoresonline.com

"...the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment, shall we?...

After all of the lies we've been told by the Resident Squatters, are you telling me that you want to believe "...White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove."?

And then you want to believe that Rove can't remember talking to someone of Clark's stature?

If what the White House is saying is true, how would we know it?

[Dr Fate]

64. Contradiction= LIES

We have two (or three) different stories dont we? We can either rely on Pro-Iraq War & Bush whore Fineman, Rove's pal, the investigative work done at talkingpoints memo & media whores- OR- GASP we can take the whole thing with a grain of salt and judge Clark on ISSUES and FACTS.

this he-said this and he said that crap may cut it at the Drudge Report, but I'm glad the good folks at MWO and at least 2 or 3 peopel at DU saw this for what it is...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

90. Are you going to be the judge of "the facts" and tell the rest of us...

...how to think, or are you going to continue to infer that anyone that has an opposing opinion, or anyone searching for additional facts, is a liar?

Interesting choice of debate tactics, "Doctor".

[neverforget]

4. He likes neocons therefore he must be a neocon.

:eyes: I have Republican friends, therefore I am a Republican. :eyes:
A person can like someone of the opposite ideology without agreeing with them.

[Bertrand]

5. It's not even like

it's that some people here cant even fathom that someone is being diplomatic. That in their black and white world, all idealogues must denounce and attack anyone that disagrees with their philsophical beliefs everywhere they go.

[sfecap]

12. If being diplomatic, one would simply smile and offer a non comment.

Wes Clark, not only "likes" these thugs that brought you PNAC and the attack on Iraq, but he'd work with them again.

I guess all that condemnation of bush's cabal here at DU is only for show when people find that Clark "likes them", huh?

People are judged by the company they keep.

[WillyBrandt]

17. Let's see, might Clark have been a diplomat

in NATO? And might the empty pleasantry followed by strong criticism been something he learned from experience?

Nah. He's an evil PNACer, a hegemonist with nice teeth. Horrible, nasty man--how can we trust a man whose words are so easily twisted?!

[sfecap]

20. How were his words twisted?

It's HIS answer.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[sfecap]

30. LOL. You are really spinning, huh?

The man is quoted. I didn't make it up. Those are his words, not the reporters, not a pundit...his words.

If you don't like what he said, take it up with him.

[Bertrand]

24. here's the thing

Clark has come out consistently in favour of multilateralism and a humble foreign policy over imperial warmongering, so you're wrong to insinuate that he's for the Neocon agenda. If you cannot understand the reality of power politics compared with a progressive webboard, i dont think that i can help you.

[Sick of Bullshit]

11. Not the same at all

A Republican is not by definition bad. However, those people Clark mentioned-- Rumsfeld, Cheney-- are the epitome of bad government.

Clark is an unknown who has never governed a civilian population and who did not know he was a "Democrat" until a few days ago. I say dig into the man's record and find the pieces to the puzzle that will show who the real Wesley Clark is.

[Bertrand]

29. differentiate

between "didnt know" and "didnt declare"

[rman]

92. it is suspicious Clark doesn't dislike the neocons

DU-ers are aware that these neocons are a major force (in the form of PNAC) behind Bush's illegal war and the lies that go with it, aren't they?

One may say PNAC is just another thinktank. I say there's only one thinktank that has many of its members taking up a majority of positions high up in the governemnt - all at the same time - impementing the policies they'v been pushing for over a decade but which were always found to be to extreme (even by Reagan - despite the fact that these neocons prefer to be called neo-Reaganites).

Are you a Dem who appriciates the policy of pre-emptive war; the notion that the US should attack any nation that *might* attack the US at some time in the future? Are you a Dem who thinks perpetual war is a good thing?

And you'd support a candidate who considers these war mongering neocons to be his friends?
Just imagine Bush leaving the WH in '04, while the new president continues to deal with these neocons. Then it'd be obvious that president was not the right candidate to vote for - it would also be to late.
That's why "anyone who can beat Bush" is not a sound strategy.

[madfloridian]

6. From indymedia, some connection concerns.

I think this guy is donating a lot to Democrats now, which I guess it quite good. I only question the wide range of business partners.

http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2003/08/13132.shtml

SNIP...."Soros likes to portray himself
as an outsider, an independent-minded Hungarian emigre and
philosopher-pundit who stands detached from the US military-industrial
complex. But take a look at the board members of the NGOs he organises and
finances. At Human Rights Watch, for example, there is Morton Abramowitz, US
assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research from 1985-89, and
now a fellow at the interventionist Council on Foreign Relations;
ex-ambassador Warren Zimmerman (whose spell in Yugoslavia coincided with the
break-up of that country); and Paul Goble, director of communications at the
CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (which Soros also funds).
Soros's International Crisis Group boasts such "independent" luminaries as
the former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Allen,
as well as General Wesley Clark, once Nato supreme allied commander for
Europe. The group's vice-chairman is the former congressman Stephen Solarz,
once described as "the Israel lobby's chief legislative tactician on Capitol
Hill" and a signatory, along with the likes of Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz, to a notorious letter to President Clinton in 1998 calling for a
"comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and
his regime".

Take a look also at Soros's business partners. At the Carlyle Group, where
he has invested more than $100m, they include the former secretary of state
James Baker and the erstwhile defence secretary Frank Carlucci, George Bush
Sr and, until recently, the estranged relatives of Osama Bin Laden. Carlyle,
one of the world's largest private equity funds, makes most of its money
from its work as a defence contractor.

So why is he so upset with Bush? The answer is simple. Soros is angry not
with Bush's aims—of extending Pax Americana and making the world safe for
global capitalists like himself—but with the crass and blundering way Bush
is going about it. By making US ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has
committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away. For years, Soros and his
NGOs have gone about their work extending the boundaries of the "free world"
so skilfully that hardly anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of
overzealous neo-cons have blown it......."

Whoever our candidate, I don't think we have the right to go around taking over the rest of the world, piece by piece....I gather Clark says he does not either. Then why be associated with those who advocate it? I agree it would be better to be more humane and less ruthless, but the concept of domination to me is wrong.

[CWebster]

83. Wow, that is scathing

and they blithely tooled right by without seeing the handwriting on the wall.

You got it-- the parties don't matter, it is if the frontman is up to the task that matters.

[carpetbagger]

7. He likes people even if he disagrees with them. That bad?

I mean, it's one of the tenets of his religion. I think it would be nice after the last few years to have a Christian in the White House again.

BTW, his next answer in the interview details his disagreements with their policies.

[sfecap]

9. A Christian in the White House?

I thought we had one now. Is Clark gonna have prayer meetings, too?

[WillyBrandt]

13. We don't have a Christian in the White House

if by Christian, you mean one who follows the Sermon on the Mount, instead of play-acting like a wrathful God.

Don't you see the point? All the platitudes said about Bush are phony. He's courageous. Decisive. A good Christian. Strong Character. A leader.

All garbage. But all of those things DO apply to Clark, in spades and spades.

THAT is why Clark is ideal: we can neuter the GOPs political advantages, like wrapping themselves in the flag, while at the same time actually being true to our positions.

The alternative has usually been nominating a centrist or right-wing Democrat to beat the GOP. With Clark we can have our cake and eat it to.

Ah, you don't care. Remember everyone: Clark is a Republican PNACer evil monster, blah blah blah. Did you see this story in Counterpunch? Clark is evil. Blah blah blah.

Fucking DU. Looks like FreeRepublic too often.

[sfecap]

23. Gee...so YOUR definition of "Christian" is the right one?

I see.

Tell me, what kind of "Christian" is Clark again?

Will he (being a SUPREME commander and all...) bring a "new" form (the right kind) of "christianity" to the White House?

What if it's not MY kind?

[WillyBrandt]

28. Christian

One who doesn't have active contempt for those less fortunately, and who believes that it is a personal and political responsibility to help the less well off.

It's both a secular and religious conception of moral duty. If Clark's religious feelings further reinforce his secular views about devotion to realizing the potential of individuals, then all the better.

Like it or not, we'll have Christians in the White House for a long time coming. It's nice to have one who a little more New Testament than Old.

[carpetbagger]

15. Real Christians don't have prayer meetings.

Jesus was reported to have said, and it's probably one of the more reliable attribuations, that the proper way to pray is to shut your door lest you pray for the purposes of men hearing you pray.

[dfong63]

31. real Christians can have prayer meetings

Real Christians don't have prayer meetings. Jesus was reported to have said, and it's probably one of the more reliable attribuations, that the proper way to pray is to shut your door lest you pray for the purposes of men hearing you pray.

however, Jesus also said, quoted in Mt 18:20, ``19 Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.'' to me this says that Jesus sanctioned people meeting and praying together. Jesus himself prayed in meetings, and so did the disciples. i think you're taking things too literally.

[carpetbagger]

39. You're right. It was somewhat hyperbole. But I'm still right.

This administration really, really wants people to know about its piety. It's not per se that they have prayer meetings. It's the fact that they want everyone to know it.

[Sick of Bullshit]

21. Not only a "Christian", but

a "Christian" in a military uniform! And a newly-minted Democrat at that! How can anyone resist?

[RandomUser]

44. Baptist/Catholic/Jew in the Whitehouse

Clark's background is a Baptist/Catholic/Jew. He believes in a strong separation of Church and State. None of this "faith-based initiative" crap that Bush and the religious right are trying to cram down our throats.

[grasswire]

16. UGH TAPPER!

Was there ever a worse reporter?

[sfecap]

19. So Tapper made him say that?

n/t

[WillyBrandt]

22. No, both the empty pleasantry and follow up criticism were Clark's

... but it's not like you care. A little bird told you that he's a PNACer bent to destroy the world. All that multilaterism stuff he talk--nevermind, contrary thought, must nix contrary thought...

[sfecap]

27. Gee...other than the fact that he said

he "likes" some of the founders of PNAC, and that he said he'd work with them again, I don't know why you'd connect him to PNAC.

I'm sure it's purely coincidence that Wes is a friend of these fine fellows. It's just a coincidence that he speaks at rethug fundraisers. It's just a coinincidence that he sits on the boards of right wing think tanks. He's a Democrat this week, isn't he?

[WillyBrandt]

33. Repetition repeated

Yeah, somehow these friends of him have been attacking him 24/7 on every rightwing outlet there is. And not a few DUers have been jumping on the brainless bandwagon.

You're second point is loveliest, however. After retirement, Clark spends a lot of time before both Democratic AND Republican audiences espousing the virtues of multilateralism. In other words, he goes before folks he both agrees and disagrees with, and tells them we must work with other nations.

Signs like a PNACer to me. Sounds like a hegemonist in disguise to me. It must be: I've got a bottomless pit of suspicion and innuendo to back this up!

[sfecap]

37. Perhaps you could point out a function at which he raised money

for Democrats?

Since when do Democrats raise money for rethugs?

I think you might want to consider not digging your hole any deeper...

[WillyBrandt]

43. Jesus Christ

in Heaven almighty.

Here's one speech from Clark from a little while ago--the one that first got me interested in him. I'm sure you'll call it Bush-lite or whatever lie is appropriate. From the New Democrat Network:

http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=wesley+clark+ndn

While we're at it, the only political donation over $200 or so he's made in the last few years. Actually it was $1000, to Democratic candidate Erskine Bowles, whom I'm sure is also a Rethug because you say so:

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?22020921812

Nevermind that helps prominent Democratic magazines sell issues:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

And it's not exactly the pinaccle of honesty to say that Clark was raising funds for the GOP. Giving speeches all over the place after retirement is not the same as raising funds for the GOP. It's misleading, and you know it.

[sfecap]

97. Gee...I guess I'm a bit slow...

Speaking at a republican fundraiser isn't helping to raise funds.

I understand completely.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Let me understand this, Clark's supporters are telling us to ignore Clark

and what he said, just because it doesn't suit their political purposes today? What a crock!

We had 3 years of wall-to-wall spin from the current occupant of the White House. We don't need another spin meister as a replacement!

BTW, when is Clark going to say that Ronald Reagan was a bad President? Or is Clark still happy about his votes for Reagan?

[WillyBrandt]

34. Where did you hear Clark was happy about his Reagan votes?

Weekly Standard? Fox News? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

[Dr Fate]

36. Yes- lets dissect this quote for better or worse...

please link this quote- I'd like to see the source, writer, context, date, etc. If we are going to Bash DEMS- let's do it methodically.

I know that the "Rove talks to Clark quotes" story turned out to be more media lies- I have to wonder about this one too...

I'm not saying he did not say this, perhaps he did, but the other anti-Clark article that was so popular at DU turned out to be fake- we need to double-check ALL of the anti-DEM articles...

[IndianaGreen]

47. "He (Clark) also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984"

...General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Nowhere in his rambling NY Times interview, which was also picked up by the Washington Post, does Clark say a negative word about Reagan. Here we are nearly a week after Clark announced, and he hasn't say a word about Reagan, or Reagan policies.

Consider this, Clark was old enough to vote in the 1968 election, but he is silent about that vote. Did he fail to vote, or did he vote for Humphrey, or Nixon? Starting with 1972, Clark voted against the following Democrats: George McGovern (1972), Jimmy Carter (in 1976 and 1980), Fritz Mondale (1984), Michael Dukakis (1988). I take Clark at his word that he supported Big Dog in 1992. Did Clark vote for Gore in 2000?

[Bertrand]

49. On Clark Voting

He claimed to have been a Republican until Clinton, so wouldnt it be wise to assume that he voted Republican until Clinton? Also, he said he voted for Gore.

[IndianaGreen]

55. I don't care that Clark voted for Reagan!

But I do care to know what Clark thinks TODAY about Ronald Reagan and his policies. This is not some historical infatuation, the spectre of Reaganism has colored American politics and legislation long after Raygun left office.

I want to hear what Clark thinks now about Reagan and Reaganism, and I want to know that before we crown our Caesar to go against their Pompey.

[Dr Fate]

57. I want to know what he thinks about Coolidge too!!!!

he was also a republican who shaped history and modern conservatism- perhpas Clark should stroll us down memory lane instead of discussing CURRENT events?

I'd rather know what he thinks about BUSH in the present.

[Dr Fate]

56. Clark is running against Reagan?

your "strategy" is for Clark to attack a president from 20 years ago? How is that going to help us defeat Bush in 2004? I would rather him attack Bush...wait a minute...

He DOES attack Bush, and that is what matters.

[sfecap]

35. Apparently, Tapper made him say that.

I guess the reporter must have intimidated the former SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER into saying something that dosen't fit the lovely and ethreal Clark vision of perfection...

Clark considers some of the most virulent neocons colleagues friends and would like to work with them again.

Interesting.

(But he is a RhodesScholarwhograduatedfromwestpointandwenttovietnamandgotshotandisachristianandwillkeepusallsafefromthemterraists...)

[Dr Fate]

38. Just like Rove made him say he called him-right?

Or at least Fineman says that Rove says or did not say he called him- or somthing...

see how the media LIES and attributes FAKE quotes about Clark at www.mediawhoresonline.com

[sfecap]

40. Did Clark work in the positions he cited?

Did he or did he not work with the administrations he cited?

Is the rest just stuff Tapper made up? If that is the case is all of the interview false?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

46. The link I provided does explain false stories...

...and we can expect more slader to come, against all DEMS- all I'm saying is that the media lied about WMDs, they have already specifically lied regarding Clark's words-

Be on your guard- take it with MANY grains of salt.

If you support Greens, then your strategy does not involve defeating Bush anyway- so whatever...

[IndianaGreen]

52. Strawman argument

You can't even defend Clark when people use the mainstream press to quote Clark. If Clark is such a trouble to defend now, how is it going to be when he has to face the Rove machine? I rather we air this out now than to have to see Clark go the route of Thomas Eagleton!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

59. Argument? I present no "argument" just a factual observation

...that is unless you can specifically disagree with somthing I have said-THEN we would have an argument.

mediawhores shows us how the media did it on this one- the media/GOP will continue- some "DEMS" will help them do it too...

[IndianaGreen]

41. Clark doesn't think that oil or Halliburton had anything to do with Iraq

Generalissimo Clark also doesn't think that oil or Halliburton had anything to do with Iraq, as he is quoted in this NY Times interview republished by Common Dreams:

"We are going to ask, `Why are we engaged in Iraq, Mr. President — tell the truth,' " he said, standing on a chair.

<snip>

The crowd shouted back answers. "Oil!" one person yelled. "Halliburton!" yelled another.

General Clark said: "We don't know. And that's the truth. And we have to ask that question."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Clark doesn't know? Even an imbecile that just watches the network news knows that oil was the primary objective in Iraq. As Baghdad was being looted, US troops were deployed to protect the Oil Ministry. In the South, the day the invasion began, the prime target was to secure the oil facilities. All of this was published and reported even by Faux News. The neocons were quite happy with their success!

And Clark is saying that he doesn't know if oil was the reason for Bush going into Iraq?

[Bertrand]

48. IndianaGreen

Your Subject Title:

"Clark doesn't think that oil or Halliburton had anything to do with Iraq"

Your Bolded Quote:

"General Clark said: "We don't know. And that's the truth. And we have to ask that question.""


I mean, it's not as if youre even trying. Put a little effort into your smear next time.

[IndianaGreen]

50. It's not a smear to question a candidate's judgment, or lack thereof

As I said on the post, even an imbecile knows that OIL is the reason the PNAC boys wanted into Iraq:

Clark doesn't know? Even an imbecile that just watches the network news knows that oil was the primary objective in Iraq. As Baghdad was being looted, US troops were deployed to protect the Oil Ministry. In the South, the day the invasion began, the prime target was to secure the oil facilities. All of this was published and reported even by Faux News. The neocons were quite happy with their success!

And Clark is saying that he doesn't know if oil was the reason for Bush going into Iraq?

Or are we now supposed to believe that PNAC does not exist?

[Bertrand]

58. your initial premise

was absolutly wrong. Combined with that error and a campaign of promoting anti-clark propaganda, i concluded it to be a smear. Your right, i should have left it with lazy reading.

Also, Clark RIGHTFULLY claims we dont know because we dont. We assume we know from circumstantial evidence that oil played a big role, and they probably did, but to make any definitive claims is absolutly WRONG. In fact, i would argue a better theory wouldnt be oil specifically, but Geopolitical dominance within the region as being the number 1 goal for the war in the hopes of liberalizing their markets and establishing legal norms to achieve that goal.

Also, if you could excuse the appeal to authority, for you to assume you know more about foreign policy than a former SACEUR is laughable.


On PNAC: This board is obsessed with PNAC when it should stay with the real problem, neoconservativism. Its like being obsessed with the heritige foundation or AEI. They are coalitions of like-minded people, and when everyone brings up PNAC it plays poorly with regular peope since it comes across as masonic temple-conspiracy stuff. PNAC doesnt control the world, but the neocon ideology dominates the thinking of alot of those in power.

[Flying_Pig]

63. Get a clue, the Heritage Foundation, and the AEI are all tied into

the PNAC'ers! All one has to do, is an elementary search of the principals in each of these organizations, and the inter-relationships become apparent.

I have a problem with ANYONE who would minimize the impact PNAC, and their associates in Likud/AIPAC/JINSA/JDL/National Revue/Heritage Foundation/AEI/Rupert Murdoch/ ...ect., ect... have had on this nation, and the world! We're talking the most evil, fascist motherfuckers since Hitler and his Nazis, and there IS NO WAY to minimize that fact!!

[Bertrand]

66. You missed my point

obviously the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are tied into PNAC since they share alot of members. Thats because alot of them are neoconservatives and those are outlets for promoting their ideology.

Im not minimizing the impact of PNAC. Im seperating the organization from its beliefs, which is the real problem. In other words, Get over that institution (which is part of many like it, and its not at the top of some heirarchal chain of political superdominance) and attack its beliefs because thats what matters.

[WillyBrandt]

51. What did oil have to do with Iraq?

I don't know! I don't know if it was a greedy afterthought, if Iraq was all about neo-con fantasies, Bush revenging his father, political gains domestically, what. I really don't know. A clear answer from the Administartion, which we won't get, is what we need. Clark was right to phrase it how he did.

[Dr Fate]

53. yes- that title is not honest at all...

...and your facts prove it.

Not a personal attack- it's just a plain fact that in some value systems, saying someone said somthing they did not is considered "dishonest"- For what ever reason, we have a long-time DUer who decided to do this to a DEM candidate.

IG- please retract/edit your decietful title line so that it reflects the truth.

[IndianaGreen]

60. Clark is the one that is having problems with the truth!

"We are going to ask, `Why are we engaged in Iraq, Mr. President — tell the truth,' " he said, standing on a chair.

<snip>

The crowd shouted back answers. "Oil!" one person yelled. "Halliburton!" yelled another.

General Clark said: "We don't know. And that's the truth. And we have to ask that question."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Clark is saying, using the royal "we," that he doesn't know if oil or Halliburton are the reasons "we engaged in Iraq." Clark is saying this after Halliburton got a no-bid contract from the Bush regime for Iraqi reconstruction, and after Paul Bremer (and everyone else in the Bush regime) had said that the US was not going to share control of Iraqi oil industry. And Clark said this a week ago!

[Dr Fate]

61. No- your subject line is in fact, dishonest.

He said he does not know- meaning the caseis not 100% yet. Some people still like to have all their ducks in a row before they make accusations that they know will be attacked by the pro-Bush media...

Admit it- you were intentionally trying to distort what he said- you were being dishonest aboput a DEM candidate- bizzare strategy for a DEM...

[IndianaGreen]

62. Quoting Clark is now considered "distorting" Clark?

That's good! So if Clark becomes the Democratic nominee, what are you going to do? Are you going to deny that whatever Clark said, he did not say, and that to quote Clark is a distortion?

Joseph Heller would be proud of such Catch-22, unfortunately, it won't sell in Peoria.

[Dr Fate]

65. Your subject line does not quote Clark!!! Reality check!!!!

You quote Clark in the text, but our beef was that your subject line distorts his postion.

Argue all you want- you know what you were doing and I damn sure know.

[IndianaGreen]

68. My subject line encapsulates what Clark said, or failed to say

And since you are not addressing any of the points I raised about Clark's evident confusion about the role that OIL and HALLIBURTON have played in our Iraqi engagement, or about Clark's deafening silence about Reagan and Reaganism, I can only surmise your obsession over my subject line is nothing but the classical strawman argument.

I am beginning to suspect the reason Clark spoke so effusively about his friendships with the likes of Wolfowitz, Perle & Co., is that Clark probably shares an ideological commonality with them. But that's the topic for another thread.

[REM2000]

74. Another Straw Man Speaketh

IndianaGreen:

Have you ever wondered why your state is so red? Look at a map and see how most industrial states near bodies of water vote. Perhaps Indiana activists need to do some work to ensure that Bush gets planted back in Texas. Even Peoria, to which you allude, has evolved way beyond the freshly sowed but strangely familiar level of argument you present.

I, too, have serious qualms about Clark, but I will work my ass off to turn your neighboring state blue. Grass is green, but logic is blue. Your passion on the issues is commendable; let's make certain that we never experience the diseased green shrub again.

Ill Dem Feeling Good--and Blue.

[newyawker99]

96. Hi REM2000!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bertrand]

67. OMG Indiana, youre getting laughable

he was saying your subject line in comparison to the article was simply wrong, a complete error, and you spin it to quoting clark = distorting. lol.

[Speed8098]

80. I thought you knew how politics worked

Obviously you don't. It would, at this time, be political suicide for General Clark to declare that he KNOWS oil was the reason we went to war.
The re:puke: machine would have a field day with a statement like that.

IMHO, it was a brilliant strategy.

[Flying_Pig]

42. All I will say, is that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle,

et al, are some of the most evil people on this planet. As the founders and elite members of the PNAC cabal, and supporters of the Likud/JINSA/JDL/AIPAC organizations, every one of these people are traitors to this nation. They, collectively, and individually, have caused tens of thousands of deaths, and untold human suffering. They are in the process of turning our country into a fascist oligarchy, while they advance their plans for world domination and war. They have stolen elections, and committed cold-blooded murder. They are in the process of destroying our Constitution, and the democratic republic known as the United States.

And somebody is telling me I am supposed to be excited about a candidate that considers these people "friends and colleagues", and who would be willing to "work" with them again???? What the fuck, why not just put this nation out of its misery right fucking now!

What don't people understand about the seriousness of the PNAC/Likud/JINSA/JDL/AIPAC gang? Isn't their war in Iraq, and the bankrupting of our nation enough proof of their evilness? If Wes Clark really feels this way about these people, he's finished in MY book. If not, then he better speak up, and soon. I want some answers as to where he stands with respect to his relationships with these people and organizations, and I want them now.

[carpetbagger]

69. Clark worked with them in Bosnia.

Proving that even a broken moral compass will point in the right direction once each spin, some of the PNAC people were working to end the slaughter of the Bosnian Muslims, which is what Clark was working for as well.

As I've said earlier with this one, Clark goes on to talk about how they screwed up our foreign policies in the very next paragraph.

[Flying_Pig]

70. While I appreciate your reply, I plan to direct my questions

regarding Gen. Clark, and his relationships with the people and groups I have mentioned, to his campaign, in an attempt to get some current and factual answers. As far as I am concerned, saying that one "likes these people", is tantamount to saying one "likes" Hitler and the Nazis, and yes, I think these people are that evil. I'll not have anything to do with anyone who is friends of people I consider the most evil on the planet, and who are the enemies of this nation.

[phegger]

72. Much as I hate these guys...

...I don't think they are evil. They have self-serving agendas that I don't agree with, and no regard for the truth, and I have absolutely no respect for them--but calling them evil reminds me too much of the simplistic bullshit we get from *, i.e. we are good, they are evil, end of story.

-ph :smoke:

[JNelson6563]

75. recommended reading

People of the Lie by Dr. Scott M. Peck. Sub-title: The Hope for Healing Human Evil.

You may be surprised actually at how often "evil" is applicable.

And yes, they are the epitome of evil.

Julie

[Cheswick2.0]

76. depends on your definition of evil

If you are thinking of demonic possesion, in the mode of head spinning pea soup movie evil, I guess you are right.
Get past the word and look at the concept. Groups of people can be evil, just as people can be evil when either causes horrible consequences. It can be on purpose or by ignorance. You really should read "People of the Lie". You will get a better definition of evil and you will realize that you may even have participated in evil in your life, as have we all. Get past the word, it is more complicated a concept than what you are stating.

[salin]

82. Okay... they are cold and calculating,

have absolutely zero recognition of human lives cost (those who die in causes of war), are willing to have the country risk its lives and treasury... while one is so bent on self-righteous ideology that one no longer listens to criticism that might inform policy - instead delusionally hold to the perceived correctness of that ideology in all its splendor.

It as that absolutely zero recoginition of human lives... part that brings the concept of evil to mind. The Iraq civilians who died - have no meaning to these people. The American troops who have died have no meaning to these people aside from a small concern that the public might grow less supportive if there are too many troops who die.

Sort of like the CEO of a company who learns that hey have a faulty product line that can cause serious physical impairment or death, who pulls the product off of the US market and dumps it at a very discounted rate (without disclosure of the problems) on a third world market... a product such as - say - baby forumula. I would call a CEO making such a decision evil for the lack of conscience / concern for the human cost of that decision.

[Pastiche423]

73. "...some of the PNAC people were working to end the slaughter

of the Bosian Muslims..."

???

[GeronimoSkull]

77. This is a nightmare

I can't believe people are supporting this guy.

[Pepperbelly]

78. You guys are unbelievable ...

I suppose that none of you are collegial with people with whom you have worked? I suppose that if given an opportunity to slam someone with whom you once worked, you will always take that cheap shot?

Or will you try to emphacize where you got along. No one is admired for an inability to work and play well with others. It seems like the hyperventilating lemming lefties will not be happy with a candidate unless the candidate acts up to their boorish standards.

:crazy:

[salin]

86. There are inbetween ways of being polite

and being embracing. I appologize but this, along with the voting thing (the rest is just silliness), makes me think I have to pay very, very close attention not only to the policies he lays out but for the consistency when he speaks about policies and across policies.

The voting - while forgivable - is by a really intelligent,well educated man, who taught economics (not sure which years) at West Point. I could even get the first vote. But by 1984, to not be aware of the economic falacies that drove that administration and the damage they could bring; to buy into the MiltonFriedman brand of radical economics as the explanation of how the world works (was the bases of many Reagan plans from tax cuts to swaths of deregulation). As a new college grad, and the daughter of an economist, by 1984 I understood these falacies.

Not enough to keep me away - but certainly enough to give a closer read to the policies he promotes - as I would do closely with any candidate (especially those not holding office and thus no record to study as should also be done of various candidates).

This falls as a second red flag. Pepperbelly - it was clear by a year prior to this interview that Perle and Wolfowitz were trying to interfere in international relations and politics (remember Wolfowitz publically suggesting that Schroeder - who had won election a week earlier on an anti war position, who had asked Blair for ideas on how to begin to rebuild relations with washing - and Wolfowitz suggests the BEST thing Schroeder can do... is to resign. So much for democracy). Surely there are ways of stating things civilly and professionally that are not quite as fond sounding. Is it that he is just being diplomatic? Or does he really not get the threat that these men, and their blind, dangerous ideology pose to our country - especially when they are given such access to power. The two stories resonate - he strikes me as far to intelligent to be naive about these groups and their overall ideological views.

He could just be such a newcomer to politics that he carries conventions from other life experiences into the arena. And I can overlook the Reagan votes as a remnant of living an apolitical military life, as officers are supposed to do so they really can serve well, without bias, any CIC.

But PB, it does make me uncomfortable to think that he may not really get the wolves that are out there trying to extract more and more out of our country, or that he may not consider their overall ideology and desired ends quite so dangerous.

If he ramps up counter rhetoric - please forward it on to me. I would love to be reassured on this front, as his candidacy looks very strong and he may be the one I have to work very hard to get elected. I would do so much more easily if I didn't have this unsettled illease.

Peace.

[Pepperbelly]

87. Did you read the thread from Bleacher7 about meeting Clark in NYC?

I think he knows better than most of us about these guys. He is just NOT going to take cheap shots. When he takes shots, they are frontal and direct.

I think that the hardest thing for people to get used to is that he really isn't comfortable talking like a pol. For myself, I have long not been comfortable listening to how pols talk. To me, it is refreshing.

[salin]

89. I will look for that thread.

it isn't talking like a pol or not. It is being assured that he or any next leader - recognize the radical right for what it is - and keep them in their cages - er thinktanks rather than possibly serve as advisors.

[CWebster]

79. Yo, Here is hoping this is a wake-up call

for all those who protest the Democratic party from becoming the Republican party.

[Skwmom]

84. Maybe Clark should be more like Bush

Let's see -- Bush bashes "Old Europe" and then expects them to help us out of this mess. That hasn't worked out very well has it?

Clark wanted the Bush admin and the American public to listen to his advice on Iraq. If Clark had said he didn't like these individuals:

1. He would have hurt his chances of having them come around to his point of view.

2. The Bush admin would have dismissed him as an individual who didn't care for Wolfowitz etc. and therefore was just disagreeing with their Iraq policy because of his dislike of these individuals.

[robbedvoter]

85. Funny, considering that Clark unmasks PNAC - the only candidate

so far. he said repeatedly that bushco planned to attack 7 countries and that's the reason he can't get help in Iraq. That himself would exit Iraq by establishing a good relationship with Iraq's neighbors so they help stem terrorism there.
Saif it in an interview on Connections, also there is a MSNBC article on it - no time to get the link - but was covered here.

[CWebster]

88. Anyone know Clark's views on the Middle-East

or the I\P conflict?

[Clark Can WIN]

91. I like alot of Republicans I've had to work with

Where I am they are the VAST majority, just like the circles Wesley Clark has had to work in. I even respect some of them. Doesn't mean I'd let them run the world.

This is old news BTW.

[rman]

93. Would you like them if they'd have blood on their hands?

Or do you think the PNAC guys do not have blood on their hands?

[Flying_Pig]

94. This needs a kick....., and some answers..

Can anyone connected with the Clark campaign please tell us his position(s) on PNAC, Likud, JINSA, and AIPAC, and the people associated with those organizations? Until I know his answers, he will not have my support, especially given the quotes from his Salon interview.

[GeronimoSkull]

98. kick

agreed

[Padraig18]

95. Here we go again

Like Roman augurs, trying to read bird entrails, we are once again called upon to read a single snippet of info and 'divine' the General's innermost thoughts. :puke:

I know and work with some right-wingers; some of them are very nice people who I would and do trust to watch my dog when I go out of town, would trust to babysit my kids (if I had any), etc. . Just because I like them personally doesn't mean I'd vote for them, or put them into my (hypothetical) administration, were I elected President.

Christ on a crutch! How low do we plan to sink? I'm already tempted to get some hip waders! :grr: