More About Clark's Role With Axicom...

[slinkerwink]

Clark Worked For Ark. Data Firm
Acxiom Role Part of Surveillance Debate
By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer


Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000. Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.

<snip>

"The privacy impact of anti-terrorism initiatives is certain to be a major issue in the presidential campaign," said David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in the District. "The public is extremely skeptical," he said. "He owes the public an explanation as to how, if elected, he would limit the government's expanding collection of personal information about citizens."

<snip>

In a meeting at the Department of Transportation in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.With officials from an Acxiom partner sitting nearby, he (Clark) explained that computers would examine the data -- massive amounts of information about housing, telephone numbers, car ownership and the like -- for subtle signs of terrorist intentions. The system would authenticate the identity of every passenger, he told the government officials at the meeting. Implementation of CAPPS II has been delayed several times because of a mix of technological hurdles and concerns about its potential intrusiveness.

This is why I do not support Clark, because how can he rail against the Patriot Act, when he's supported measures such as CAPPS II that benefits the Patriot Act? How can one really excuse compiling lists to spy on American citizens and to classify them as terrorists if something doesn't check out, say, you buy two bags of fertilizers with a couple of household products. That could be construed as explosives in the computer system. One should be careful of supporting a man like Wesley Clark.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7380-2003Sep26¬Found=true

[Maddy McCall]

1. Link?

A link to the entire article would be appreciated :hi:

[maddezmom]

2. since it's a repeat thread

I'm sure the link will be forthcoming. :)

[slinkerwink]

3. here's the link

[Maddy McCall]

5. thank you

thanks

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

36. Just make sure Acxiom knows I donated to Clark!

I posted this about Clark first when the Wall Street Journal broke the story the week Clark officially announced. Hey Acxiom, can you do anything about my credit report?

I for one welcome our new Acxiom overlords. Are they based out of Texas like the other three?

[LoneStarLiberal]

4. The Distinction A Clark Supporter Makes On This Issue

This is why I do not support Clark, because how can he rail against the Patriot Act, when he's supported measures such as CAPPS II that benefits the Patriot Act? How can one really excuse compiling lists to spy on American citizens and to classify them as terrorists if something doesn't check out, say, you buy two bags of fertilizers with a couple of household products. That could be construed as explosives in the computer system. One should be careful of supporting a man like Wesley Clark.

I'd agree with your statement of being careful of supporting anyone, anywhere, anytime in a political arena.

As a Clark supporter I am not at all happy with Clark's role of lobbying for Acxiom given Acxiom's particular role in in the CAPPS program. I don't like CAPPS but I can understand the utility of a program like CAPPS given the security situation we find ourselves in thanks to us all being safer under President Bush.

The distinction that I make in the matter is between CAPPS I, CAPPS II, and the USA PATRIOT Act. I do not see them as all being the same thing. The CAPPS programs and the PATRIOT Act are different beasts in my view. CAPPS has a very specific task: The screening of airline passengers. The PATRIOT Act has a very broad and vague task: Defending our national security by a myriad of unclear encroachments, questionable collections, and broadening of Federal powers while constraining your rights, both legal and consitutional.

In the end, this is not a distinction that everyone will make. Some people have a very broad and very distinct view of programs and legistlation that encroach on personal interests. Some people have a very broad but not so distinct view of programs and legislation that encroach on personal interests. Some people have very indistinct and flexible views on both.

Ceteris paribus, the people in the first group will most likely not support Clark because of his lobbying for a company involved in supplying data for the CAPPS program. The people in the second group will most likely support him though with reservations. I place myself in this second group. I see nothing at all wrong with lobbying for a company that supplies data for CAPPS and maintaining a very aggressive stance on acting to overturn the PATRIOT Act. In fact, it seems natural to me. People in the last group are most likely Republican and we don't have to worry about them here.

I know that this is a big issue for people who are lobbying hard for other candidates when it comes to Clark. I have issues of my own with regard to other candidates that I feel very strongly about and therefore feel very uncertain of those candidates. I hope this counterpoint might give at least one person's view who is supporting Clark and is still concerned about this issue.

[funky_bug]

65. Very well put!

You are correct, and to be applauded for pointing out the difference between the Patriot Act and CAPPS. I put my kids on a plane several times a year, and I have zero problem with tougher airline security.

Tell me, if your babies were flying alone, wouldn't you want to know that all measures had been taken to ensure their were no terrorists on board?

With the recent fiascos in airline screening, I think Wes could have worked harder for Acxiom. Maybe then, and 8 year old girl wouldn't have been screened as a terrorist last month.

[Mattforclark]

6. No, it is not "more" about Clark's role with axicom

The article is from September 27th and has been posted repeatedly. I would hope that you will correct this without delay. Thank you.

[lurk_no_more]

70. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Good one!



And then there were none!
� JAFO�

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. Dusting Off the Ancient CAPPS Rebuttals

DUer Cat M's response: http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/28.html

DUer Pepperbelly's response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=429156&mesg_id=433768&page=

My own response:

I have known for some time that Clark has lobbied the military and the government on programs that he believes in (including ALTERNATIVE ENERGY BICYCLES, for Pete's sake), and I do not begrudge for one moment the fact that he is paid for his introduction services. He has a valuable commodity and is compensated for it. It is no surprise to anyone that his most valuable commodities are in the military, where he spent his entire career. If he'd wanted to, he could have become a complete whore and lobbied for weapons systems, he could have immersed himself on K Street. But he didn't do that.

As for CAPPS II, the person in charge of the program is LOYAL DEMOCRAT Norm Mineta, the head of the Department of Transportation. As a Japanese American, he was INTERNED in an American concentration camp during WWII, and so I think this is one man who has just a wee bit of knowledge of and concern for the issue of imposing on civil liberties.

Clark obviously believed in this program enough to work FOR FREE on it (something which can be verified easily, I imagine, as Acxiom is a public company), and he obviously took a balanced view of it:

"Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts."

If we have to have lobbyists at all, I think that describes exactly the sort of lobbyist we want. I also think that CAPPS II is a potentially important and useful program. With Norm Mineta overseeing the decision, I feel confident that it will be fine.

I also note that people who are in favor of gun registration and background checks also should not have much of a problem with this program in concept, IMO.

Finally, Clark is also a critic of the USA PATRIOT Act, and he has actually read all 1200 pages, apparently three times (unlike all of our legislators, who apparently passed it without even having TIME to read it all, practically). I'm comfortable with his positions here, and I'm not at all fazed by the news that he (gasp) actually used his military connections.

DTH

[Maddy McCall]

11. Thanks, DTH...I was about to address this...

but you expressed my sentiments--and more--beautifully.
:thumbsup:

[slinkerwink]

13. so, he was moved by the 9/11 attacks that he wanted to infringe

on civil liberties and privacy by supporting CAPPS II......thanks.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. I Am Not a Privacy Ideologue

Your privacy is compromised daily by the Internet, and moreover the CAPPS II databases are composed of readily-available information that is already being collected on a routine basis. In a post-9/11 world, I think extra security is a given, and I for one have little to no problem with it, properly done.

I reiterate my points about Norm Mineta and gun background checks; I welcome anyone to address them.

DTH

[slinkerwink]

29. I would rather not give up my civil liberties for extra security

that way leads to disaster with the Patriot Act and CAPPS II.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. I Reiterate My Points About Norm Mineta and Gun Background Checks

I welcome anyone to address them.

It's always a balancing act. And you don't have to give up civil liberties for security if it's done right.

DTH

[mikehiggins]

52. Odd. Wasn't it Dean that suggested we might want to revisit the

Bill of Rights after 9/11? Anyone got a link on that?

[mikehiggins]

71. dupe...sorry

edited to remove a duplicated post

[lurk_no_more]

72. So which parts of the Patriot Act that dean wants to keep

are you OK with? Since dean has said that some parts should be kept, I assume your OK with those, please tell us which parts are OK with you so we can determine if any of these are cause for concern for the rest of us.

Thank You!



And then there were none!
� JAFO�

[windansea]

8. too bad you didn't snip the most relevant quote in WAPO

"Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts."

if one takes a look at this recent CBS News poll..it's obvious 70% of Americans approve of the war on terror...any candidate that appears weak on this issue faces almost certain defeat.



BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS
Now
Overall
60%
Terrorism
70%
Iraq
57%
Foreign policy
54%
Economy
48

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/opinion/polls/main590018.shtml

[Toucano]

9. The potential for abuse

doesn't equal abuse.

CAPPSII is not something I agree with because there is too much potential for abuse. But if they are going to discuss it or do it, I would much rather have a decent, honorable man like Wes Clark involved with it than to leave it to those I know are going to abuse it.

That's just a different way of dealing with things we don't like. Would you rather have a chance to influence things in a positive way or stay shut out because the whole idea is repellent?

If Wes Clark was the sort of person who put personal profit above all else, he could easily have retired much sooner and made far more money in the private sector. That's not what he's about.

[slinkerwink]

15. I would rather not have a former military general support CAPPS II

because of the potential for abuse. :shrug:

[Toucano]

26. I disagree.

I hear you. I understand where you're coming from. And yet I reach a different conclusion than you.

Clark's integrity, experience, and his strong stand on civil rights makes him just the guy I want influencing that debate.

I respect your opinion, as always.

[NV1962]

10. Clark resigned as Acxiom consultant the day he announced his candidacy

Link:
http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA

Partial quote follows:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – October 9, 2003 – Acxiom® Corporation (Nasdaq: ACXM) today announced that retired U.S. Army General Wesley K. Clark has resigned from the Acxiom Board of Directors, effective immediately. The Company said Clark originally had hoped to fulfill his duties as a Company Director but that the growing demands of seeking the U.S. presidency had made that impractical.

Acxiom Chairman Charles D. Morgan offered deep gratitude to Clark for his many contributions to the board. Clark had resigned his role as a consultant for Acxiom the day he announced his presidential campaign.

Clark had been a member of the Acxiom board since December 2001.

[slinkerwink]

12. he's still listed on the board....

:shrug:

[windansea]

14. lazy webmaster??

:shrug:

[slinkerwink]

16. is that supposed to be taken as an excuse?

:eyes:

[Maddy McCall]

21. You should check the website because he is not listed

Board of Directors


Dr. Ann Die Hasselmo

William T. Dillard II

Harry C. Gambill

William J. Henderson

Rodger S. Kline

Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty, III

Charles D. Morgan

Stephen M. Patterson

James T. Womble

[windansea]

22. you saw the letter of resignation

and look at the post below...he's not listed

[bicentennial_baby]

17. No he is not

Wesley Clark Resigns From Acxiom Board of Directors

Dale Ingram,

Public Relations
501-252-4346

[e-mail]




LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – October 9, 2003 – Acxiom® Corporation (Nasdaq: ACXM) today announced that retired U.S. Army General Wesley K. Clark has resigned from the Acxiom Board of Directors, effective immediately. The Company said Clark originally had hoped to fulfill his duties as a Company Director but that the growing demands of seeking the U.S. presidency had made that impractical.

Acxiom Chairman Charles D. Morgan offered deep gratitude to Clark for his many contributions to the board. Clark had resigned his role as a consultant for Acxiom the day he announced his presidential campaign.

Clark had been a member of the Acxiom board since December 2001.

About Acxiom
Acxiom Corporation (Nasdaq:ACXM) integrates data, services, and technology to create and deliver customer and information management solutions for many of the largest, most respected companies in the world. The core components of Acxiom's innovative solutions are Customer Data Integration (CDI) technology, data, database services, IT outsourcing, consulting and analytics, and privacy leadership. Founded in 1969, Acxiom is headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, with locations throughout the United States, and in the United Kingdom, France, Australia and Japan. For more information, visit www.acxiom.com

Acxiom is a registered trademark of Acxiom Corporation.

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA

You can also check the Board listings on the website...He's not there...So you can stop spreading misinformation, m'k?

[NV1962]

18. Really? Can't find the word "Clark" on the board...

Please point out where he's listed:
http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=1668&Country_Code=USA

Names listed:

Board of Directors

Dr. Ann Die Hasselmo

William T. Dillard II

Harry C. Gambill

William J. Henderson

Rodger S. Kline

Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty, III

Charles D. Morgan

Stephen M. Patterson

James T. Womble

Also can't find the word "Clark" on the board committee listing:
http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2208&Country_Code=USA

[Maddy McCall]

19. He absolutely is NOT on the board any longer

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=1668&Country_Code=USA

Board of Directors


Dr. Ann Die Hasselmo

William T. Dillard II

Harry C. Gambill

William J. Henderson

Rodger S. Kline

Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty, III

Charles D. Morgan

Stephen M. Patterson

James T. Womble

[slinkerwink]

25. snippet from the article posted...

"After announcing his presidential ambitions, Clark quit working as a consultant for Acxiom but maintained his seat on the company's board."

[Maddy McCall]

27. And a snippet from the website:

Board of Directors


Dr. Ann Die Hasselmo

William T. Dillard II

Harry C. Gambill

William J. Henderson

Rodger S. Kline

Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty, III

Charles D. Morgan

Stephen M. Patterson

James T. Womble
http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=1668&Country_Code=USA

Have you considered that you are posting an article that is several months old? Not to mention that it has been discussed numerous times. Clark is neither on the Board of Directors or involved with the Board Committees, as a cursory search of the website easily shows. :shrug:

[NV1962]

28. Yeah, only formally, for a few weeks - the WP article is outdated

That article was published on September 23, the Acxiom statement announcing Clark's immediate resignation from the board is dated October 9th.

Sorry you overlooked that... But it's really there, in the pertinent texts quoted in this thread.

I think you should retract the assertion that he's still on the board.

[Maddy McCall]

32. Yes, because it is a false assertion and easily could have been researched

Your article was dated September 27. He resigned Oct. 9. His name is no longer listed on the website.

Easy to find the info.

[NV1962]

34. I think you mistyped (as did I BTW)

Wes Clark announced his candidacy formally on September 17. The article was published ten days after his announcement, on September 27 (and not 23 as I mistakenly typed.)

But you're absolutely correct: he resigned from the board on October 9, three weeks after his announcement, and two weeks after the WP article was published.

[Maddy McCall]

38. Thanks

Still waiting to see the retraction from the thread author. :shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

37. Yes.

Danke :hi:

At any rate, still waiting for a retraction. :shrug:

[windansea]

39. this is just like that Clark is anti pot decrim thread last night

in P&C forum...someone posts some outdated bunk..gets refuted...then does not reply

[Maddy McCall]

46. I've seen this a dozen times...

spray it like birdshot and then evacuate the premises.
The poster at least should retract her false assertion above...that would be the decent thing to do.

:shrug:

[windansea]

51. no worries

anyone who can read will understand what's up

I'd be embarrassed myself...

[bicentennial_baby]

33. Hello? Your article is OLD

Look at my post above.

[Toucano]

35. That's what happens when you post an out of date article.

It's out of date.

The media never fails to check facts, though. The don't ever repeat things without checking them out. Naw, not the American media.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. You Are Mistaken (eom)

DTH

[BobbyJay]

24. Thanks for continuing to attack General Clark

He and the latest polls thank you greatly for it.

[4StarWes]

30. This is a non issue

Every gerneral does lobbying when they retire. It's their reward for years of low pay.

it's a non issue. Wes can win.

[slinkerwink]

40. not every general does lobbying when they retire......

and it is an issue.

[BobbyJay]

41. Okey dokey. Please continue attacking him on it.

pretty please!!!!

[bearfartinthewoods]

66. i'd be careful what i wished for

i remember a dean supporter saying 'bring 'em on' a couple weeks ago.......

[NV1962]

45. Well...

Generals seem to be much in demand, lately...

I could very well have posted a link to a story about a certain former US Marine Corps general involved in the current presidential elections campaign, but declined to do so because I understand the issue in this topic isn't "pulling rank" or "parading uniforms" but CAPPS I/II, instead.

I'd like to see a response by the topic starter on the distinction drawn between CAPPS I&II and the USA Patriot Act.

A retraction of the statement that Clark is "still" listed as member of Acxiom's board of directors would be nice also.

[Leilani]

50. Maybe he needed the money

Not all of the candidates were born on Park Ave,

had inheritances....

I'll put Wes Clark's service to the nation againstt Howard Dean's bucolic life in Vermont any day.

I have posted positive comments today for all candidates, & I believe the polls show people are tired of the negativity of some candidates & supporters. But I don't think they get it yet.

[hellhathnofury]

53. You make a nasty insinuation in the post and then decry negativity.

I believe in equal opportunity.

[Leilani]

55. This old & outdated story

is a study in negativity.

As are the efforts of some to continually beat a dead horse.

But I believe the tide has turned.

[hellhathnofury]

56. My point stands...

"Not all of the candidates were born on Park Ave,

had inheritances...."

Is not a positive comment, it's a nasty comparison to the rich power-elite. I'll cease fire when the primaries are over, until then it's live by the sword die by the sword.

[hellhathnofury]

49. We'll they all need to make up for it, I agree with that.

We really should pay our soldiers more. It is an issue though and Clark owes the public an explanation of what his position on privacy is otherwise I may not be able to do it. ABF.

[shivaji]

42. Is Clark trustworthy as a democrat?

The current drudgereport.com headline says Clark
gave congressional testimony whole heartedly
supporting Bushco for PRE-EMPTIVE Iraq attack.

I think the date of testimony is in 2002. And now,
he says just the opposite. Was the general not aware
of his testimony on congressional record or is his
memory a weak suit?

My first requirement of ANY candidate is that he/she
be consistent and trustworthy. I will vote for someone
with some differing positions than my own if I trust
the candidate. The general makes me feel very queasy
about his truthfulness, memory, character stability
and lack of support from his own colleagues and bosses
after a lifetime in military.

I am still supporting the doctor.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Drudge Is Right-Wing and Not Trustworthy

His "world exclusive" has already been extensively debunked on this forum.

DTH

[BobbyJay]

44. lol was that a poem?

[windansea]

47. believe Drudge's snip and paste??

or Josh Marshall??

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[NV1962]

48. Well & nice, but what's the relevance to the topic here? - n/t

[mikehiggins]

73. Well, Perle sees it a little differently.

He complained to the same committee, on the same day, in the same room, immediately after Clark's testimony that it was clear to him that Clark was opposed to any military incursion into Iraq.

Now if one of the lead neocons in the world says Clark opposed the war, where does that leave you?

To the right of Attila?

[mikehiggins]

54. The train is coming off the tracks, and recyling old attacks won't help.

If Clark comes in third our campaign has done a great job.

If he comes in second our campaign has done a fantastic job.

If he wins, Dean is toast.

I don't think his most avid supporters will pine for too long, though.

There's a new version of Grand Theft Auto coming out soon.

-------------------

Seriously, Slinky, this is getting embarrassing. What is going on with you guys?

[arewethereyet]

57. Clark folks, how to recincile this thread and this other one ?

Its the one referring to his words ragarding te Military Industrial Complex on an NPR interview.

I can't reconcile these things, perhaps you have other insights ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=117843&mesg_id=117843

[mikehiggins]

74. What is the problem?

He wasn't lobbying for Grumman or Lockheed. He was lobbying for a firm that started out as a Democratic mailing company, hardly anywhere in the same town as Ike's "military industrial complex".

There is no conflict between the two positions unless you want to create one.

I like one of Clark's lines that apply to this kind of thing.

If you're looking for a fight, its easy to find one.

How about looking for the truth instead?

[mmonk]

58. Clark on civil liberties and the patriot act

http://clark04.com/issues/patriotact/
Sound like someone ready to suspend your civil rights?

[John_H]

59. One should be more careful of supporting a man who will

guarantee four more years of George Bush.

Is Clark's lobbying for Axicom the same as Dean raising money from the NRA? No? So it's OK to take Wayne LaPieer's money, but not axicom's.

How can Clark rail against the patrioty act? How can dean rail against the drug companies when he took pfizer's Cash and proposed raising healthcare costs for poor children in vermont by ading copays and deductable to state funded insurance?

The Dean supporters can try to hang Clark on Axicom if they want. The problem is that the dark side of howard dean's record is much, much legthier and better documented.

[bain_sidhe]

60. As I posted on a fast-sinking thread

reposted here because it dropped like a stone, and others may have not seen it:

Axicom actually started as a Democratic mailing list.

From a more in-depth article on his "history" as a lobbyist than the ones you might have seen:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg109145.html

He was also becoming increasingly involved with Acxiom, which was founded in Little Rock as a Democratic mailing-list company and which is now one of the nation's largest database processors.

After the 2001 terror attacks, Acxiom, which had never before had a federal contract, discovered its computers had personal data on 11 of the 19 hijackers and sought the government's attention.

General Clark telephoned federal officials for Acxiom on a pro bono basis. By December he had joined the Acxiom board.

"Wes started making phone calls to people in the upper reaches of government," said Jerry Jones, Acxiom's legal counsel, "and then they started calling us."

[democratreformed]

62. Thanks. I had heard this but didn't have any verification for

using as evidence on these threads.

[wyldwolf]

61. It is my opinion...

..that this is an infraction of one of the new rules: However, extreme and inflammatory attacks against Democratic primary candidates are not permitted.

My reasoning? Because this exact same link is posted quite often. We've all seen it. We've all discussed it. Repeated posting won't win any converts to the anti-Clark movement. Continued posting of old news can therefore only be described as inflammatory.

Again, my opinion. I'm not a mod. I don't speak for them.

[mzmolly]

63. Uh oh...

;)

[mmonk]

64. Oversight and transparency

which seems to be more than alot of dems in congress are asking for (or not).

[Hoppin_Mad]

67. "make America safe. That's what lobbyists mostly do" - Wesley Clark

[bain_sidhe]

69. Perhaps he was generalizing from his OWN experience

As I posted in one of the MANY MANY threads on this subject, many of the companies *he* represented *were* offering products to "make America safe" - they were new-technology companies bidding on homeland security contracts.

As noted in an article nearly as old as the one touted in this thread, (http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg109145.html) Clark lobbyied for small companies, not MIC giants.

A snip:

The path between the Pentagon and major defense contractors (whose board seats pay as much as $200,000 a year) is well trod — Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, now retired, sits on the Boeing board, while another retired general, John Ralston, is on the Lockheed Martin board. Other wartime generals, like Colin L. Powell, H. Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy R. Franks, have turned their fame into million-dollar book deals.

But General Clark was perhaps not in a position to cash in as readily, in part because as allied commander during the Kosovo war he was not as well known as the men who ran the first war in Iraq. Moreover, his potential as a lobbyist in the eyes of the defense industry could have been undercut by his publicized run-ins with the Pentagon — although those close to General Clark said he was drawn more to working with small entrepreneurial companies.

(And, you might want to note, the John Ralston on the Lockheed Martin board is the one who Cohen and Shelton brought in to replace him as Surpreme Allied Commander in the "early retirement" flap.)

The article goes on to list some of the companies he lobbied for: WaveCrest, marketing electrical bicycles to special operations forces; Sirva, the Chicago-based parent of North American Van Lines, which moves military families; Messer Geiesheim, a German maker of industrial gas, partly owned by Goldman Sachs; and of course, the (in)famous Acxiom, which started out in Little Rock as a Democratic mailing-list company

As the article ALSO states (and as I noted above):

After the 2001 terror attacks, Acxiom, which had never before had a federal contract, discovered its computers had personal data on 11 of the 19 hijackers and sought the government's attention.

General Clark telephoned federal officials for Acxiom on a pro bono basis. By December he had joined the Acxiom board.

"Wes started making phone calls to people in the upper reaches of government," said Jerry Jones, Acxiom's legal counsel, "and then they started calling us."

[lurk_no_more]

68. More?

Seems I read this same drivel before, in the same way before, just how is a repeat of the same thing more?

Oh well, whatever floats your boat!

Does anal retentive have a hyphen?


And then there were none!
� JAFO�

[Capn Sunshine]

75. Since when does a documented factual article

despite its age, qualified as 'drivel" ?

I have a problem with that sweeping generalization of anything tha doesn't make Clark appear to qualify for sainthood.