Anyway, my point about Osama wasn't that he shouldn't be given a trial - we're agreeing on that point, but you haven't acknowledged that he's admitted to being behind several attacks.That comment that I said about you forgetting about the fist attack against the Trade Towers must have slipped past you then.
He could be tried for the crimes in absentia, but we still have to find him if he's going to be charged.Tried in absentia? You mean to try him when he is not there to defend himself? To try him when he is not in a position to face his accusers? That sounds a lot like Bush's America.
"Clark wanting to go after Osama as if he is the real enemey is as Bushonian as you can get." I'm sorry to hear that. Your man Dean supported the war in Afghanistan - you may want to rethink your allegiance if you feel so strongly about this. Here it is in his own words: "I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. I thought we had a right to defend the US."Whow, nice way to try and change the subject. We can't defend Clark, so we attack Dean. Good job there.
Actually, I supported the Afgan war too. But here is the thing. Bush lied to us. He used Osama as a scape goat to start the war with. But he was only out to secure the pipe line route through the moutons. Once that was done, Bush lost interest. THAT is why Osama is still at large. All of Bush's real objectives have been met. But Clark either doesn't know about this deception or he is in on it, and plans on using it. Clark is using Osama in the same way Bush did. But call me a prude if you like, when I found out I was lied to, I quite believing in it.
Mean while, this is but one statement Dean said on the subject. Quote:
"Let us turn our attention to postwar Afghanistan. I supported the President's invasion of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was and continues to be an imminent threat to the United States. However, insufficient security assistance and economic investment are opening the door to civil strife and tribal warfare, again the very conditions that bred the Taliban in the first place. Our repeated assurances of aid and reconstruction have resulted in lost hope and empty promises for the people of Afghanistan once again."So you think Clark should go after Osama? But what about the Afgan people? Are we going to have to bomb the civilian population into submission again? Or do you think there are other more pressing maters that must be attended to? How many lives of American solders do you think we should sacrifice to capture one man? How many billions of dollars that we do not have, should we spend on such a global man hunt?
Let me ask you a question. (And I will press for an answer.) What did you do when Bush gave his "We are go'na smoke'm out," speech? Did you cheer and appalled Bush for saying this? If not, than why not? You cheer Clark for saying exactly the same thing. And I wonder if you have the guts to admit it if you did cheer Bush on. Either way, your thinking has already been shown to be demonstrably inconstant, boarding on hypocrisy.
Most of your arguments about Clark are exaggerated, lies, or facts twisted to fit your own purpose. I'm a sucker for wasting time, though, so I'll argue with you.So I have been told many times by Clark apologists.
This is around the thousandth time I've heard #1. Complimenting someone doesn't equate to guilt by association.No, but it dose speak to ones character. Should Prescot Bush's lionization of Hitler be over looked? Dean's comments about the confederate flag don't seem to be finding any slack. But no doubt you will tell me that Clark was paid to say those things, as that is the standard talking point. That only makes him a paid horror for Bush, doesn't it. How can I believe a man whose word is up for sale? How can I believe that he will have my best interest at heart, when he praises the enemy of America? But if Clark can do this, why can't I say that Osoam is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
Furthermore, you're outright lying by saying he praised "the full PNAC crew." He mentioned a few names of people he knew and had worked with in the past - before PNAC even existed.False: PNAC was published in 1998. It was crafted in 1995. It had also been submitted to then President Clinton, who had its presenters thrown out of his office. And commonly held by the tin-hatters that it was what truly triggered impeachment.
2-4 are blatant lies. Don't believe everything you read - the part about being responsible for the Venezualan coup is hilarious, though. Good one.Clark was a member of the board of directors for the National Endowment for Democracy. A neo-con think tank that was primarily responsible for executing the coup. And here is a little something that links the NED to the coup.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020805&s=cornThat makes Clark both legal, and morally liable for these acts. But the official pro-Clark talking memo on this is that "The NED is a vary large and structurally diverse organization, responsible for as many positive contributions as it has eligibly questionable actions. It is neither feasible nor possible for Clark to have been fully informed or aware of all of the NED's activities." Translation? Clark plays dumb. "I know nothing, I know nothing."
But he was not only on the board, but directly involved, according to a Venezuelan newspaper. Check this out.
_____________________________________
According to the Venezuelan newsmagazine Sobrian, Wesley Clark directed NED's destabilization campaign against the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez:
Translation Link:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.soberania.info/Articulos/articulo_015.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Wesley%2BClark%2522%2B%2522Frank%2BCarlucci%2522%2BNED%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8(slightly corrected google translation)
Implication of the secret networks of the company to demolish to Chávez
Stay- behind: Failure of the operative one in Venezuela
Network Voltaire / IPI Agency - October/02
(SNIP)
In order to finance the movements, Elliot Abrams and Otto Reich resorted to diverse disguises, mainly the National for Endowment Democracy. Created in 1983 by Ronald Reagan, the NED was administered by Henry Kissinger and by the president of the union Afl-cio Lane Kirkland. Presided over nowadays by Carl Gersham and
mainly administered by general Wesley Clark (ex- supreme head commander of NATO during the War of the Kosovo) and by the inevitable Frank Carlucci (old director, present president of the Carlyle Group and administrator of the fortune of the family Bin Laden ).
In order to carry out this operation, the NED spent near two million dollars in Venezuela.
_____________________________________ (Provided by Stickdog )
You may be laughing. But his is no joke. Such shadow operations are how the Neo-cons operate.
You've twisted around 5. First of all, he had permission from the Secretary-General and the leaders of all the NATO nations to take the airstrip - that's not overstepping authority. The British General who claimed it would start WW3 was overstepping HIS authority. The orders were to take an airstrip, not attack the Russians.An airstrip that was placed under Russian jurisdiction and that was going to be used for the Russian operations in support of K4. And if the British General was overstepping his authority, then how come command took his side? Clark took this to his superiors, and was rebuked. Clark then went to Clinton, and was ultimately fired for this.
I'd like to see proof of 6 - IF it's true, I certainly don't agree with it, but it doesn't in any way implicate Clark as being PNAC.During K4, Clark targeted an occupied TV transmitter station and tower, resulting in the death of 6 civilians who were reporters and technicians. The facility was not marked to the enemy, had no defenses, and had no military importance. But Clark destroyed it any way, arguing in his book that the TV station was a "duel use" facility and "could" have been used by the enemy. Clark destroyed it in order to deny it to the enemy. Such actions is specifically forbidden in the Oslo Accords, international law that was used to prosecute the Nazis after WWII. And is unarguably a war crime by any interpretation of the law. The only thing that has saved Clark from indictment, is the fact that as an American citizen, he resides outside the jurisdiction of international law. (Not to mention that any nation who would dare author such an indictment would lose there US funding.)
Then again, if Osama can be absently tried. Why not Clark?
In regard to 7, you probably don't understand the difference between pre-emptive war and preventive war. Iraq was a preventive war, and Clark is against that. Pre-emptive war is acceptable only when we are absolutely sure an attack is coming - that's not Rovian, it's common sense.No, it's ridiculous. Come on, are you truly trying to sell me on the difference between pre-emptive and preventive warfare? And in his "National Security" address, Clark doesn't use the word "preventive" but "pre-emptive" making your argument pathetically moot. Clark supports "pre-emptive" warfare, exactly as Bush is selling it right now.
But hay, you want to argue semantics? Okay. Because the same problems that have with pre-emptive warfare, is also the case to preventive warfare. Dose the US have the authority to "go it alone?" Not legally it doesn't. How can you determine a threat with questionable intelligence? Doesn't a sovereign nation have a right to self defense, and to build a military to execute that end? Who determines if a nation is a threat to the US again? The Iraq war resolution says that the president can pre-emptily attack any nation that HE sees as a threat. What about less drastic action? Clinton made numerous strategic strikes against terrorist camps. Remember? Wag the dog, wag the dog?
Clark put his foot in his mouth, and you are trying to tell me that its flay-minion.
My response to 8 would depend on how what you consider "continuation" of the war in Iraq. Neither Clark nor Dean would pull out of Iraq immediately. I've read up on both candidates, and I don't recall seeing anything from either of them about the DHS. Has Clark stated he would fully fund it? What has Dean said about it?I thought you read up on it? Perhaps you should go back and read them again. And once again I see you trying to defend Clark by attacking Dean.
I define continuation as US forces remaining in Iraq. ANY US force reaming in Iraq. US forces must withdraw or surrender to UN forces as soon as US forces can be brought to bare, with out condition. Of course the fist condition would be control over Iraq assets. It's the oil dude. Bush is after the oil, and US troops are there to secure the oil for US corporations.
We should rebuild Iraq you say? We should rebuild what we have destroyed. I agree. But we can't, the US corporations will not allow it. We are doing more harm than good. Hell, we bombed them the other day. The war continues. Troops are still dying. And we have already seen Clarks softer side in K4. It was an illegal war, and Bush needs to be charged with war crimes for it. If Clark continues the atrocities over there, than he should be brought under the same charges for performing the same crimes. We have lost Iraq, staying there another month, or for 100 years will not change this. We can no more win in Iraq, than we could have won in Vietnam. Despite Clark's general stars, he doesn't seem to have any humility.
He even said that we can not withdraw because it would be too humiliating to do so. (Paraphrase here.) He will let more men die because of his patriotic ego?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
