Clark supporters.....have you seen this?

[Cascadian]

I am still mystified that people want General Wesley Clark to run. Sure he was a Rhodes Scholar and an army man, but read this....



http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html



This also includes an piece of an article from the Guardian done in August 1999 that talks about a arguement between Clark and British General Mike Jackson over the Russians who occupied the airport in Pristina, Kosovo during the conflict there.

I don't know you guys. Do you want the Democratic Party to front a loose cannon to take on a loose cannon?


John

[Dookus]

1. OMG!

No... I haven't seen that!

Why... why.... it MUST be true. I read it on the internet!

Actually, we've all seen it a thousand times because small-minded little people who feel the need to attack other candidates post this crap every day.

As you might imagine, there's another side to the story.

[ronzo]

2. Yeah... it's out there.

But, from what I've read this is not something that has been backed-up officially. The Guardian article I read said it was a second hand account and you must take into account the fact that the press over there was not balkan-action-friendly. It is a subject he'll be questioned about, though. Spin?

[Cascadian]

3. I do recall the incident in '99.

It was reported in not just the Guardian but in the BBC as well as NPR. I do not want another person who will be eager to start another conflict be it Democrat or Republican. The fact that he wanted to go and kick the Russians out of Pristina airport could have had some dire, dire consequences.

John

[ronzo]

5. it's out there.

He will have a tough press conference at some point. But, yeah, I read about it a while back and it's a concern. Let's see how it plays out.

ronzo

[antineocon1]

4. You need to read Clark's book

Read Clark's book. He was given orders to prevent the Russians from taking over an airport. That's not the same as attacking the Russians and starting ww3. Jackson stated, according to the book, that he wasn't going to take anymore orders from the Pentagon.

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Here's my understanding...

Clark found out the Russians were going to land and take over the airport. He told the British General to go and take the airport in advance. I can't imagine why that part is controversial. For some reason, the British General did not complete the order. Some say miscommunication others say he disobeyed Clark's directive.

After some Russians arrived at the airport, Clark told the British General to put tanks on the runways to stop Russian transports from landing. There was also something about him trying to blockade Serbia against the Russians supplying them with oil. Bottom line, Clark never sought to engage the Russians and with regard to the blockade, the international community was behind the action and thus intercepting Russian ships supplying the Serbs was legitimate. Again, he never said they should be engaged.

There were a number of times throughout the cold war that the US and Russia were closer to conflict than here. This was especially benign given that the cold war was over.

[antineocon1]

7. That's more than I knew...

It seems that the right is blowing this way out of proportion. This is great to know because we can use it to pour water on any brush fires the right might try to start with this.

[graham67]

35. ...

Clark told the British General to put tanks on the runways to stop Russian transports from landing

He did this with the blessing of Javier Solana and the US government. As has been mentioned more times than I can count, there was a serious communication problem between governments.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. You don't find giving the order to take an airport immediately...

...prior to the landing of Russian planes to be more than a little confrontational? Interesting interpretation, but I don't think too many people are going to buy that spin. And you also don't find anything wrong with an order to block the arrival of additional Russian planes by putting tanks on the runway? If I had been one of the Russians trying to land under those conditions, I just might have found myself thinking that the Americans were trying to kill me.

And you also think there was no attempt on the part of Clark to engage the Russians despite such provocative moves on his part? What if the Russians had decided to resort to force to ensure that their troops secured that airport?

And as far as the Naval blockade was concerned, every ship captain knows that any attempt to sail past a blockade is an invitation to being halted by force and/or sunk. Additionally, a blockade is only legitimate to the side that has the most ships and the capability to conduct that kind of operation. Those that are subject to a blockade very rarely find it to be legitimate.

I also find it very interesting that anyone tries to lay the blame for any of this at the feet of the international community when everyone knew that the U. S. was driving the train in Kosovo, just as we had during Desert Storm.

When I was in the military, those kinds of orders usually caused a rather large jump in what we called the "pucker factor"...an extreme tightening of the nether regions in anticipation of the very likely possibility of combat.

Yes, there were a number of times in the past when the U. S. and the old Soviet Union had nearly come to blows during the Cold War, but this incident is particularly troubling to me precisely because it was NOT taking place during the Cold War.

Is it possible that the training and advice Clark had gotten over the years from his mentor, General John M. Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could have had anything to do with Clark's attempt to deliberately provoke the Russians? It is known that Shalikashvili's family was forced to flee twice from the Russians, once when their home country of Georgia was captured by the Russians in 1921, and second, when their second homeland, Poland, was overrun by the Russians in 1944. In 1944, when John M. was 8 years old, the Shalikashvili family fled to Germany, and the Germans also had no love for the Russians. The habits of old Cold Warriors are hard to break...and Clark is a definite product of the overriding stance of the senior officer corps during that period of time.

[graham67]

40. ...

And you also don't find anything wrong with an order to block the arrival of additional Russian planes by putting tanks on the runway? If I had been one of the Russians trying to land under those conditions, I just might have found myself thinking that the Americans were trying to kill me.


Oh yes, it would have been brilliant to let the Russians take a sector that they were never meant to have.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. The Russians were supporting the Serbs during that conflict...

...and I'm assuming that they really didn't care what we thought under those circumstances. It was our spin that the Russians were cooperating with the so-called coalition led by the U. S.

[graham67]

52. The Russians

From what I've read, the Russians bowed to pressure because they were under the threat of losing US backing ($$$).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. Yawn. The "Shalikashvili" Drum Again.

You beat it so well. Too bad it's always the same tune.

:eyes:

DTH

[Clark Can WIN]

57. I posted this in the wrong place but I don't want the point missed

So my apologies to all, just skip reading it again later.

What if the sky falls and everyone TURNS BLUE???
What if the Russians had decided to resort to force to ensure that their troops secured that airport?

If we secured the airport first then THEY would be the ones initiating conflict. How many Russian soldiers did Clark kill at the airport when he was "almost starting world war III"? Oh that's right............ NONE because it's tripe and bullshit period.

Your wonderously credible webpage sites the biased ravings and rantings of known Democrat hater Col. Hackworth. It sites a "war crimes tribunal". Just because 16 racist crackpots with their own spin and agendas call themselves a tribunal somehow makes it legitimate? Only if you are without critical powers of observation. They also found President Clinton, Jacques Chirac, and Madeleine Albright guilty. Is this "legitimate" tribunal bringing them to trial? Oh, that's right, it's all tripe and bullshit too.

And again with the Shalikashvili thing? The most sinister thing I've yet seen anyone come up with on Shalikashvili is that he was strongly opposed to Communism during the cold war. SHOCKING!:freak:

Your implications that it is possible that maybe because Clark knew someone who's family was forced from Georgia in 1921 when he was an infant and later grew up to not like communists in the cold war Clark later tried to start World War III? The smallest **cking spider in the world could not weave something that thin.

Not even the Republicans are going to bring this crap up. It just looks too...........:tinfoilhat: :crazy::dunce: :tinfoilhat:

The overwhelming majority of people recognize it for just what it is. :hurts:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. How do you think the Russians would have responded to...

...to such an action? No, Clark wasn't given orders to directly attack the Russians, but one has to objectively consider the idea that had those orders been carried out, the result would have been seen by the Russians as very provocative.

Jackson's mandate was peacekeeping, not placing his troops in a position that could have led to a widening of the war.

[John_H]

8. Run away One-Percenters!!! Run Away!!!!

Fear is a horrible thing, ain't it?

[Pastiche423]

9. Who are one percenters?

ABC

[Julien Sorel]

10. That article did it:

I changed my mind. I'm soured on the non-campaign of Clark. He's a war criminal; he's a card-carrying member of the Illuminati; he's in league with the Freemasons; he's a puppet of the military-industrial complex; he's a crypto-Republican who takes his orders from Karl Rove; and now, I find, far worse than them all, he tried to start WWIII. I was going to forgive him for the rest of that stuff -- everyone deserves a second chance -- but trying to start WWIII is simply crossing the line of decency, and I can't find forgiveness in my heart for him.

I want to thank you, Cascadian, for finding this brilliant piece of journalism and bringing it to my attention. I was about to make a terrible mistake in supporting Clark, but I've seen the error of my ways now. You can pat yourself on the back for having done your good deed for the day. :thumbsup:

[Cascadian]

11. I am so fed up!

I detect that sarcasm!


I am so sick and tired of these so-called intellectuals within the DU trying to put down anyone's viewpoint particularly if it seems a little "too left" or too outrageous for their liking. I am also sick of the jumping to conclusions around here! This just caters to snobbery and mean-spiritedness. Look I am no closet right-winger, a David Icke supporter, and I am certainly no hypocrite. But I will not be talked down to nor will I be misjudged either. I was merely directing the attention of the questionable character of a former Army general who maybe running for president. You can take it or leave it anyway you want, but I resent certain people who I won't name for their shallowness and narrow-minded attitude.

I think I may have to go away from DU for a while until things calm down. I am sick of this crap! :grr:


John

[Dookus]

12. buh-bye...

thanks for flying DU. We know you have a choice of forums in which to post crap, and we appreciate you choosing DU.

[ronzo]

13. Newbie's opinion.

Yeah, let's keep the sharp minds in the same forum. I see the bristles go up when one's candidate is belittled and such. Frankly, when I found that article on Guardian, I brought it up on another board. It's an issue, and believe it or not, it's news to some. So, anyway... here's another appeal to keep it civil and remember whose side we're on.

[Julien Sorel]

14. Who claimed to be an intellectual? Not me.

Heck, I have no idea why you're so upset. I expressed genuine gratitude for your act of altruism, and for some reason you are now angry. I suppose this is an example of the old adage, 'no good deed goes unpunished,' and I feel bad for you. You tried to shed light on my gross ignorance and succeeded, but for some reason, you are upset by that accomplishment. You should hold your head up high for a job well done, not cast your eyes down in anger and embarrassment.

Keep posting that article wherever you can; there are certainly many other people out there as deluded as I was, blindly supporting this monster of a man. It's the good fight (unlike the bad fights General Warmonger Clark always fought), and someone needs to carry it on. I feel certain you have what it takes.

Best of luck to you, and again, please accept my sincere gratitude for what you did.

[Clark Can WIN]

61. Billy you crack me up

perhaps one day I will be enlightened by this newly discovered and earth shaking all true revelations about the General, just as you are. :yourock:

[Pastiche423]

15. John

Please do not let the Clarkites upset you. They ignore anything negative about Clark and do come up w/creative excuses for his history.

When I 1st heard his name here, I knew nothing about him. So, I did some research. I was aghast at what I found. This is a man that values Democratic ideology?

All anyone need do, is to google Clark + Kosovo.

A little more about the row between Clark and General Sir Michael Jackson:

Jackson: "Sir, I’m not taking any more orders from Washington,"

Clark: "Mike, these aren’t Washington’s orders, they’re coming from me."

Jackson: "By whose authority?"

Clark: "By my authority as Supreme Allied Commander Europe."

Jackson: "You don’t have that authority."

Clark: "I do have that authority. I have the Secretary-General behind me on this."

Jackson: "Sir, I’m not starting World War Three for you."

Clark: "Mike, I’m not asking you to start World War Three. I’m asking you to block the runways so that we don’t have to face an issue that could produce a crisis."

Jackson: "Sir, I’m a three-star general, you can’t give me orders like this."

Clark: "Mike, I’m a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

Stung by Jackson’s mutiny, General Clark telephoned General Sir Charles Guthrie, Britain’s Chief of Defense, who seconded his subordinates refusal to risk war with the Russian bear. Up the diplomatic ladder it went, eventually "resolved" by what was essentially a slap to Clark’s already embarrassed face; British and French troops were put on so-called "high alert." No Apache helicopters or Allied troops were deployed for a possibly disastrous confrontation with the Russians and Moscow now had a seat at the high stakes Serbian poker game.

And so it goes.

According to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the United States has an "inescapable responsibility to build a peaceful world and to terminate the abominable injustices and conditions that still plague civilization."

To accomplish this, the corrupt Clinton regime launched a brutal 78 day bombing campaign followed by the subsequent occupation of Kosovo; pitting mighty NATO against tiny Serbia, a country that posed no threat whatsoever to the supposedly defensive alliance formed to protect Europe from Russian tanks.

Unknown to us at the time, the commander of NATO was willing to launch an attack that could bring about the very conflict that his organization was founded to prevent: Armed conflict between East and West.

Quoting Sir Roger L’Estrange’s translation of Aesop’s fable, A Wolf and a Fox:

‘Tis with Sharpers as ‘tis with Pikes, they prey upon their own kind; and ‘tis a pleasant Scene enough, when Thieves fall out among themselves, to see the cutting of one Diamond with another."

Pleasant scene? When carried out on a global scale, it’s anything but. We were fortunate that in this particular falling out General Sir Michael Jackson had intestinal fortitude enough to tell Wesley Clark to go to hell; our luck continued to hold when Jackson’s superiors backed him up.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins17.html

[Dookus]

17. No....

we don't ignore these assertions. We study them and judge them using a variety of sources.

Also, the term "Clarkite" indicates a sort of un-thinking allegiance. I think that's unfair.

All I can determine from the original post is that some blogger thinks Clark behaved wrongly during the Prisitna airport incident. There's plenty of evidence to indicate that he did not.

You don't have to like Clark. But I think it's intellectually dishonest to present articles like this as if they're the accepted truth about the matter.

[Pastiche423]

20. I think it's intellectually dishonest to present

opinions of Clark's stances as if they're the accepted truth.

Since Clark does not have an official web site where one would go to get informed of his stance on issues, one must research the web to get those answers. Are you trying to tell me that everyone of those articles is wrong?

As to his behavior during the Pristina Airport incident, all of the articles I have found on that incident are akin to the article above.

Btw, do you know why a four star general was ordered to leave the military early?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Bingo on all counts.

[ronzo]

22. Not even...

Not even a candidate yet. Let's just relax and mull over the fact that he's a Dem. Two weeks from today, he'll let us all know.

ronzo

[Joe the Revelator]

19. Someone wrote down the conversation...

between Clark and Jackson, to the word?

[Pastiche423]

21. Since it is obvious

that you did not bother to read the link I provided, I will answer that question for you.

Yes, indeed, someone wrote down the conversation. That person was Wesley Clark.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. You Lost Me With The "CORRUPT CLINTON REGIME"

I thought it was a Newsmax release and stopped reading...



<kisses>


Brian


on edit- A little Newsmax might be good preparedness for this site. Because I see some of their lunacy has affected the left.... Politics makes strange bedfellows.....

[Tinoire]

36. Naw, don't go away

You've been here too long and done too much for the Democratic Party to let this get to you. You've got too much respect on this board for your years of discussing and advancing the Democratic cause.

Try the ignore list. It works wonders.

Peace

[Clark Can WIN]

59. Perhaps you just need to stay away from crap websites

That get their "information" from Democrat haters and crackpots important only to themselves.

[WilliamPitt]

60. *snarf*

:)

[Trajan]

64. LMFAO ....

to the snarfing interloper ....

After reading ALL these bloody broken-bottle-to-the-throat posts: .. this is the ONLY one I want to respond to ....

Well spoken, Will ... as usual .....

*snarf* ....

[sandnsea]

16. Duers are war experts

Who'da thunk it?

(Not you Cascadia, it's important to delve into this Kosovo stuff, alot of us are confused by it)

[Julien Sorel]

18. I thought the article Cascadian

posted was quite illuminating. I certainly don't need any further evidence to reach the reasoned conclusion that Generalissimo Warmonger Clark is a dangerous man.

Now that Clark is out of the picture, I'm considering Dean. The problem I have with Dean though, is that he seems to keep changing his positions with the political winds, and he gets in these debates and says things that turn out to be untrue. I am also concerned that Dean is a medical Dr., and as such, presumably an AMA member. Do you know how shady the AMA is? Just as Clark turned out to be dangerous for his military connections, I'm concerned that Dr. Dean might turn out to be tainted by the AMA. Or he could be an agent for the big pharmaceutical companies -- lots of doctors have shady dealings with them. I suppose I should begin doing research into the AMA and its associations with pharmaceutical companies. Governor Dean's wife is still a practicing physician; I wonder if she has deals with certain pharmaceutical companies to prescribe their drugs instead of competitors' drugs. That's a common practice in medicine, I'm told. While I like Dr. Dean, I'm concerned about a man with such shady connections being in the White House. This is something that needs to be investigated further, before I can support Dr. Dean with a clear conscience.

Here is a link to the kind of things I'm concerned about.

Can we trust a medical doctor to be president, when he has been a part of, and his wife still is a part of, a field that is so venal? I'm concerned about this. We need to throw open the boards at DU to this, and begin discussing it, because I think people have overlooked this as a potential downfall to Dr. Dean's candidacy.

[Dookus]

23. lol...

Billy Bunter: you're my new bestest friend.

[sandnsea]

24. Need a valium?

Geez, calm down. I was just saying that if Clark is going to run, we're all going to need to know exactly what this Kosovo stuff is all about. Not agreeing with it, just suggesting learning might be a good thing. Is that acceptable?

[Dookus]

25. of course it's acceptable...

but if the pristina airport incident is the WORST thing the Clark opponents can dig up, then he's a shoe-in for the presidency.

[Julien Sorel]

26. No Valiums, please -- Doctors are involved,

as Valium is a prescription drug, and just the little research I've done on the medical profession makes me want to stay as far away from doctors as possible. I just have to turn the Valium down. But your concern for my mental well being is noted and appreciated!

I'm just in the beginning stages of my research into the medical profession, but I'll make certain I post my findings, and continue posting them as I find more and more things, but I have to tell you, what I have after just a few minutes is frightening. In the end, I agree with you: learning really is a good thing, and I plan on learning a lot about this.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

49. You Are SO Funny!

Goddamn, that is just hilarious!

Kudos to you, BB!

:toast:

:thumbsup:

DTH

[tlb]

27. Honestly, if Clark said he was a repub with this same record,

how many defenders would he find here ?

It speaks volumes to me that the British General Jackson was upheld in his " mutiny " and Clark was relieved of duty.

I'm on record in earlier posts on my skepticism of Clark's fitness in any future position of responsibility, much less the presidency.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Maybe He's A Bushman

but not of the racially distinct brown skinned , peppercorn hair variety....

[graham67]

33. Oh Please......

Clark didn't leave until months later. :eyes:

Mike Jackson commanded peacekeeping forces. He never thought they'd see any real action. He just wasn't prepared for it, hence his disobeying a direct order.

[Tinoire]

37. Clark has even worse baggage than Pristina. And is also the DLC's man

The answer to your question is very, very few among the old DUers.

Clark supporters want everyone to be so dazzled at the honor Clark is doing the by accepting to be "drafted" that they won't look into the man. Keep looking, keep posting and keep discussing.

Clark is a DLC candidate. Do a little googling and you'll recognize the heavy tactics and why they desperately want to shut up the Left before yet another DLC candidate goes down the tubes.

Here's a DLC slide on what kind of person they needed to maintain their grip on the Democratic Party. They went out and shopped for someone who could run on yet another disastrous platform, created an "illusionary grass roots campaign", and steered people to the Leftist boards to "mute the Left". The founders of the "Draft Clark" movement are a Republican and a Democrat :think: which we all know = Republican Lite/DLC. What other group could come up with the following slide for the ideal candidate?



“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp?cp1=1

People need to be aware of Clark's links to Homeland Security, AEI/PNAC, the Brookings Institute, Jackson Stephens, etc . Any info you need PM me or do a DU search on my previous Clark posts.

The Burden is on his supporters to refute those points intelligently, if they can but they can't. Progressives WILL carry this day and that's the DLC's greatest fear. They're out in force now that the elections are at stake.

Start googling.

http://wesleyclarkweblog.com/archives/000076.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I'm not a Big Fan of PNAC and AEI

but I thought the Brookings Institutution was a mainstream research organization that leans left...

Also, I find your campaingn against Clark amusing...


We enter this race a dedcided underdog (If you don't believe me go to Vegas where you can bet on anything and you will find * is a prohibitive favorite) and all your energy is devoted to demonstrating that a candidate (Clark) who hasn't announced is a right wing tool....

When the Florida primary comes around I will vote for the most electable liberal candidate.... If the most liberal candidate is the most electable candidate so much the better but if the most liberal candidate is unelectable I will vote for the one who can beat*

But keep us the attacks on Clark... The anti-Clarkers need to be fed.....

Peace 03

Brian

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Don't Believe the Hype

Tinoire's "evidence" of links to Brookings (and I agree, they're hardly the MOST sinister group out there), PNAC, Homeland Security, etc. are all tenuous, tinfoil-hat quality links that rely on guilt by association once, twice and thrice removed.

The DLC accusation is a new one. I believe she thinks that she will be able to get more mileage out of that accusation around here, given the distaste many have for the DLC. Of course, once again the guilt-by-association brush paints broadly: so one DLCer advises one of the Draft Clark campaigns. Wow, what a scandal.

DTH

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. The DLC Favored Iraq War 2

Clark opposed it....


"In my best LBJ Texas twang "that dog won't hunt..."


Actually I think shes' getting her memes -:) from Team Rove.

[Tinoire]

54. I'll be happy to repost some of that information for you

because the links are there. You should do your own research and form your own conclusions.

A good starting point is the
Markle Foundation The Task Force on National Security in the Information Age of which Clark is still a member of the according to their home page.

Notice Markle's pride in their work on Homeland Security Page and all their fascinating reports re HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL ID CARDS/DOCUMENT FRAUD/WIRETAPS/PRIVACY and ANALYSES OF NEW LEGISLATION, THE PATRIOT ACT, NEW FBI GUIDELINES, etc...

I don't get the warm tinglies about them. Nor do I get warm tinglies about
Zoe Baird, Markle's President being a current member of the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee, which advises Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld regarding the Department of Defense's use of information technology to fight terrorism. and who has been an advisor to the Department of Defense defense transformation effort in the Bush Administration.

Some of Markle's fine work has really impressive titles such as Task force: Homeland Security Dept., not FBI, should shape info priorities

task force on national security Oct. 7 called for the new Department of Homeland Security to take the lead in shaping domestic information and intelligence priorities to inform policy-makers, rather than the FBI.

The recommendation was made in a report issued by the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. The report, "Protecting America's Freedom in the Information Age," calls for a networked information technology system that shares information among local, state, regional and federal agencies.

People outside Washington, such as police officers, airport officials, FBI agents and emergency room doctors, do most information gathering; therefore, the government needs to use information technology to harness the power of this widely distributed information to protect Americans against terrorist threats, said Zoe Baird, president of the Markle Foundation and co-chairperson of the task force. Baird served the Carter administration as associate counsel to the president.

"Much of the information we need is local. Rather than creating a Washington-centric model, we need to create a networked, decentralized system," Baird said at a press conference unveiling the report at the National Press Club in Washington. Task force members were set to brief the president's homeland security director, Tom Ridge, later in the day.

You'll really have to forgive me for feeling this warrants more scrutiny and open discussion.

** The Brookings Institute describes itself in the following terms:

"A private, independent, nonprofit research organization, Brookings
seeks to improve the performance of American institutions, the effectiveness of government ..."

You can find out more about the Brookings Institue and its associations on the PNAC page here: http://www.thefourreasons.org/pnac.htm

A little look at their Board of Trustees (for those who care) reveals a mass of CEOs and other impressive business figures, sprinkled with reps from academia, and also including former and current heads of the World Bank.
------------

New Task Force Aims to Protect Nation with Better Information and Technology

The Markle Foundation in alliance with CSIS andThe Brookings Institution launches information and technology working group to improve national security

New York, NY and Washington, DC, March 6, 2002 – An independent, multi-sector task force to determine how information and technology can enhance national security was announced today by the Markle Foundation in alliance with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Brookings Institution.

The task force will make recommendations regarding:
· Technologies that enable the more effective collection and sharing of information in response to new security threats
· Aligning governmental structures and rules with the more information-intensive approach needed to counteract new security threats
· Balancing the expansion of information’s role in national security with safeguards for civil liberties – particularly in the privacy realm
· Strategies for deploying information more effectively for law enforcement, intelligence and homeland defense
· The role of the private sector in designing and implementing an information-based national security response, and the level of collaboration between private and public sectors

http://www.markle.org/news/_news_pressrelease_030602.stm

-----------

I'll also note before going to work, that the Brookings Institution is not that Left and this has been discussed at DU in the past.


There is little question about the source of PNAC's influence. When it was founded in 1997 by two prominent neoconservatives, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, its charter, which called for a U.S. strategy of global pre-eminence based on military power, was signed by men who would become the most influential hawks in the Bush administration, including Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, and Cheney's influential national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby.

"Thus, among the signers who have never before been associated with PNAC, are Robert Asmus, a former deputy secretary of state for Europe; Ivo Daalder, a prominent member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Robert Gelbard, a former U.S. ambassador to Chile and Indonesia; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Dennis Ross, his chief adviser on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations; Walter Slocombe, Clinton's top policy official at the Pentagon; and, most important, James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser who now heads foreign policy studies at the influential Brookings Institution."
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0303pnacletter_body.html


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=270701

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Vernon Jordan, Henry Louis Gates, Teresa Heinz

are all Brookings members and garden variety liberals... Of couse there's going to be an overlap in group memberships...


I'm not a big conspiracy buff... This country is run by elites no matter who the president is but I'll take the elites a Dem brings in over the elites a Rep brings in...

I really don't get excited by politicians... The last one to excite me is on my avatar. What motivates me to vote is a desire to see my civil liberties and the civil libereties of others protected and to see there is a governement in place that protects the least amongst us....

If Clark gives us the best shot at defeating Bush and taking us in a CENTER-left direction I'll embrace him with open arms... Same with any Dem...

[Clark Can WIN]

62. Tinore, being a working person I don't have time to

go through all of your bigass repost there but .........

Notice Markle's pride in their work on Homeland Security Page and all their fascinating reports re HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL ID CARDS/DOCUMENT FRAUD/WIRETAPS/PRIVACY and ANALYSES OF NEW LEGISLATION, THE PATRIOT ACT, NEW FBI GUIDELINES, etc...

Here is what Clark says about trying to change things from the inside.
"And yet as I've looked at where the country is, and where it's going, and I've looked at the policy that took us into Iraq, I always had my doubts about it, and I was always concerned about what would happen afterwards. Of course, so much of that has proved true. We tried to convey these concerns to people on the inside, but they didn't listen, they didn't want to take me aboard. I've looked at the tax cuts and what their impact is. I've looked at the job loss in America... there's just... to me, it's a very clear distinction between the two parties."

You ASSUME guilt by ASSOCIATION. Who better to know the enemy than someone who has sat accross the table from them?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. And that is hitting the nail of truth squarely on the head.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Suggest Some Readings

to you about the one percenters.....


http://www.saragrahi.org/books/hoffer.htm


It is a beginner's text on The True Believer.....


Consider it my contribution to you and others of your mindset as the first step on your road to recovery....



on edit I especially like this aphorism "Fear and freedom are mutually exclisive."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. You have an interesting debate style. Might I suggest that you...

...lose the sarcasm? You might gain more credibility and people may actually think that your advice is worth considering.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. I Think Most Folks Have Their Mind Made Up

and my random musings on a bulletin board will do little to change them...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

48. Sometimes Crap Allegations Only Deserve Sarcasm

And this zpub article is not just crap, but it's old crap.

DTH

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. It's Hard To Avoid Sarcasm

after being carpet bombed by the anti-Clark drones....


Here's my take on Clark:


I give props to anybody who finished first in his class at West Point, became Supreme Allied Commander ,and earned a M A from Oxford to boot...

We go into this election a prohibitive underdog. I'll give any Dem who looks like he can beat * a hard look....

[The Lone Liberal]

32. Before you accept this piece as fact you might want to look at this.

Both links are from Zpub

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc9.html

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc.html


In particular this little thing where they accuse Clinton of murdering people.

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html

[VolcanoJen]

58. "The Clinton Bodycount"!!!!!

Honestly, folks. Please defend zpub for me now, would you?

Yawn...
Jennifer

[Renew Deal]

34. Give me your candidates name and 10 minutes

and I'll be right back. Because if it is on the internet, it must be true.

[Clark Can WIN]

56. What if the sky falls and everyone TURNS BLUE?

What if the Russians had decided to resort to force to ensure that their troops secured that airport?

If we secured the airport first then THEY would be the ones initiating conflict. How many Russian soldiers did Clark kill with his bare hands at the airport when he was "almost starting world war III"? Oh that's right............ NONE because it's tripe and bullshit period.

Your wonderously credible webpage sites the biased ravings and rantings of known Democrat hater Col. Hackworth. It sites a "war crimes tribunal". Just because 16 racist crackpots with their own spin and agendas call themselves a tribunal somehow makes it legitimate? Only if you are without critical powers of observation. They also found President Clinton, Jacques Chirac, and Madeleine Albright guilty. Is this "legitimate" tribunal bringing them to trial? Oh, that's right, it's all tripe and bullshit too.

And again with the Shalikashvili thing? The most sinister thing I've yet seen anyone come up with on Shalikashvili is that he was strongly opposed to Communism during the cold war. SHOCKING!:freak:

Your implications that it is possible that maybe because Clark knew someone who's family was forced from Georgia in 1921 when he was an infant and later grew up to not like communists in the cold war Clark later tried to start World War III? The smallest **cking spider in the world could not weave something that thin.

Not even the Republicans are going to bring this crap up. It just looks too...........:tinfoilhat: :crazy::dunce: :tinfoilhat:

The overwhelming majority of people recognize it for just what it is. :hurts:

[diplomats]

63. We've seen this link a million times

Zpub is a RW site. Does that mean Clark won't face tough questions? Of course not. But why don't we give him a chance first rather than dismissing him out of hand?