Clark as "Plan B" for the oligarches' oil conquest agenda

[Jacobin]

Iraq has 112.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_oil.php

At $30 a barrel, these reserves are worth 3.375 Trillion Dollars in the ground. At an average cost of $7 a barrel to drill for and extract the oil, the reserves are worth 2.587 Trillion Dollars at the well head. If peak world oil production takes place in 2010 or shortly thereafter as predicted by most geologists, the price of oil will quickly escalate as increasing demand from large emerging countries such as China and India grow and increase their dependence on fossil fuels and the industrialized nations continue to increase per capita consumption of oil. For every dollar increase per barrel of oil above $30, the value of Iraq’s reserves increase by 112.5 billion dollars.

The policies of the U.S. government encourage extravagant consumption of oil by giving large tax breaks to those who purchase fuel guzzling vehicles and lowering CAFÉ standards. Government policies give short shrift to research in alternative energy. The EU is taking the exact opposite approach.

Those in power in this country, including most Democrats, have embarked on a policy to use this country’s military might to appropriate oil reserves for its own use, rather than to deal with the fact that the age of fossil fuels is coming to a close. This is implicitly or explicitly understood on Capitol Hill. Most estimates of the cost of the continued occupation of Iraq for the next ten years is One Trillion Dollars. Were it not for sabotage of the wells and pipelines, from a purely economic standpoint, the conquest of the oil fields would have been worth the money spent to conquer them.

What is dawning on those in power is that the trillion dollar cost of conquering and occupying Iraq’s oil fields over the next ten years will only be cost effective if the oil can actually be taken out of the country and sold or used. The guerilla war and sabotage of the oil facilities and pipelines is making this appear impossible. Production and export has slowed to a trickle.

This is the reason that those in power are turning against the Bush* administration. The cost of conquering the oil fields is less than the value of the oil that can be removed. Cheney and Bush* will be removed from power for this massive miscalculation by the oligarches who run the country.

Have the oligarches chosen Wesley Clark to replace Bush/Cheney to approach the conquest of oil resources using a different tack and to head off what they perceive as Dean’s approach to energy policy (EU model of conservation and alternative fuels)?

[Pepperbelly]

1. Do you have any reason to say this or is it merely the latest smear?

:eyes:

[Jacobin]

3. What is Clark's position on alternative energy?

I know what Dean's is.

[Pepperbelly]

5. IOW ...

no, no particular reason.

Just another baseless smear.

[Jacobin]

8. Do you know your candidate's position on alternative fuels?

It is incredibly important. I know my candidate's position.

Why is it a smear to ask what Clark's position is?

[Pepperbelly]

10. give me a break ...

what you did was assert sans evidence that Clark was the Oil Industries Plan B because Iraq has oil and Bushco invaded the country. That was your post. Quit trying to change the subject or, at the very least, admit that you just pulled the accusation out of your ass.

[Jacobin]

16. Is that your way of not telling me what Clark's position on alternative

fuels is?

Very charming indeed.

Guess I know the answer now.

[Pepperbelly]

22. you know absolutely nothing and at this point,

your original post is a fraudulent, paranoid fantasy.

FYI, Clark is the Chairman of WaveCrest Technology. Have you head of them? Check out their website before you embarass yourself any further.

http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/technology/overview.html

[Jacobin]

31. Being the chairman of an effecient electric motor company is nice

What are his energy polices??????????????????????????????????????????

[Pepperbelly]

34. Jebus, Jake ...

He doesn't talk pie-in-the-sky talk, he walks the walk. While you want him to sing hossanahs and praises of alt energy, he's out there working on it. Jebus.

edited to delete an intemperate and hateful remark.

[Jacobin]

38. Guess my sixth request to find out what his position on alternative

fuels is would be useless.

BTW, alternative fuels is not a pie in the sky endeavor. It's what we will all be doing in 50 years, or be living in caves burning wood fires.

The EU is all over it and we are silly not to be pursuing it.

[Pepperbelly]

45. how silly can you get?

Have you set this aside as a special time to publicly humiliate yourself?

Wesley can "talk" alternative energy all day long but that doesn't do a damned thing. It's what politicians do. What Wesley does is actually walk the walk.

You wanna know what he thinks? Then for God's sake read it.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Environment.htm

Now you tell us what source shows Clark as a tool of the oil oiligarchy.

[Jacobin]

51. Looks like the same pablum that is on most republican

resume's, except for the ANWAR exclusion.

There is lip service paid to alternative fuels.

The company of which he is chairman makes efficient electric engines. That's great. But that is not an energy policy.

[Pepperbelly]

55. Jebus ...

you are hopeless.

Your 'ain't so' responses are becoming tedious and if that is how you intend to continue, then it serves little purpose to provide you yet material that you can poo-poo. Perhaps the difference between Clark and your guy is so fundamental in this that you cannot grasp it, that a man might actually work to GET alternatives on the fucking road rather than writing something on a web site and tossing a few lines out in a stump speech.

[Julien Sorel]

56. You still haven't answered the question:

what makes him a tool of the oil oligarchy?

[Jacobin]

63. Before posting, please read original post.

The last line of my post ended in a question mark.

I didn't know the answer to the question and therefor asked a question.

[Julien Sorel]

80. So what made you suspect he was a tool of the oil oligarchy?

[Jacobin]

84. The fact that the media has unquestioningly embraced him as the new

saviour.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. Turn the TV on.

Has Clark shaken a hand in New Hampshire? Has he eaten a Philly Cheese Steak? Has he kissed a baby? Has he ever addressed a crowd of potential voters, outside of his announcement speech?


Things I wonder about.

[Julien Sorel]

91. How does this prove he has been 'embraced as a savior'

by the media?

[Renew Deal]

98. Clark has done some of that...

Shaken a hand after his announcement: Yes
Philly Cheese Steak: Hee might have daintely eaten one outside of Philly, but I have no proof.

Kissed a baby: Yes
Addressed a crowd of potential voters: Yes three times since announcing. 3-4 times scheduled tomorrow. Campaign cranking up.

[QC]

88. An alternative explanation.

I also get suspicious when the media likes someone too much, but there's another, simpler explanation that fits in well with how they operate.

One of the worst things about our news media is that they treat elections as horseraces. Rather than tell us anything about what positions the candidates take and whether they are plausible, they prefer to talk about who's heading up and who's sliding down, who is using what strategy, and the like.

Having a new candidate enter the race at this point enhances the whole horserace thing. Will Clark get ahead? Will Dean attack Clark? Who will run Clark's campaign? How much money is being raised? Etc. That's the only thing our pundits seem capable of discussing, and Clark's candidacy gives them lots of opportunities to do it.

[Renew Deal]

99. That's BS

The press coverage has been negative outside of Arkansas.

[maha]

110. A few weeks ago

... they embraced Dean as the new savior. A few weeks from now it may be something else.

Spray some PAM on your tinfoil hat. The mind rays will slide off.

[_NorCal_D_]

123. A saviour?

I've seen nothing of the sort.

The media seems more interested in how often he cuts his hair.
:eyes:

[BeachBuckeye]

130. A VERY flawed assumption

Absolutely unfounded argument. No basis in fact whatsoever.

[Kahuna]

103. You have to back up your theory for posing the question...

The onus isn't on us to prove a negative. Are you kidding me? :eyes:

[el_gato]

117. pepperbelly your method of arguement is sick

address the issue instead of saying bullshit like
"Have you set this aside as a special time to publicly humiliate yourself?"

That is a phoney method of discussion.

Either address the issue or go away.

[loudsue]

120. THANK YOU, el gato!!

:argh: but I wish he'd just go away whether he addresses the issues or not!

When clark announces his candidacy, and is suddenly reported to be leading in the polls (by the corporate media), I can't help but sit up an pay attention. Some powerful people WANT him to be the bush alternative -- not a representative of the DEMOCRATIC party, in my opinion.

I don't care how many 'pepperbellies' try their stupid little street-fighting tactics to "hope" anti-clark people are somehow "humiliating themselves", or are "catty" (ROTFLMAO!!! He called me that on another thread!!! Musta run out of better insults!), or "don't know anything"....it's just bullying because there's no "there" there.

Clark will have the energy policy he is TOLD by the military industrial complex to have, and that's the one he'll go with. <military salute: "YESSSSIRRRRR!!!">

If clark is elected, we're just as much toast as if we had shrubbie again.

God help us.

[Clark Can WIN]

126. gee loudsue, do you always judge people based on such shallow

surface type observations and your own pre concieved ideas and prejudices? What a tidy little world it must be, where you know everything about someone based only on the suit of clothes they wear and your fear-based stereotypes.

Black people like watermelon
"Injuns" are all drunks and theives
Asians love to say "asso" and eat rice

Pretty damn offensive isn't it? How are you any better?

" Clark will have the energy policy he is TOLD by the military industrial complex to have, and that's the one he'll go with. <military salute: "YESSSSIRRRRR!!!"> "

Indeed. Better hold on to that crystal ball of yours because it must be worth about a million ***king dollars.

[loudsue]

127. <smirk> Yes! only neo-cons

Yes, and my "crystal ball" hasn't failed me yet when it comes to neocon politics.

That was a pretty lame try you wrote....the one about

"Black people like watermelon
"Injuns" are all drunks and theives
"Asians love to say "asso" and eat rice".

<laughing> You conservative types are sooooo busy selling this!!

And that part you wrote about:

"What a tidy little world it must be, where you know everything about someone based only on the suit of clothes they wear and your fear-based stereotypes."

No, my dear....I know all I need to know from doing my

RESEARCH!!!!!

Ever tried it? You can start w/ google and go from there. I've been researching Clark since Kosovo. And I know all I need to know about him. I wish you did!

:kick:

[Clark Can WIN]

129. Oh yes! All hail the lord God google! <snark>

"Research" at it's finest. If it's on a web page it must be true. I've read all the silly tripe you vest your faith in. Those are wasted minutes of my life that I'll never get back but at least I can say I have considered both sides of the issue. Somehow I doubt you can make the same claim. Have you read his book? I doubt it. It's easier to shout and pout and point fingers.

I'm also glad that you know so much about me that you can fit me into a little snarky catagory too. Like I said, tidy world you have there.

[Pepperbelly]

128. I think that I shall do as ...

I wish. How about this: you go away.

Clearly, you have a dog in the fight and are actually supporting the transmorphing of an article on Iraqi oil into a smear on Wes Clark. I think YOUR method of THINKING is sick.

[maxomai_vs_rove]

52. Sheesh

I'm a Dean supporter and I think this line of reasoning is idiotic.

"Clark has no stated position on alternative fuels. Therefore he is a tool of the oil companies." What the hell?

I agree that Dean's approach to the oil problem is one of the things that I'm really looking forward to when :) he becomes President. Before we go slinging mud at a candidate's position on this matter, how about we do some fact checking?

[quam]

13. If Clark Was Chairman of an Alternative Energy Products Company...

Would you be satisfied, consider Clark a non-threat?

Just curious.

[OKNancy]

17. see post 12 n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. There was a post in LBN that suggested that the

Iraqi oil reserves are actually less, and of a lesser quality, than stated. If that's true...

[Jacobin]

4. Media is trying to say: "oh well, there wasn't that much to steal anyway"

It's bullshit and Smirk spinning. Oil reserves are/were calculated by reservoir engineers from european countries and U.S. , not Saddam.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. I'll defer to you on this.

You're taking the tack that ChimpCo is spinning this to account for the lack of remuneration from the oilfields? I can believe both, or either.

Your original argument is basically the "War for oil" one. It's always treated as a conspiratorial accusation. But it is geopolitic truth. What do you think will happen when the "oil bubble" crashes in 15-20 years?

[Jacobin]

9. Conquer more oil fields.

Which is why the Saudis are getting very friendly with Russia.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. This too I have noted.

However, for all intents and purposes, the viable use of oil as the mainstay of global industrial production will peak very soon. Controlling all the oil fields in the world will eventually prove futile. We're headed for a new era in my lifetime. Any thoughts on what that era is going to look like?


Edit-for precision, I've noted the USSR/SA connection.

[Jacobin]

30. I read a good book recently on that issue

I believe it was The Hydrogen Economy or something similar. It appears that there are lots of viable alternatives to convert solar and wind power using the electrolytic processes to hydrogen which is the perfect fuel cell fuel.

Europe is way out front in this endeavor. The longer we stay in denial about the change, the harder it will be to catch up. I favor Dean's "moon shot" on alternative fuels approach. Seems like a better solution than stealing oil from the middle east, which, as you pointed out is a short term solution at best.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. Funny thing.

I thought we went through this in the 70's. I remember odd-even license plate number gas rationing. Thirty years later and the answer is still the same:

Find an alternate source of energy, you dumbfucks!

[Jacobin]

64. It seems to me the most important issue in the coming election

It controls whether we start unprovoked wars to steal oil, whether our economy will thrive or go to hell, whether we continue to coddle Saudi Arabia, and on and on.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

67. One mote of hope was offered at the Harkin Steak Fry.

Plenty of "Alternative Energy" signs in the crowd. Clinton noted that AE would have a trillion dollar+ impact on the economy. On the downside, "policies" that are part of the plank don't seem to take effect for a generation. Iow, "We're fucked!"

[JohnOneillsMemory]

124. Brevity in wit!

Thanks for the cogent energy analysis. Makes the back-and-forth more tolerable...

[Donna Zen]

29. Why?

What or who lead you to make inflammatory accusations about Clark with no basis in fact? And why are you changing the subject?

[Jacobin]

35. Did you read the post?

The hypothesis was that we are running out of oil and at this time unsuccessfully attempting to steal it from Iraq. Those in power in this country are not happy with Smirk's failure in that regard. They have loosed the press to criticize him, which hasn't happened before now.

Bush is in trouble and will likely lose the next election. Those in power are heavily invested in fossil fuel technology and don't want to change. Witness the legislation currently in force in this country and our antipathy toward EU solutions.

Since Bush is toast (and the oligarchs don't care which party toes their line ) are they floating Clark as a candidate who will be the Trojan Horse to continue their failed energy policies?

I don't know what Clark's energy policies are. Thus far, I've only been excoriated for not worshiping Clark and have received no answers as to what his policies are.

[DrBB]

39. Maybe you wouldn't be excoriated

...if you hadn't posed the question in such a contentious manner. "What are Clark's energy policies--anybody know?" is a legitimate question. A lengthy discussion of the petro-biz situation followed by the complete non-sequitur, "Is Clark a stealth candidate?" or whatever, and using that unsupported assertion as thread title is a smear attempt, not a question.

I don't know what Clark's energy policies are. But the more crap like this I read on DU, the more I doubt I'll find an honest discussion of them here.

[Pepperbelly]

47. here ya go ...

check this out ...

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Environment.htm

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. The statements are too short.

Anything longer or deeper?

[Pepperbelly]

61. wait a minute ...

do you see any reason to conclude that he is a tool of the oil oligarchy based on what you read?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. Nope.

Just commenting on the brevity of his policy statements.

[HawkerHurricane]

62. Don't be silly.

Clarke isn't the candidate the oilagarchs are floating, it's DEAN!

Evidence? The same as you presented against Clarke. Which is to say, nothing.

Wait a minute! I'm wrong, it's not Clarke or Dean, it's Sharpton!

No wait, it's Nader!

No, Wait...

(anyone who cannot tell if I am being sarcastic, please PM me for a 'sarcasm detector', now at a low, low price!)

[Zhade]

83. Yeah, we gotta watch out for Darth Nader! ;p

NT!

[Donna Zen]

27. Changing the subject

are we?

The thread was meant to be inflamatory, however, it seems it is nothing more than the rantings of a highly dishonest person.

[zeemike]

6. I wouldn’t think of it as plan B

But as rather an insurance policy. Plan B could be to run a serious candidate against Bush in the primary.
The insurance policy could in the best situation win, but at least, keep there from being a clear Democratic winner.

[sasquatch]

11. That's what I've been saying lately

But all the Clark people bash me telling me I'm a "leftist freak" or "disruptor".

[OKNancy]

12. What do you guys do? Just spout off

without doing any kind of reading on your own?

Go to the website and look who is Chairman of the Board and then look around the website and tell me that Clark is not interested in alternative energy. Clark is actually DOING something, not just talking about it.
http://www.wavecrestlabs.com/aboutus/company_facts.html

[UTUSN]

14. Why Would Anybody Who Believes

"oligarches' oil conquest agenda" be participating IN GOOD FAITH in a Democratic website--------------eh?????????/// I'm pressing the Alert shortly.

[Jacobin]

18. You can live in a fantasy land if you like.

It's a serious issue and you can press "alert" all you want to.

Why would a discussion of the oil conquest agenda of those in power in this country be "off limits"?

Is this your particular rule?

[Donna Zen]

33. You

haven't answered one question. Maybe Dean is behind the cabal. Yeah_that must be it! Or maybe it's people who bash Clark to make sure he doesn't win, then and only then can the real regime put a tighter grip on power.

[Jacobin]

46. What question have you asked that I haven't answered?

If you had read my original post you would note that I asked a question, which has been answered by Clark's supporters by stating that General Clark is the Chairman of an company that makes efficient electric engines.

There have been NO answers to my question. You haven't asked any for me to answer, silly.

[Donna Zen]

65. Questions from previous posts

(1)What or who lead you to make inflammatory accusations about Clark with no basis in fact?

(2)And why are you changing the subject?

If your question was his position on alternative fuels, I have answered that as well. He get it...even if you refuse to admit it. In (and I think it was the long NPR interview) he spoke about the need to develop alternative sources of energy. What you call pablum so that you can label and dismiss is a vision statement. A broad statement of purpose. Underlying that is a web of jobs, growth, and environmental policies including energy that combine to form a future that looks better than the one we are facing now.

So_since you are trying to knock down a viable candidate that can run both in the north and south, is smart and could cream bush, does that make you an instrument of the oil cabal?

(3)And yes, that is another question.

[Jacobin]

70. Cute

Okay, let me try to answer your questions:

1),2) and 3) I was sent to this board by Carl Rove's office to try to undermine General Clark's run. Rove is concerned that DU's members might not vote for Bush* and might actually vote for a Democratic candidate (as odd as that might sound). To try to bring DU'ers back into Bush's fold, I'm being paid $25/hour to diss Clark on DU for this service, and I type very slowly, so its a pretty good gig. I'm told that I get a bonus of $1,000 for every point Clark slips in the polls. So, in that regard, yes, I'm a paid member of the "oil cabal".

Hope that helps. :-)

[Democat]

15. Ralph Nader lives

2000 all over again.

Some people never learn.

[Jacobin]

19. What is his position?

Is it off limits to ask?

[Democat]

23. Nader's position in 2000 was

"There is no difference between Bush and Gore."

That seems to be what a number of DUers are now saying about Bush and Clark.

It's the same story, different year.

You would think that three years of Bush would have shut that lie up, but apparently some people don't ever learn.

[Jacobin]

36. I meant "What's Clark's position on alternative fuel"

sorry for the confusion.

I know all about Nader, like many of his positions, but don't think he is a viably candidate, and am particularly pissed that his entry in the race in 2000 cost this country the election of Gore.

[Donna Zen]

49. And could not see

If you became involved with alternative fuel vehicles; I mean really involved; not just talking about from behind a lecturn (read pulpit) and made time in a campaign schedule for oh...9/22 tomorrow to be present at the unveiling of a hydrogen fuel vehicle made by a company that you chaired, what do you think your position would be?

Besides, I already gave you his position and once again, you asked but refused to read.

So the oil cabal meme is what #8 or #9

[Zhade]

90. NADER didn't cost Gore in 2000. BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION.

1. 90,000+ traditionally-Democratic voters scrubbed from the rolls...

2. the "Brooks Brothers" riot in Miami-Dade under Roger Stone, Republican operative...

3. Fucked-up ballots, and new revelations about negative votes in Diebold machines...

4. Katherine Harris, co-chair of the Chimp's campaign in Florida, stopping the recount...

5. The illegal, late-night selection by the Felonious Five of the USSC...

6. The non-quorum certification of the "results" in a half-empty Congress...

Geez, you'd think people would GET OVER NADER. He didn't cost Gore squat, because he never got enough votes to "cover the spread" that the BFEE set up.

Come on. You just misspoke, right? :)

[OKNancy]

26. Are you blind?

or do you really want to know. I found this in two minutes.
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Environment.htm

It covers energy too.

[Donna Zen]

41. Of course

However, asking is one thing reading and reflecting is another.

Clark believes that our strength lies in our people and their creativity. Therefore, he is proposing moving the tax breaks from the rich to small and medium size companies in addition to tax relief for the states.

It's part of stimulating the growth of these companies with an emphasis on emerging technologies. That has been part of what he has been doing since leaving the service.

It is one thing for a politician to talk the talk, quite another for them to walk the walk.

Did you know he has a degree in engineering in addition to the ones he holds in philosophy, politics, and economics?

[zeemike]

28. Or 1968 all over again

For those of you that were too young to remember RFK was a populist that aroused crowds of young energetic voters and had the support of the people of color. He was a certainty to win the nomination and would have humiliated Nixon in November. The lone assassin took care of that.
The Demos went to Chicago and gave it to Nixon light or I guess more accurately Johnson light and the rest is history.

[Donna Zen]

44. Clean for Gene

And I attended the '68 convention..or more to the point, I was in the streets.

And Dean ain't....................So please spare me.

[zeemike]

60. I only watched it on TV

But it was a surreal moment in history

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

20. You know....

You were doing OK until the last paragraph. Then Plan B turns into PLan B from Outer Space.

Now, perhaps you would like to document, for all of us, some EVIDENCE of your clumsy, ham-fisted, worthy-of-The-NY-Post last paragraph.

Or, are you nothing more than a not-too-clever, hit and run agitator?

Oh Sweet Jebus, I do grow tired of this kind of unsustainable bullshit...

Disclaimer: I am undecided.

[BeatleBoot]

24. Why do you feel so threatened by Clark?

I find it striking that so many Dean supporters here feel threatened by Clark's decision to run.

Really bashing and reaching to great lengths to discredit this guy.

I like Dean and I'm voting for Kerry, but gee-willikers folks, this "anti-Clark" weirdness is a little bit too much...

[zeemike]

40. I can answer that

Just look at it with just a little paranoia. We all know what the RW is capable of, freeping, dirty tricks and the like, and all of a sudden out of nowhere comes a General that few even know and jumps in and shoots strait to the top according to the Media.
And just before that happened many of his supporters showed up here posting that only a general could beat flight suit bush.
But you believe in Clark and so the only paranoia you have comes from the Dean supporters, so you can’t see.

[Julien Sorel]

42. Prove this:

And just before that happened many of his supporters showed up here posting that only a general could beat flight suit bush.

[zeemike]

69. It would never work

First I cannot search the archives, I think I have to donate first.
Second no matter how much proof I would give you would point to the same abut Dean so it is kind of a waste of time.
But never the less that was my impression of what was said, and I know that others expressed the same feeling so at least I was not alone in feeling it. And I felt that the Clark supporters were trying to create a stampede for Clark and I posted that very topic and got a mix of me too and you are nuts. .

[BeatleBoot]

50. "But you believe in Clark..."

I'm voting for Kerry. Did you read my post?

And you know what? I will not make my decision by "looking at things with a little paranoia" as you state.

That ain't how I work.

[zeemike]

71. Too bad

My paranoia has worked well for me in the past. Paranoia is the only defense for those people that use covert methods to achieve goals.

[Zhade]

94. Yet you say "lone assassin" in regards to RFK?

NT!

[zeemike]

96. Did you notice the quotation marks?

What do you think that means?

[Donna Zen]

58. Wrong

All of a sudden the same thing RW are saying are appearing on this board. If the wingnuts like Clark so much then why does the crap posted here match the crap coming out of Rush's mouth. That's a weird way to promote your guy.

If you find paranoia such an entertaining way to fill mind, look for the guy they are not dissing.

[zeemike]

75. I don’t listen to Rush

So I have not heard anything bad about Clark sense he announced. I heard Criss Mathews call him the front-runner the next day and sure enough the next day there was a poll to confirm. Mathews must be in the know.

[Pastiche423]

76. EXCUSE ME?

I am getting fucking sick and tired of reading that if anyone questions the Perfumed Prince they must be RW of spouting RW propaganda!

What has happened "all of a sudden" is the invasion of the clarkites. Oh and btw, that crap you heard come out of rush's mouth? It's all over the net and has been for anyone to read. It's called clark's history.

This kind of rot makes me suspect anything and everything about them and Wesley "Already the scent of victory is in the air" Clark.

[Donna Zen]

92. It is over the net

because it is spouted even after it is completely refuted. Are you guilty of not reading well researched and cited posts? Well_I mean just because something is outside the box of your thinking, one would suppose people might take time to reflect.

Or are you a post and run...who says: oh, a Clark supporter therefore a serial liar.... to whom I owe no such respect as to present any evidence for my case beyond z-pub.

The crap coming out of rush's mouth is the same the same shit that is lapped up daily by people who are intellectually dishonest. Those that claim to be seeking the truth while disregarding any contradictory facts and exhibiting such mental laziness that they refuse to do their own research. Rather, they chose to cut and paste from sources that make them feel good because it is abusive and therefore feeds their need for a false sense of power and control.

By the way....I am not a Clarkie...I don't wear labels; and I would defend many of the candidates against this slander rather than let the supposed "chosen" few direct an election in my country through filth.

[Donna Zen]

54. Web site

There is a website keeping track of all these memes and lining them up by number. The things that appear here are also being spewed on talk radio. It is so crazy now that the just track them by number.

I really have to go to the blog....this one may turn up tomorrow coming out of Coulter's mouth.

[Zhade]

95. Hey, can I get that link? Sounds useful!

NT!

[Donna Zen]

25. Hydrogen cars

Wesley Clark is/was Chairman of Wavecrest a company developing hydrogen engines. They really like Clark at this alternative energy company after first coming in contact with them when he was putting the financing together for their company. He became so involved because he believes that new technologies need to be encouraged as part of a job growth package, that they made him chairman. I believe he is attending the unveiling of a new bike they are bringing on the market on the 23'rd.


Hey_your latestest meme is not on Karl's list. I just checked...Pristina #3, Waco #1. nope! Are you sure you want to go here?

http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=520

Oh_I'm sure that since you now see the error of your ways, you will be sure to start a new thread devoted to how Wesley Clark is now working to reduce our energy dependence on oil not just talkin the talk. You'll do that...right? I mean slander and inuendo would be so far beneath you.

[el_gato]

118. hydrogen is not an energy source

it can be used as a means to transfer energy
but it will not be a SOURCE of energy

In other words there will have to be some other
resource used to create this energy.

Nothing is going to replace petroleum
Technolgy will not save us
Our economies will contract
Life will be different in the future

[DrBB]

32. I see no connection between your facts and your question

You state a lot of stuff about the oil situation and then tack on this question about Clark. Why? I always thought you were one of the fairly rational people around here. But this is a contentious non sequitur. I thought we played by better rules around here, but I'm rapidly revising that opinion.

[Jacobin]

43. As you noted, it was a question, not an assertion

Perhaps the question was too provocative, given the bashing threads that have inhabited this place of late. Wasn't meant to be.

[DrBB]

48. "Clark as plan B for the oligarchies" not meant to be provocative?

Let's add disingenuous to contentious, shall we?

[grasswire]

53. a question...

..usually ends with a question mark.

Otherwise, it looks like a statement of fact.

[Jacobin]

66. End of the post is a question mark

End of the title of the post should have had one. That was provocative and a mistake for which I apologize.

[DrBB]

82. Even WITH a question mark

...where is the evidence to support asking such a contentious question? I look at Clark's own statements about environmental policy and I see NOTHING to justify your question:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Environment.htm

I look at the facts you cite in the lead-up to your question... and I see NOTHING to justify your question. It's a non sequitur, contentiously phrased. What was wrong with a simple "Hey, anyone know Clark's positions on the environment?" The answer to which could be found in the link cited above, and we all could go on to discuss that.

What reason do you have to suppose he might be a Tool of the Oligarchy? If none, why did you phrase it in such a contentious manner without backing it up?

You're accusing Clark of bad faith; in the process, you seem to be practicing it yourself.

[Donna Zen]

68. Prehaps?

There is no prehaps but there is coy.

The threads around here consistently bash Clark.

Question: Why do the subject/themes of those threads match what is being spouted on rightwing talk radio?

If he's there guy wouldn't there be a better way to go about it?

Why does the thread not say Dean or Kerry?

Do you think that the rightwing is better at that...they would never pick someone you would expect like a four star general. Nope...if they were truly planning to sneak up on you, you would never know it.

But they don't have to and do you know why? Because they know that the far left paranoia will eat their own.

Question: When are you going to change the thread title? Just as I thought.

[Jacobin]

74. The DLC is doing everything it can to find an alternative

to Dean. They are supported by the same people/companies who contribute to republicans.

Clark seems to be the answer for the DLC. I'm suspicious of their support.

[lcordero]

37. My answer

All three sides(Bush*, Clark and Dean) are favorable to the oligarchs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A40299-2003Aug24¬Found=true

Dean supports a long-term occupation of Iraq.

[Donna Zen]

72. Your answer

does not satisfy the question with its logic.

And why single out two candidates when several of the others also favor a long term occupation.

The biggest difference is that bush has no intention of leaving...ever. No exit.

Putting his name with Clark and Dean is out of place.

[Jacobin]

78. I come in peace

You make a good point here. However, it seems that Bush* may be getting ready for a hasty retreat before 2004 and then either "declare victory" or find someone else to blame for the failed conquest.

In an odd twist of political irony, the Dem candidates who support staying in Iraq to "pacify" the country and "give them democracy" (a concept which I find laughable were it not so cruel and bloody) using the concept of "we broke it, we have to fix it" (which is also silly since we can only fix it by giving it back and letting them fix it) may end up being the hawks in the continued occupation.

Hope I'm wrong. This crazed invasion/occupation was doomed to fail from the start and the sooner we stop it and stop killing people, the better.

[Donna Zen]

79. Nice but the thread title is still up

and I noticed a rejoinder to your offer of peace. Peace but....

...you broke it, you fix it....is international law. The motion at the UN in April or May put in writing. We now own the problem. Of course it was doomed; read "Bush at War" Towards the end, bush is quoted as saying: once there is chaos you can decide what fills the vacuum. Sounds like something that Perle taught him.

I'm still waiting for some answers to my questions. Worry over Dean's chances would seem a poor reason for slander.

And when will you change the thread title?

[Jacobin]

81. We simply disagree about that and I'm certainly in the minority

I remember trying to "fix" Vietnam for 20 years, "vietnamization" etc. We are "infidels" in their eyes and they KNOW we are there to steal their oil.

Even if the U.N. takes over, it will be a ghastly bloodbath. The idea of just leaving (as opposed to being run out as in Vietnam) will never wash in this country. We will end up being run out just like Vietnam. This damned invasion is gonna cost us dearly in lives, money and lost face....and its only JUST started. It's gonna get a LOT worse as time goes on.

BTW, the time for editing a post title lapsed. I tried.

You can stay mad if it makes you happy. :-).

[Donna Zen]

85. Vietnam

Should I fax you a copy of my Kent State Diploma...

Do you think I am a fool? I researched Clark extensively, although I know for a certainty that I will vote for a Democrat in 2004...So in a strange way I have skin in this game.


But I will tell you this, if I could move Wesley Clark into the WH tomorrow I would do it. Why? Because right now, he is not just the only candidate who get us out of this mess, he is one of the few people in the world. He knows the good team, why do you think the Pentagon didn't like him? The French have told him he is one of theirs. He says he likes the French but they are as narrow minded as the bush administration. Clark knows how to put a plan and use the UN to get this done. He believes in international alliances...he said it makes life difficult to deal with many governments but in the end it makes us stronger.

Joe Conason wrote about Clark's running that America's best and brightest do not seek public office because elections are so dirty and creepy in this country. He said, if Clark runs will we see how America treats one of its best and brightest.

Christopher Hedges, who spoke out loudly and clearly against this war only to be booed for it, writes in his book about the attitude of the Pentagon. And then he says: there are exceptions, men of honor, such as General Wesley Clark (61).

So, you are now playing on the wrong team and that's not Clark's team either. Your cabal is within you. BTW, I have solar power, but I have also lived without any power in during my life. Alternative energy is within you.

[Code_Name_D]

77. I am compelled to agree with the Clark supporters here.

Have the oligarches chosen Wesley Clark to replace Bush/Cheney to approach the conquest of oil resources using a different tack and to head off what they perceive as Dean’s approach to energy policy (EU model of conservation and alternative fuels)?

This IS over the top, and unsubstantiated. Especially as the given article doesn't even mention Clark. And the link dose give Clarks position on both Iraq and energy that would seem to return a no to the question.
Good link by the way. (Finally, so real substance on Clark.) (Not to the Clark Cluckers, you might win a few more arguments if you present material like this. It is after al what the critics are asking for.)

[Zhade]

89. Dude, this is just not helpful.

First off, you quote from the CFR. Hello!

Second, let's look at this logically: either Clark is an Oiligarchy plant, or he's not.

If he's not, the article and your leap of logic is baseless and pointless, and damaging.

If he is, the article and your leap of logic is still damaging, because it makes a whistleblower's warning (assuming Clark is evil, for argument's sake, I am not saying this is or is not the case) look like a paranoid nutter' rant.

Either way, your argument is damaging to the cause - whatever cause may be motivating you (again, not saying anything on that one way or the other).

Make sense?

[Jacobin]

93. The only thing the CFR was cited for was the estimate of reserves

in Iraq. Other sources seem consistent with these estimates. I cited NOTHING to suggest the connection. It was a QUESTION I asked.

I've seen lots of paranoid nutter's rants on this board, many having to do with 9/11. Hell, everytime the seatbelt sign comes on in a plane carrying a democrat, the freakazoids start creating theories about republicans with big fans who are trying to blow down democrat's planes.

I would have to take issue with your suggestion that the question of the oil powers looking for an acceptable replacement for Bush is a "paranoid nutter's rant". I think they are looking for someone else. And they and the DLC clearly don't like Dean.

But that's just me. :-)

[Zhade]

97. Yes, it's just you. And you're surmising something I didn't state.

I would have to take issue with your suggestion that the question of the oil powers looking for an acceptable replacement for Bush is a "paranoid nutter's rant".

That is not what I said. Read it again - my point was that if Clark IS a RW ploy, then your connecting the question of Clark - him, specifically - to what you wrote in the rest of your post damages your claim, because the question you pose isn't even set up in the paragraphs preceeding it. I completely agree that the Powers That Be are at least looking for a backup for the Chimp. I mean, duh. They'd be really shortsighted fascists to allow us to take back our country next year without fighting us every inch of the way. That's a given.

I was attempting to illustrate that a warning given in a badly argued, poorly designed argument would render that warning laughable. It would be as if I had warned, before the invasion of Iraq, that al Qaeda would start showing up there after Baghdad fell, but my supporting 'evidence' was the back of a cereal box. Totally irrelevant to my warning of terrorists entering Iraq. Ya dig?

As for the CFR, yes, I now see that you were relying on it solely for estimates, not for anything related to Clark. Which actually makes my point stronger, since the CFR report you link to has zip to do with the question you posed, regarding Clark specifically.

What crazy 911 stuff, btw? Should I risk another flame war? ;)

[GalleryGod]

100. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz IG-nore!

:puffpiece:

[CWebster]

101. Yes

BBC had a lead story a few days ago about how everything was planned to be returned to Iraqi control EXCEPT FOR OIL AND MINERAL RIGHTS. How much more evidence is necessary?

[HawkerHurricane]

104. Let me see...

The current adminstration doesn't intend to give up mineral and oil rights in Iraq...
THEREFORE
Clarke is a right wing plant.

It's been a long time since I took logic in school, but that one doesn't scan.

[CWebster]

108. Why else

a general who says

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

[HawkerHurricane]

111. He talks like a general.

Good, bad, or indifferent, that's what he is/was. He mentions the successful military campaign, the unsucessful diplomatic one, and reminds that it's not over yet. 5 months after the article, he looks prophetic.

So, this makes him a right wing plant?

[Jacobin]

112. Your post goes to the heart of the matter

The only problem the oligarches have with the occupation is that they can't get the oil out. They didn't care about the excuses for the invasion or the casualties, as long as it happened and the oil fields were seized and produced.

The problem is, they can't get the oil out because of sabotage of pipelines and well heads. Production has slowed to a trickle. Every time they fix something, its blown up again. It's virtually impossible to have a 24 hour guard on hundreds of miles of pipeline.

Since Bush/Cheney/Rumfilled can't do it, I think they are looking for someone who they think can do it. (btw, I don't think its possible to sustain the occupation because the losses are substantial and growing. I think we are gonna get our asses run out, as we should)

The question is, do the oligarches think General Clark will have a better shot than SmirkCo at making the conquest payoff by getting all that petroleum out? I don't know the answer. It remains to be seen whether he will take the position that "we can't leave, we have to stay and 'fix' Iraq" (as most people even on DU think), which would be as convenient an excuse to stay and steal the oil as WMD was for invading, or whether he wants to fast forward a withdrawal, in which case, we will have to buy they oil rather than stealing it.

Who knows? Most likely NONE of the candidates know what they can do because its such a goddamned fucked up mess. Will be interesting to see how the next president handles IraqNam.

[maha]

109. OK so far, but

what does Wesley Clark have to do with that?

[Kahuna]

102. You're thinking too hard. Take a rest....

Clark does not support warring against any country in the middle east so why would you think that "oligarches" would support Clark to replace their perfect stooges cheney and bush?

[maha]

105. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on DU.

William Safire is going on today about Clark being part of a plot to put the Clintons back in the White House. You two should get together and swap nutcase conspiracy theories.

[Jacobin]

114. That would be a stretch, but I'll take it as a compliment

Those in power want someone in the WH who can figure out how to produce and ship the oil they've just conquered. Smirk/Rumfilled/Cheney have failed.

Who do they think will have a shot at successfully producing the wells and keeping the saboteurs at bay? I think they are about to "fire" SmirkCo (by telling the media who to support and withdrawing the 24/7 worship of SmirkCo, which has already started) and are looking around for a replacement to get the job of stealing the oil done.

I don't know the answer to the question. But you can bet that folks concerned about running out of oil in this country are NOT pleased with SmirkCo and want a replacement. If you think that is some paranoid fantasy, I would simply disagree with you. :-)

[disgruntella]

106. What's all the fuss about? There's a simple answer.

Have the oligarches chosen Wesley Clark to replace Bush/Cheney to approach the conquest of oil resources using a different tack and to head off what they perceive as Dean’s approach to energy policy (EU model of conservation and alternative fuels)?

Answer: No.

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

[seamarq]

107. Clark led an alternative energy company.

General Clark has private-sector experience leading a company specializing in alternative-energy research to end our dependence on imported oil. I cannot remeber the the name of the business, but I will get the name/link and edit my post after work. Clark is on the record as strongly in favor of alternative fuels.

[salin]

113. Seems like a very big stretch in logic.

No offense but a similar argument could be made and shaped based on different types of policies for nearly every candidate.

Dean could be the choice because of his emphasis on balancing the budget over social spending - ensuring that even if the tides turn against bush - social spending will not increase (all dollars will go towards turning back the debt); which the financial boys would like.

Just say that to demonstrate how the same argument could be contorted for most candidates (perhaps not Kucinich.)

[Jacobin]

115. I agree with you

Dean (and most of the others), by going with the mantra of spending more money to stay in Iraq and "fix" it gets stuck in the same trap.

I just wonder who the oligarches believe will be successful at staying, stopping the sabotage and successfully getting out their newly conquered oil.

One thing seems clear to me. They are ready to fire BushCo. They want someone new. My question is: Do they think Clark can do it better than Chimp?

[salin]

116. Why not instead ask the question

rather than asking a leading question that presumes to know the answer. I also think the powers to be are not the oil guys - it is the financial guys. Evidence is how they tried through reagan on to keep the oil guys somewhat in check and marginalized in terms of power. Think of it in terms of old money and the nouveau riche. But after the huge loss in California's midterm and gubinatorial race (1998) and a loss of seats in the house under Newt (also 1998), the money boys went out looking for someone they thought they would appeal to moderates in Calfornia (the big talk at the time was that the party had been broken by Wilson et al in California). Hey look there is that bushboy in Texas - he got some of the Hispanic vote... he won't have the stigma of Wilson... and hey look he sounds moderate... and off they went a recruiting. I think they got far more than they bargained for... that they got somewhat cut out of the loop by the radicals around bush. And it is THEY not the oilies who would like to see bush gone for the health of the economy (not just the US - but the world economy which they now hold big interests in).

So the questions are: Are the silent hands turning against bush? And who are they? And who might they throw their support behind and why?

[el_gato]

119. If you noticed the CFR criticism of the Neocons recently

you have your answer to your first question Salin.

So the powerbrokers have lost faith in Bush.
I think that whoever is allowed to be the dem nominee
will be on board with those who pull the strings.
Anybody who is not gets the JFK treatment.
That's why someone like Kucinich will never be allowed
to be the nominee.

As far as who they are behind is anybody's guess
but clark's association with the military industrial complex
bothers me.

as far as the others
sharpton NO
kucinich NO
lieberman NO (i bet the powerbrokers think he's a loser too)
dean maybe (but the DLC hates him so that may be an indicator)
kerry maybe (he is an establishment type)
CMB doubt it
clark hmmmm i dunno


more research must be done

[Jacobin]

121. The financial guys know that when peak world oil production

comes in about 2010, they are screwed to the wall. Fertilizer, plastics, and petrochemical costs will go through the roof along with jet fuel, vehicle fuel, electrical costs, etc. It will KILL the economy and thus the financial guys fortunes. Peak oil is the silent problem the media won't discuss since it's the real reason behind thee invasion and no one wants to think their kids are getting killed to steal oil to save our economy (short term anyway).

You are right. My post title was inappropriate (which is obvious given the squalls of derision that follow the post) , but the question still stands. Who do the oligarches think can replace BushCo and successfully repress the Iraqis so that the oil can be gotten and the economy of 2010 to 2020 be saved? It is obvious they (including the DLC for the same reason) don't want Dean.

[_NorCal_D_]

122. To answer your rhetorical question,

NO.
This is utterly absurd.

It's fine to dislike Clark, in fact I welcome it. However this is nothing more than a baseless smear.
:tinfoilhat:

[MrPrax]

125. Good rap...in a nutshell explaining Clark's motives

Although I think too much emphasis on the 'cost-benefit' analysis of this single product...
Market CONTROL is a big factor as you CAN push the price up as supplies diminish...
Oil ain't just for cars, the whole plastics industry uses the stuff and they sure don't want to pay the freight...I imagine the plastic container holding the brown fluid called COKE costs more than the brown fluid

good conspiratorial background on the importance of oil in the 20th century here

http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm