http://www.prorev.com/indexa.htmWESLEY CLARK, THE PERFUMED PRINCE
JOHN CHUCKMAN YELLOW TIMES - The Perfumed Prince declared himself a Democrat. Many Americans may not recognize the nickname bestowed upon Wesley Clark by British colleagues as he strutted around Serbia with his set of platinum-plated general's stars carefully repositioned each day to a freshly-starched and ironed camouflage cap, wafting a thick vapor trail of cologne. His lack of judgment demonstrated in Serbia -- including an order to clear out Russian forces that British general Sir Michael Jackson had to ignore for fear of starting World War III -- should be enough to utterly disqualify him as a candidate for President. But this is America, land of opportunity.
The former general scents, through the mists of his musky cologne, an opportunity for service. Hell, we're at war, and any real general is better than a former male cheerleader from Andover who cross-dresses as a combat pilot. Dreams of being the hero on a white horse beckon. A fatal attraction in the American people to used-up generals is how the country managed to elect some of its worst presidents - Grant, Jackson, and Garfield, for example.
NY POST PAGE SIX - The last thing the Clintons want is for a Democrat from Arkansas to defeat Bush next year," says our spy about the ex-general who is expected to announce his candidacy next month. . . Our source adds, "The Clinton master plan is for a Hillary candidacy in 2008 and they will subtly sabotage the Democratic candidate in 2004.That's why they insist on keeping their personal operative, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic committee."
THE END OF LIBERALISM
WASHINGTON MONTHLY RUNS PRO-CLARK PIECE
WESLEY CLARK ARCHIVES
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, JULY 1999 - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Secret Life Of Bill Clinton writes, "The Branch Davidian siege was clearly on Foster's mind. He was 'drafting a letter involving Waco' on the day of this death, surely a point of some significance. He kept a Waco file in the locked cabinet that was off limits to everybody, including his secretary. His widow mentions Waco twice in her statement to the FBI: 'Toward the end of his life, Foster had no sense of joy or elation at work. The Branch Davidian incident near Waco, Texas, was also causing him a great deal of stress. Lisa Foster believes that he was horrified when the Branch Davidian complex burned. Foster believed that everything was his fault.'"
Evans-Pritchard makes no claim that Waco was a cause of Foster's death. After discussing other anomalies, such as his ties to the National Security Agency, the investigative reporter notes, "The point is that Foster was involved in activities that belie the carefully drawn portrait of a bemused country lawyer, and that have clearly been obscured on purpose."
These comments are worth reviving because of Counterpunch's revelation that two key Army officers were involved in the Justice Department planning for Waco and that Clinton had abrogated an longtime American principle of not using the military in domestic law enforcement.
We now also know that NATO chief Wesley Clark, then Texas-based, at the very least approved the seconding of logistical support from his command. We know that important records in Foster's possession were removed. And we know that a military intelligence group moved in on the White House following his death for unknown purposes.
This all, however, merely adds to the mystery of Foster. What remains true is that the existing facts argue strongly against Foster having died in a park of his own hand. Put directly, if he did kill himself, someone moved him afterwards, or else he was murdered. Under what circumstances and for what reasons, we still don't know.
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - According to an must-read report by Ken McCarthy at Brasscheck, the military was far more deeply involved in the Waco massacre than is generally realized. Behind the military's part in the operation was now NATO commander General Wesley Clark. Among the points McCarthy makes are these:
- The military's involvement in a domestic law enforcement matter was illegal.
- Used in the Waco massacre operation were 13 track vehicles, 9 combat engineer vehicles, 5 tank retrieval vehicles, and a tank.
- The military equipment and personnel came from the US Army base at Ft. Hood, Texas, headquarters of III Corps. According to an account from attorney David T. Hardy, who filed a freedom of information action in the incident, "The operation required mustering approximately a hundred agents (flown in from sites around the country), and who received military training at Ft. Hood. They traveled in a convoy of sixty vehicles and were supported by three National Guard helicopters and one fixed-wing aircraft, with armored vehicles in reserve."
- Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. The arson-murders occurred April 19. Clark had been Commander of the National Training Center and Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC, where Clark was Deputy Chief right before becoming an armor commander at Ft Hood, has as its primary mission to "prepare soldiers for war and design the army of the future." Item number one from the TRADOC vision statement: "...enable America's Army to operate with joint, multinational and interagency partners across the full range of operations."
- President Clinton said, "The first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military be consulted because of the quasi-military nature of the conflict."
- Attorney General Janet Reno attempted to explain away the FBI use of US Army tanks as being equivalent to an innocuous "rent a car" arrangement.
- From early in the siege, "Operation Trojan Horse" became a popular destination for special forces officers both from around the United States and from its closest ally, the UK. They came to observe the effectiveness of various high tech devices and tactics that were being tested against the Branch Davidians. -- Two unnamed high ranking Army officers personally presented Attorney General Janet Reno with the final assault tactics for her, as chief law enforcement officer of the US, to sign off on.
- General Clark's last assignment before taking over NATO was as Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was "responsible for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests in Latin America and the Caribbean." i.e. the support of repressive Latin American military and police operations and a phony war against drugs.
Meanwhile, Dan Gifford, producer of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" writes that "Secret anti-terrorist U.S. Army Delta Force and British SAS soldiers were present at FBI invitation as 'observers.' But reports of those troops illegally killing Americans on American soil persist from sources that have provided accurate information in the past. So do reports of classified weapons testing on the Davidians that was being micro managed, along with everything else, from Washington.
FULL BRASSCHECK ARTICLE
WESLEY CLARK'S CAREER
ROBERT NOVAK, 1999: Members of Congress who, during their spring recess, met in Brussels with Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander, were startled by his bellicosity. According to the lawmakers, Clark suggested the best way to handle Russia's supply of oil to Yugoslavia would be aerial bombardment of the pipeline that runs through Hungary. He also proposed bombing Russian warships that enter the battle zone. The American general was described by the members of the congressional delegation as waging a personal vendetta against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. "I think the general might need a little sleep," commented one House member.
RULING BY GREEK COURT, MAY 1999 - Greece's Council of State, the country's highest administrative court has an extraordinary ruling on the war against Yugoslavia:
1. NATO's offensive against a sovereign European state, unprecedented in the post-war years, is an affront not only to the ethical principles of Greek and European civilization, but also to the fundamental precepts of international law. . .
2. This inexcusable attack is taking place in flagrant violation of articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, which expressly prohibits the use of violence in international relations, and designates the Security Council exclusively competent in international crises. . .
3. But this attack even violates the NATO Charter, the exclusive purpose of which is collective defense of the area defined therein that coincides with the boundaries of its member states, and which has expressly committed itself in its international relations to refrain from the threat or use of violence in any way whatsoever that is incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN. . .
4. In addition, both the United Nations Charter and all generally recognized precepts of international law safeguard the equality and sovereignty of all peoples, irrespective of their numbers and power, and do not recognize any jurisdiction on the part of powerful nations to intervene in the internal affairs of weaker nations or to dictate solutions to their own liking. Consequently, however serious the crisis in Kosovo may be, it remains an internal Yugoslav affair and belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign Yugoslav state. Any humanitarian or other interest on the part of the UN, other international organizations or third countries may be manifested only in a peaceful way and by diplomatic means within the context of the UN Charter.
COUNTERPUNCH, 2000: With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, "a horse's ass." Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the NATO command two months early.
WILLIAM BLUM, ROGUE STATE - Beginning about two weeks after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began in March, 1999, international-law professionals from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, and the American Association of Jurists began to file complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and officials of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had issued indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges filed were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including "willfully killing, willfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences." The Canadian suit names 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark, and Jamie Shea. The complaint also alleges "open violation" of the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions, and the Principles of International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pentagon Ties Boost Clark's Business"
Wall Street Journal today
"Retired General Helps Firms Navigate Homeland Security and Defense-Procurement Maze"
CLARK IN WAR PROFITEERING BUSINESS
"In announcing his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies try to profit from the fight. ... General Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology corridor start up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business"
911 EXPLOITATION FOR PROFIT
"After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications. One is Acxiom Corp...he joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information."
"'He has made efforts at putting us into contact with the right people in Washington ... setting up meetings and participating in some himself', says Acxiom CEO Charles Morgan."
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?
"In aiming for the White House, Gen. Clark follows a long revolving-door tradition of government officials going back and forth between the public and private sectors. For now, at least, he plans to mix business and politics. 'At this early point in the campaign, Gen. Clark will remain on his boards,' campaign advisor Mark Fabini said this week."
CORPORATE BOARDS CLARK SITS ON
Acxiom - customer databases sold to Homeland Security (Director)
Entrust - internet security (Director)
Messer-Grieshein Gmbh - industrial gas (Director)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Voted for Nixon, Reagan - TWICE and Poppy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark's NATO biography page (
http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm ) notes that his last post was as "Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama, from June 1996 to July 1997, where he commanded all U.S. forces and was responsible for the direction of most U.S. military activities and interests in Latin America and the Caribbean." Given the U.S. foreign policy record of warfare against the poor in Latin and South America I wondered whether there might be any connection between Wesley Clark and the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA.
A google search turned up a couple of interesting pieces of information. On Dec. 16, 1996-- well after his apparent "conversion" to the Democratic Party-- Clark gave the commencement speech to the graduating class at SOA, praising their achievements and exhorting them to continue their battle against "narco criminals," and calling upon their joint brotherhood as "military professionals." See <
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/SPEECH/cgscspch.htm>. Although much of the text of his speech was boilerplate, the very fact that he gave it is troubling, since there were true patriots demonstrating, and being arrested, at the gates while he told the SOA graduates how "special" they were. See also <
http://www.justicewomen.com/ws_laura.html> for a Guatemalan perspective from Sept. 15, 2001 listing Wesley Clark in such illustrious company as G. H. W. Bush, Henry Kissenger, Richard Nixon, Colin Powel, Elliot Abrams, and Oliver North. Clark also called for increasing U.S. presence and influence in Honduras to replace the loss of the Panamanian staging bases in 1999 (
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n6cap_body.html ).
Clark's association with the SOA-- even though tangential in his role as CinC Southern Command-- is troubling, given the "CIA revelations that the School of the Americas, located at Ft. Benning, Georgia, trained Latin American officers and enlisted personnel in torture and killing" (
http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/notisur/h96/notisur.19961011.html ). I found no evidence that Clark ever advocated closing the SOA or its successor, the renamed but otherwise similar “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"
September 16, 2003
The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.
Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).
To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."
Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).
Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.
As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."
On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."
After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."
In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."
Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 19, 2003
Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
ORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 - Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.
General Clark also said in an interview that he would probably oppose President Bush's request for $87 billion to finance the recovery effort in Iraq, though he said he could see circumstances in which he might support sending even more money into the country.
On both the question of the initial authorization and the latest request for financing, General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.
"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.
A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position - on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.
Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate.
"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."
At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.
"I want to clarify - we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."
"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."
General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution - Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina - than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.
Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
And at a brief stop at a delicatessen on a trip here to raise money, his very first campaign appearances, he lashed into Mr. Bush's war effort with language that was easily as tough as any that Dr. Dean has used in presenting himself as the antiwar candidate.
"We are going to ask, `Why are we engaged in Iraq, Mr. President - tell the truth,' " he said, standing on a chair. "Why, Mr. President? Was it because Saddam Hussein was assisting the hijackers? Was it because Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapon that might bring a nuclear cloud?"
The crowd shouted back answers. "Oil!" one person yelled. "Halliburton!" yelled another.
General Clark said: "We don't know. And that's the truth. And we have to ask that question."
On the plane, General Clark also said he might support changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing the presence of gay men and lesbians in the military.
"I'd like to see the military relook the policy," he said. "I didn't say change it - I said relook it."
For example, General Clark said, the military might examine adopting a "don't ask, don't misbehave" policy patterned after one that he said was in place in Britain. Asked what the "don't misbehave" standard meant, the general responded, "I'm not going to set a policy with you winging it in the back of an airplane."
General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.
Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with - the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to develop want."
General Clark said he had enjoyed a visit to New Hampshire over the summer that he said signaled to him how much he would like campaigning. He compared meeting New Hampshire voters to his work as the NATO commander.
"It's like what we did in the military when we went to the motor pool and talked to the troops - only better," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 29 issue - After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. After all, he’d been NATO commander, he knew how to build military coalitions and the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties. But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it.
WORD WAS THAT Karl Rove, the president’s political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race-as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cv=KA01----------------------------------------------------------------------
"To the Reagan Democrats: Welcome Home!"
By Josh Margulies
New York, NY
Reagan Democrats were those who had the courage to vote their consciences over their political affiliations, and as a result, our country roused itself from the self-pity of its post-Vietnam depression. We elected a man who, with American fighter planes, brought down escaping Achille Lauro hijackers…who, through force of will, ensured the razing of a wall which had divided a nation and a globe…who shored up a faltering space exploration program - and then showed the courage and strength which steeled us to continue forward even after a heartbreaking disaster.
The world owes a debt to America, and America owes a debt to its citizens for having restored the pride necessary to allow us to look beyond our borders and create liberty for people we have never met. In 1980 and 1984, the relatively small group of voters who tipped the scales in order to allow the election of the man who would make those changes were known as “Reagan Democrats.” They left their political homes in order to take a chance on a man with a different label, and they’ve stayed out there, on the front lines of that political battlefield, still ready to fight the good fight.
But it’s time that we brought them back. And the man who can do that best is named Wesley Clark.
http://www.georgiaforwesleyclark.com/gfwc_republicans3.html Meet the Press, June 15th, 2003:
(snip)
MR. RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people?
GEN. CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem. I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that’s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.
MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But-I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had-Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
(snip)
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen. Wesley Clark, unplugged" by Jake Tapper, Salon 3/24/2003
(snip)
Tapper:
"Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President
Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary
Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ..."
Clark:
"I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.
Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend.
Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with
Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clarkI have more.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(621 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
