Gore, Bradley and Harkin on SOA

[funky_bug]

I'm not surprised no one responded to this - but I'm going to link it, so it can be addressed directly. Before you point the finger (again and again) at Clark, you might want to see where your thumb is pointed.

"Democrats were in control of the White House and Congress from 1992-1994 and yet they did not close SOA.

That would include Gore, Bradley, and Harkin! But people aren't interested in that."



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=100676#101746

Still waiting...

Edited b/c I'm still waiting.

[mike_c]

1. I'll bite....

The SOA and its successor the WHISC were instruments of a brutal foreign policy in Latin America that began during the McKinley administration and continue today, e.g. in Plan Columbia. EVERYONE who's watch encompassed the SOA is complicit. That includes Kennedy, Clinton and Carter, as well as Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the BFEE. It was wrong then and it's wrong now-- even the so-called legitimate training roles of the SOA and WHISC are intended to serve the foreign policy objectives of the U.S., and these can largely be summarized as a brutal war against poor people in the western hemisphere. The SOA is a shameful stain on American history that colors everyone who has ever been in a position to stop it but has not even tried. It stains everyone who endorses and supports the mission of the SOA.

on edit: the arrogance and mean-spiritedness of this post are outrageous-- does the post hope to somehow bypass the legacy of terror and oppression that the SOA has left behind in Latin America-- to act as though that is somehow less important than the petty squabling of democratic party hopefuls and their supporters? Hundreds of thousands of people have been disappeared, killed, tortured, and silenced by graduates of the SOA. They have been systematically denied a voice in the "democracies" we have propped up to serve the interests of the U.S. in this hemisphere. I don't give a rats buttocks WHO has supported the SOA and WHISC-- ANYONE who does so, for whatever reason, is undeserving of my vote, and is frankly undeserving of public trust. The SOA is bad medicine. Period.

[jonnyblitz]

9. outstanding post.

:thumbsup:

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Why hasn't Dean renounced GB&H's endorsements, then?

ANYONE who does so, for whatever reason, is undeserving of my vote, and is frankly undeserving of public trust.

Yet Dean stood before reporters and accepted their endorsements, every one.

Why aren't you demanding Dean denounce these people? Get consistent.

[mike_c]

23. uh?

In the first place, what's the connection between Dean's endorsements and the SOA/WHISC? In the second place, where did I say anything, inconsistent or otherwise, about Howard Dean?

If you mean to suggest that I somehow support the mission of the SOA/WHISC because I haven't called for Dean to renounce his endorsements-- uh? I don't particularly care who has endorsed Dean, but in any event I don't recall Dean saying that HE supports the SOA/WHISC. If he does, he certainly won't get my vote.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. I agree with you

about the SOA, but disagree about the nature of this post. It is intended to point out the hypocracy and double standards happening on this board by singling out one indidividual candidate for attack while ignoring the same thing in others.

Al Gore has recently been treated here like he's some kind of hero. Does that change now that we know he also has been a supporter of the SOA?

[mike_c]

25. yes it does, although I'm certainly not one who lionized Gore...

...in the first place. I voted for him in 2000 with my nose pinched closed, and have frankly felt a little unclean ever since. But that's a bit OT, and has been discussed ad nauseum in GD.

[CWebster]

40. It is not the same thing

Clark was a player in and still defends the SOA. Trying to relegate all politicians to equivilant status on the issue is just an attempt to obscure the reality.

This IS who Clark is. Rather than having their bubble burst, some will go to great lengths to bury it.

[lib 4 all]

41. great post

[Sean Reynolds]

2. Your point?

Howard Dean has come out against the SOA saying that if it were training terrorist he'd shut it down. Just because Gore, Harkin and Bradley supported it doesn't mean Dean does. And it doesn't mean Clark is RIGHT in supporting it.

Please tell me why the support of these three matter? Last I checked NONE were running for president.

[JohnKleeb]

3. Glad to see Dean has a good view on this

Its not what DK's is but is it good, yeah it is.

[KittyWampus]

5. No, Dean Said He'd Ask The CIA To Find Out About The SOA

which of course no longer exists
has been reformed
has independent oversight

[worldgonekrazy]

7. Ha ha

"No longer exists."

Yeah, it was renamed and given a friendlier image, but only a fool would think any real change has occured. SOA is an essential apparatus for U.S. foreign policy, and as such it will probably never be truly shut down.

[Sean Reynolds]

11. Renamed doesn't mean it no longer exists....

Just because the Washington Bullets changed their name to the Wizards doesn't mean they 'no longer exist' either. :eyes:

[retyred]

36. Ask The CIA

Oh that'll work!


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Ummmm...didn't Dean say

he would "consult with the CIA FIRST and on their recommenation, close it or leave it open?"

Gore, Harkin and Bradley ALL endorsed Dean. It matters. They were ALL in congress and the White House when the SOA was open. They LEFT it open. None of them saw fit to close the doors. Why NOT?

[Sean Reynolds]

13. SO?

At least he's open to the idea of closing it. Clark isn't.

As for Gore, Harkin and Bradley endorsing Dean; I don't see that has anything to do with the matter.

But if you're going to clump their support toward Dean as showing Dean supports the SOA. My congressman, Matheson, endorsed Clark. He also supported the war in Iraq, medicare bill, Patriot Act, tax-cut, and other Bush policies. Does that mean they're right too? Does that mean Clark some how is connected to these policies because Matheson endoresed him?

I don't understand why you're bringing in Bradley, Gore and Harkin. They're not running for president. They're not the issue. The issue is that Dean has stated he'd look into the school. Clark has stated he wants to keep it open and supports it. Of course he also "believes" they're not training terrorists there either.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Clark said he WOULD close the SOA, if...

...anyone could show they were currently teaching human rights abuse.

He flat out said it.

So when you said, "At least he's open to the idea of closing it. Clark isn't," it wasn't the truth.

Face it. Dean and Clark have essentially the same position on the SOA, but Dean knows how to pander on the issue. Clark already has the facts on the SOA, and he's not pandering.

[Sean Reynolds]

20. No.

Clark is covering his ass. He's spoken there in the past and knows that if it was EVER known that the SOA was a terrorist training place, he'd be in big shit.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Clark: "I'll close the SOA."

The link:

http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=150

The full quote:

Also, "My friend George Bruno will show you . . . you can go down there , if you find anything that teaches human rights abuses . . . I'll close the SOA. If you don't find anything then I ask that you change your position."

Inviting people to go examine the SOA is one crazy way of covering his ass. What he knows is that there's nothing to hide.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. So, just out of curiosity

If Gore were running for president right now would you reject him as a candidate on the basis of his support for SOA.

Incidently, I voted for Nader last time partly on the basis of Al Gore's defending the politically motivated kidnappings of young children in order to pander for a handful of votes in South Florida, so I would understand completely if your answer was yes.

[Sean Reynolds]

30. Me? Yes.

I'm not a fan of Gore.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. So you're starting the Dean: Lose Gore movement today, correct?

That would be consistent.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. So?

He would talk to the CIA first and you say SO? Hahahahaha! The CIA trains people in much the same way the SOA does and you say SO?

You don't understand why Gore, Harkin and Bradley matter? THEY ALL, EVERY ONE OF THEM, WERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR CONGRESS AND COULD HAVE CLOSED IT IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS AS BAD AS CLARK HATERS SAY IT IS. THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT! THEY ENDORSE YOUR GUY. It's a damn double standard, AGAIN. Clark's bad because he was in charge of it under a DEMOCRAT, President Clinton, yet, Harkin was in the Senate, Bradley too and Gore was in the WH and NONE of them closed it during the SAME time Clark was connected to it. I'm not surprised you don't understand. It doesn't make Dean look good. He would talk to the CIA and the CIA would tell him, no, we want the SOA left open, THEN WHAT? The SOA stays open and nothing changes and we are stuck with Dean for 4 long years.

[mike_c]

14. what is your point?

What difference does it make? Read. My. Lips. ANYONE who supports the mission of the SOA and WHISC is complicit in crimes throughout the hemisphere. What part of ANYONE don't you understand?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Therefore, Dean should immediately repudiate their endorsements.

Why does Dean accept the endorsements of people complicit in crimes throughout the hemisphere? Why didn't he hound them from the stage?

Why aren't you demanding that Dean do this? Why are you being consistent on this issue?

[Sean Reynolds]

22. Why does Clark accept the endorsement

of so many DLC Democrats that have supported Bush at every chance?

[mike_c]

27. I don't know-- maybe you should ask Howard Dean that...

...question. I don't know what it has to do with me or my comments about the SOA/WHISC. If you think I made them in defense of Howard Dean you're mistaken.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. My guess is that if he becomes president

Dean will "look into the matter carefully", decide that the SOA is not in fact training terrorists, and not shut it down. I think he's much more of an establishment politician than people here give him credit for.

Anyway, this prediction is one that I'm willing to bet money on.

[mike_c]

28. I think you are entirely correct....

Just as every president since Eisenhower has done, either openly or tacitly supported the SOA/WHISC mission. I think it's time we demand better.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. I actually agree with you

and although I intend to work my heart out to get Clark into the White House, if he does get elected I'm planning on joining our local peace group and actively protesting the SOA.

I just think that every other issue is moot if we don't actually get W out of the White House.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. 1st your graphics are hanging up my computer

maybe you could be courteous and remove or reduce them?
Next, this post is flame bait

[Crunchy Frog]

38. If you have a problem

with either the graphics or the post content, why don't you just alert?

[JNelson6563]

42. Some of us have many times

apparently some are "special". :-)

Julie

[worldgonekrazy]

6. SOA has bipartisan consensus

But that doesn't mean its a good thing.

[NV1962]

8. Hey look, Clark scored over 200,000 for NH!

Sorry, but this series of topics devoted to dealing with attempts to tie Clark into the SOA's history has spilled over too many topics already.

All the time, the invitations to post proof that WHISC today is teaching how to breach human rights is still collecting dust.

No show, no sale.

Meanwhile, go NH choo-choo!

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. 200,000 what?? What happened?? n/t

[NV1962]

35. Over $214,000 now (see clark04.com) go choo-choo! - n/t

[mike_c]

15. see Hidden in Plain Sight by John Smihula....

It discusses the current curriculum of the WHISC as well as the history of the SOA. The present curriculum has precisely the same purpose as it always has-- keeping the poor people of Latin America disenfranchised and powerless, and keeping U.S. political and business interests paramount thoughout the hemisphere by creating, arming, and training puppet regimes. Democracy, U.S. export style.

edit: link-- http://www.hiddeninplainsight.org/

[jonnyblitz]

18. they don't care.

why even bother. all they care about is their candidate not looking bad.

[Hoppin_Mad]

19. Unless you know Bradley's and Harkin's stance- this is wild conjecture

Anything to get the onus off Clark, eh ?

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. What YOU have posted for the last

week is pure conjecture. Think again.

[JNelson6563]

39. your sig line pic is too big

Perhaps you missed the rules or don't they apply to you?

Waiting.....

Julie