A brief history of Clark's lobbying career. . .

[Brian_Expat]

From Center for Public Integrity:

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=12&act=bio

A snippet:

Even more impressive, a group of high-powered advisers and supporters lined up behind Clark for his bid. Jumping onto the general's bandwagon were Mickey Kantor, the former commerce secretary and chair of the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, and Donnie Fowler, national field director of Al Gore's 2000 campaign and the son of former DNC chairman Don Fowler (Fowler resigned from the campaign in early October). Mark Fabiani, who served as Clinton's point man on Whitewater for the 1996 campaign and as Gore's deputy campaign manager in 2000, also signed on, as did Ron Klain, a Washington attorney who worked on Clinton's 1992 campaign, his transition team, and later as former attorney general Janet Reno's chief of staff. Political neophytes generally can't count on assembling seasoned campaign hands, but then Clark isn't exactly a political neophyte. Clark raised his profile as a television analyst, landed a job at a politically powerful Arkansas investment bank, and plied the age-old game of trading on his military contacts as a corporate lobbyist. The former supreme allied commander in Europe, four star general and Rhodes scholar is a very savvy Washington insider. "

. . . snip. . .

"Clark has been lobbying for the firm since January 2, 2002; Acxiom has paid more than $830,000 for Clark to advance its agenda and meet with government officials. Clark also serves on the company's board of directors.

According to federal disclosure records, Clark lobbied directly on "information transfers, airline security and homeland security issues," for Acxiom, which sought funding to do controversial informational background checks on passengers for airlines. Privacy advocates have criticized the program, called the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II, because of concerns that the data collected would be an overly invasive violation of individuals' rights to privacy. The public outcry has been so strong that there is a bi-partisan effort to create more oversight for the program to protect privacy interests if CAPPS II is implemented.

Clark lobbied the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Transportation for the company. Clark also reported, on his lobbyist disclosure forms, that he promoted Acxiom to the Senate and the executive office of the president. According an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette report, he even met personally with Vice President Richard Cheney.....

The whole article is worth a read, CPI is a non-partisan investigative body in the public interest. Lots of connections with the Bush administration and "homeland security" apparatus.

[wndycty]

1. Now let me get this straight. . .do you want him as VP. . .

I think you do. . .so go ahead have fun. . .and you wonder why he and his supporters have no desire for him to be Dean's VP.

[Brian_Expat]

2. I'm just providing non-biased information from a non-partisan group. n/t

[wndycty]

3. Thats great. . .do you or do you not want him to be Dean's VP

:kick:

[Brian_Expat]

6. I personally am not too keen on him as VP. . .

. . . though if as a compromise to get the party to stop sniping, I might hold my nose and accept it. I think John Kerry would be a better choice from the current field.

[wndycty]

8. Much appreciated. . .

. . .I just want to see how many of thise critical of Clark are also hopping for him in the VP slot.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Kerry? and Dean wont go even if they got along

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. Oh REALLY?

Then why did you say in post #6 of this thread that you'd be so sad if Clark wasn't Dean's VP?

"It makes me sad that Clark will turn down a call to serve. . .

. . . if he's VP rather than Prez. Isn't leadership about answering a call to serve?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=60124#60140

:eyes:

DTH

[wyldwolf]

13. DOH!

The Waffle Syndrome spreads into the Dean supporter ranks.

[Brian_Expat]

15. I find it sad that Clark would turn down an opportunity to serve. . .

I didn't say I wanted him to be VP. Just that I am sad that someone who claims to be for the American people would turn down an opportunity to serve the American people.

[beachdreamin]

32. Clark is Not Chaney

General Clark has made it clear he has no interest in being Dean's VP.
Frankly, Clark can beat Bush, Dean cannot. Dean needs Clark more then Clark needs Dean.

Dean is unelectable in the Nov race. Clark is the only Democrat running who can beat Bush, he can take at least 2 southern states and that is something Dean can not do.

If Dean is the nominee, the Democrats will be beat badly and all the progress that was made under the Clinton Presidency will be destroyed
with another 4 years under the Bush Radical Right Wing Administration.

Clark has a clear, concise, positive vision for America and he can bring in independents and switch over Republicans. Dean has brought new members into the party but is at risk of losing the Moderate to Conservative Democrats who are true party loyalist.

[TeacherCreature]

55. Dean needs Clark?

Not in any rational assesment. Clark is the DLC candidate he offers nothing but slick sound bites and psuedo patriotism.

[shivaji]

68. If Clark wins the nomination, my fear is he will lose..

lose two to three times as many dem base voters as may toutedly gain from the right/center.

[maxr4clark]

51. Re: I find it sad...

Contrary to most people on this thread, I don't think Clark's rejection of a VP offer is a dis of Dean at all.

Neither Clark nor Dean should be anyone's VP, they don't have the right background for it. The VP should be someone who has connections in the Senate and in the House, and knows the Senate inside and out. Of the major candidates, IMO Kerry would make the best VP, no matter who the nominee is.

IMO Clark won't accept an offer to be anyone's VP because VP is not a role he is particularly well-suited for, no matter who the nominee is, and he knows it. I am certain he believes he can find better ways to serve our country than as an ineffective VP.

I think Clark sees that America would benefit greatly from someone just like him as President at this particular point in history. I don't think Clark is interested in becoming a career politician in any capacity he can manage, like Lieberman or Edwards is. If a Democrat other than Clark wins the Presidency this time, I don't think Clark will have any interest in running for President in 2008.

I think Dean would accept a VP offer from anyone, because I think he intends to be a lifetime politician and VP would be second-best to P as far as his primary concern goes--his ego.

[shance]

64. I have to agree Brian.

I like Wesley Clark. Who couldnt? He strikes as a kind, courageous, good human being.

What does concern me is the fact he waited (and waited) to get into the race, flip-flopped abit on his Democratic status, finally takes the plunge coming on full-throttle which has been great, and yet I feel, like the other Washington boys* (Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman), its as though its all or nothing, with no consideration or concept that they may not actually be the winners.

Its as if they have all been blindsided by their own egos. No doubt I would imagine any rational human being would be disappointed, but not to consider the fact and reality that most Americans, certainly most involved Americans are against this war and Clark aside, the Washington boys seem to be oblivious and in total denial to the consequences of legislation they have passed, namely in favor of the war. Its as if they seem to think, Gephardt and Lieberman especially, that if I just keep patting Americans on the head, they will at some point smile and love me again.

At this point, I would think that Clark and the others would have enough flexibility to realize who is the frontrunner, but more importantly WHY he is the frontrunner.

Howard Dean has connected with Americans unlike any other candidate, and has more than earned the frontrunner status now, and it seems there are some sour grapes because certain Congressional egos have taken precedent over logic, rational, and larger thinking.

[Brian_Expat]

14. I didn't say I wanted Clark to be VP. . .

I simply thought it was sad that Clark thinks so little of the American people that he would refuse an opportunity to serve them.

I think Kerry would make a better VP, and I think he'll have to patch up with Dean soon anyway after NH and Iowa. Remember that Bush Sr. ripped on Ron Reagan in the early 1980s, yet still ended up as VP.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. I'm Sure It's Because Clark Thinks So Little of Howard Dean

And not "the American people" as you are trying to spin.

:eyes:

Clark spent his entire life in service to the American people. It's a complete non-starter to attempt to claim otherwise, precisely because it's so ridiculous.

Keep trying, though!

DTH

[Brian_Expat]

19. Clark's refusal to serve America has nothing to do with Dean. n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. It Has EVERYTHING To Do With Dean

I know that for a fact.

Keep trying to push your "Clark is unpatriotic" meme, though. It's really laughable.

DTH

[Brian_Expat]

25. Clark has decided his hate for Dean outweighs his national service? n/t

[wndycty]

30. More like Dean's desire to win the nomination at all costs. . .

. . .regardless of what it does to party unity.

[Brian_Expat]

33. Wesley Clark's "I won't be VP" tatrum helps party unity?

Seems to me that Dean's commitment to fight for the party, whoever leads it, is more uniting than Clark's effort to make the election all about Clark, Clark and Clark (or Bust). :eyes:

[wndycty]

34. You don't attack other Democrats and then expect them to support you. . .

Its not Clark's supports who are voicing a NBD stance.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

35. Dean's "Commitment" To Fight for the Nominee? That Is Complete Crap!

Dean is playing coy with his supporters and his support, as has been famously reported around here recently!

You type very fast, so keep that Howard Dean spin pumping, though!

DTH

[Brian_Expat]

39. Dean is the only candidate who has pledged to fully support. . .

. . . whoever the Dems nominate. Clark has refused to. Period, end of argument.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. Absolutely Untrue. How Can You Spread This With a Straight Face?

Every candidate has pledged to support the eventual nominee. Only Dean has been lukewarm about it, playing coy about non-transferable supporters.

And by the way, a pledge to support the candidate does not mean mandatory indentured servitude as a VP, especially when the candidate has flat-out lied about the other candidate.

Keep trying to spread that meme, though!

DTH

[bowens43]

50. I think it's because

Clark thinks only of Clark.

[shance]

65. Could it be possible that Clarks hesitancy and waiting

too long while Dean was busting his tail flying all over the country and back has contributed to his own status? Or is Howard Dean responsible for everything including Clarks lagging in the polls.

DTH, if Clark lacks respect for Dean, then perhaps Clark needs to see what is fully required to become a front runner presidential candidate.

I dont think running for president is like obtaining a generalship rank that I would imagine is at some point predictably given by higher starred officers. Im not saying its not earned, but at some point one can bet, if they do what is expected, they will get their promoted rank.

Of course there is no guarantee in running for president, and there is probably no harder commitment to take on and the results and odds are against most candidates. They certainly were against Dean, but that hasnt stopped him.

You know DTH, you might not be happy with Dean as the frontrunner, but the "attack Dean however I can", turns more Democrats off of Clark than is certainly beneficial to his campaign, not to mention the Democratic party.

I know it has affected my attitude somewhat, and has increased some doubt of my own in Clark because I am at a loss to understand the bitter tone and words to the point that I dont tolerate it any more.

I have to ask if you think that Clark has worked harder for this candidacy than Dean? Yes, hes been a military man. However, how does that apply and adapt into the real world and dealing with normal Americans who have everyday real-life concerns and have never known a day of military structure. I would assume the military is a pretty insulated life and lifestyle, which might contribute to a insulated mindset. I say these things because often people automatically assume that military is the end all in leadership. I have to say I have my questions concerning that. I will say being in the military is probably something I couldnt do. Im sure Clark knows the gift of discipline and loyalty both of which are very important, and he knows the military hierarchy, but from what I know, is not the military system is certainly not the most Democratic or most equitable of systems, just like politics its more about connections than fairness, and Im sure he knows how to command, but does he know how to listen? I dont know - these are questions that could be asked.

I like Clark. If Clark were ahead, I would be supporting him whole heartedly. He would be a good leader, maybe even a great one. However the fact that Clark is a general and has said things I have agreed with does not automatically earn unlimited respect, nor does it surpass the overall commitment and heart Governor Dean has shown Americans. On the contrary, the military career has me a bit more cautious these days, although I dont find him to be a textbook general.

I have watched Governor Dean for over a year, build a relationship with Americans. I have met him, seen his campaign go from relative insignificance to hard earned prominence. I havent seen that with any other candidate, the closest has been with Kucinich and Moseley-Braun.

I think timing is everything and I believe Clark may have arrived to the candidacy too late and now perhaps expects to overshadow a candidacy that has already made history. I believe Dean would and hopefully will be one of the greatest leaders we will ever have. That doesnt take away from the other candidates, but why should they or their supporters attempt to pull him down when he is raising the party up again. He has worked hard to show Americans he is serious about leadership and I believe holds the position of the presidency more sacred than any other candidate.

Dean has proven himself and as much as I like other candidates, I dont think they have shown the dedication to the Party and the cause like he has.

[wndycty]

18. DTH I knew the original poster had been a fan of that ticket. . .

. . .I figured I'd let him hang himself with his words. . .LOL!

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. hehe. Good one, DTH...waffle...waffle...waffle. spin...spin...spin....

bash...bash....bash. :eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

40. Hint: Personal attacks don't work when your arguments fail. :) n/t

[wndycty]

47. Tell that to Dean

:kick:

[janx]

21. As Clark supporters have pointed out, he will not be anyone's

VP.

[TeacherCreature]

54. I don't want him to be Dean's VP

I just wonder why he would serve as Bush's VP but not Dean's.

[beachdreamin]

22. Clark inside knowledge of Washington

You don't get to be a 4 star General and NATO Supreme Commander by not knowing the ins and outs of Washington and the power brokers.Clark lobbying for homeland security and terrorism interest only make Clark more Appealing as a candidate.

Clark can stand toe to toe with Bush and discuss Foreign policy issues and he has the first hand knowledge of military issues. Clark has a clear, concise, positive vision for the country and is the ONE candidate who can beat Dean and more importantly defeat Bush in 04.

Clark can win in the South, that is something Dean and the rest of the Dem's can't do and if he chooses someone like Gerhardt as his VP nominee he can take the important Midwest states like, MO, Ohio, Iowa.

The Clark candidacy can get the Bill Clinton endorsement and that will elevate his nomination as the Centrist Democrat who can beat Bush both in the popular vote and the electoral college.

We need a Pr oven Leader in National Security and Foreign Policy issues for the Democratic party and General Clark is that candidate.

[Brian_Expat]

28. Clark will go from selling Bush Homeland Security stuff. . .

. . . to debating him on Homeland Security? Curious.

[wndycty]

31. So is it safe to say that you are no longer "sad"

About Clark not wanting to be Dean's VP.

[Brian_Expat]

41. I'm not sad that Clark won't be VP

I am sad that someone who claims to be a Democrat and support Democratic values would wholeheartedly reject a potential call to serve America. It brings his entire motive for running for office under suspicion -- if his interest isn't in serving America, what is it?

[wndycty]

53. So in a previous thread you did not say that you were "sad". . .

. . .that Clark would not accept a VP slot.

[dave29]

45. Yes

the American people really want someone with that all important corporate lobbying experience.

This is not the best line of approach in suporting Clark IMHO. He has plentry of more redeeming qualities to be focused on.

[newyawker99]

60. Hi beachdreamin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[dfong63]

26. i for one don't want Clark as Dean's VP

[janx]

36. Clark has stated repeatedly that he isn't running for VP.

So Dean will then consult his advisors on the subject of national security and defense before making a decision. Here, again, is a list of those advisors:

Benjamin R. Barber is Kekst Professor of Civil Society at the University of Maryland and is the author "Strong Democracy," "Jihad Vs. McWorld," and "Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism And Democracy." He has been an informal advisor to former President Bill Clinton.

Ashton B. Carter is Co-Director (with former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry) of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Clinton administration.

Ivo H. Daalder is a Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution and served as Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

Morton H. Halperin served as Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State.

Elisa D. Harris is a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland and former Director for Nonproliferation and Export Controls on the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration.

General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret.) served as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command.

Major General Randy Jayne (USAF, Ret.) is currently a Senior Partner with Heidrick & Struggles in McLean, VA. Prior to retiring from the Air Force and the Air National Guard, he served on the National Security Council staff, in the Office of Management and Budget. He was also the President of a major aerospace and defense operating company.

Franklin D. Kramer is Of Counsel to the law firm of Shea & Gardner and served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs for President Clinton.

Anthony Lake is Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He served as National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

General Merrill McPeak (USAF, Ret.) served as U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff during the first Persian Gulf War.

Clyde Prestowitz is President of the Economic Strategy Institute and served as Counsel to the Secretary of Commerce during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of "Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions."

Susan E. Rice is Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution and served as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Jeffrey Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and has served as an advisor to many developing nations.

Admiral Stansfield Turner (USN, Ret.) formerly served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

William Woodward is former Deputy Director Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of State.

The new team of advisors adds to the group that has been informally advising the governor. For over a year and a half, Danny E. Sebright, Associate Vice President of the Cohen Group, has been Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Governor Dean. In addition to helping the campaign develop national security and foreign policy, he has spearheaded the process of recruiting the team of advisors.

Colonel Richard L. Klass (USAF, Ret.), a Washington area international security and business consultant, has conducted outreach to the military community for the campaign for nearly a year. A Rhodes Scholar and former White House Fellow, Colonel Klass was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart for combat in Vietnam during his Air Force career. Lionel Johnson, Vice President and Director of International Government Relations of Citigroup Inc., is also assisting with the campaign's outreach efforts to the foreign policy community. Prior to joining Citigroup, Mr. Johnson served in the Departments of State and Treasury, and was formerly a foreign service officer.

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002697.html

[janx]

37. wndycity, why are you asking that question?

Most Clark supporters point out plainly that Clark won't be anyone's VP.

So why do you bring it up? :shrug:

[poskonig]

4. But... but... he has stars!

:evilgrin:

[TorchTheWitch]

63. yep

4 of em

[oasis]

5. Nothing damaging there, especially in a general election.(n/t)

[Brian_Expat]

7. I don't know if it's damaging or not. . .

. . . but it does offer hints as to a Clark administration's approach to domestic security issues -- pointing towards a continuation and strengthening of the Bush Doctrine.

[wyldwolf]

11. So?

Since he has done nothing illegal,it comes down to what an individual feels is a "good" or "bad" thing.

All of this sounds much nicer than someone who who wanted Vermont to rival Bermuda for corporate tax shelters who decried campaigns run on god, guns, and gays - then suddenly found god.

who criticized Cheney's secret energy meetings but had those of his own.

who sealed some of his governor's records for an unprecidented 10 years.

who critizied Bush's tax breaks, but gave Vermont corporations much the same type of tax breaks.

who is rated A+ by the NRA

who approved sending nuclear waste to a poor hispanic town

who is seen by Vermont environmentalists as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

who promised not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch in Vermont

Who may have never met with Dick Cheney but thinks he is an ideal VP.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. This Thread Is a Big Snoozefest

Regurgitating old articles without any additional commentary is transparent and pointless. Anyone could do it. Maybe I should start doing it to your guy?

DTH

[Brian_Expat]

16. What's wrong with information? n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. You want information?

I have some about Dean if you would like me to post it. :grr:

[Brian_Expat]

43. I've seen all your stuff 1 million times before.

I'm posting new information. Why are you so angry and afraid of new information?

Aren't Democrats supposed to avoid :grr:angry:grr: campaigns?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

44. YOU ARE NOT POSTING NEW INFORMATION!

You have GOT to be kidding me!

:eyes:

DTH

[democratreformed]

52. You've seen this?

Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Deans_Labor_History/

A million times? Funny, I just heard about it a few days ago.

[dfong63]

29. if it bores you, don't read it

Regurgitating old articles without any additional commentary is transparent and pointless.

so if you object to "regurgitating" old articles, then how do you explain your .sig which regurgitates old quotes without commentary?

[Dookus]

48. I've been pondering the same thing, DTH....

They seem to think it's a valid technique, and no matter how much people try to explain that it's silly, it just keeps coming. So perhaps I should copy their tactics and start scouring the web for any critical blog, article, or comment about their candidate.

I've never done it before, but if THEY get so much joy out of it, why should I deny myself... :evilgrin:

[Turkw]

49. I'm right there with you-I've posted information refuting several of these

recycled attacks and the Amen chorus, but nobody responds to facts. So in addition to at the new questions about the anti-Clark choir's favorite guy's history and comments, I think we should start recycling as well.

Oh, wait, attacks and spin are fair only when it comes form their side!

[Scott Lee]

24. so when I see Clark, am I seeing another spokesmouth for war profits?

Because if I am, he can go straight to the same hell that is consuming George W Bushhole.

Weird, to think I spent so much time saying nice things about Clark early in this race. I oughtta wash out my own mouth with soap.

[Rose Siding]

38. Renders moot the testament in which Job dwells

doncha think? But maybe that's just me ;)

[Turkw]

46. There has been information that Al Quada wanted to use planes in France

against buildings for years. There was one plan to hit the Eiffel Tower that was thwarted early in the planning stages. There have been other evidence that this was a tactic they were developing for years.

This was a valid threat!

[revcarol]

56. Why is ALMOST NO ONE addressing that Clark

was a lobbyist for Axciom on the VERY ISSUES OF PRIVACY and GOVERNMENT BUTTING INTO OUR LIVES that we have criticized?

Only this week: those flights from France in which people were supposedly identified as terrorists turned out to be ordinary people and children.

Is the issue just INEPTNESS or is this an invasion of our privacy?

Why can't we ADMIT that he lobbied to violate our privacy and got paid for it? And he wanted Bush's violation of our privacy.

Nice flame to avoid this issue.

[OKNancy]

57. Because Clark was never involved in that aspect of the

company and actually as part of his job was to PROTECT privacy. It's been in tons of statements by the company.

[democratreformed]

58. Some info from the company

POST-9/11 WORK

Clark worked for Acxiom for free for several months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"After 9/11, he really missed the service," Morgan said. "And I asked him if he’d go back in if he could. He said he’d go back in a second."

Absent that possibility, Clark wanted to get involved with companies that could shore up the government’s security, Morgan said.

"He believes in technology more than guns, or at least in balance with it. After 9/11, he helped us for two or three months, calling and offering ideas, telling us what sort of services might be needed for the nation.

"I told him, ‘You can’t just keep doing this for free.’"

But Clark was still a Stephens employee. So Acxiom and Stephens did a deal.

Stephens formed a new subsidiary, SCL LLC, specifically for aerospace and defense consulting. Clark was the only employee, Acxiom the only customer. Acxiom agreed to pay Stephens $300,000 a year. Clark’s cut of that is unknown.

[Turkw]

59. Most former military lobbyists lobby the Pentagon and do so on behalf of

Weapons technology, Clark stayed away form doing this and for the most part lobbied parts of the government where he did not work at in the past. Not the standard shill for the military industrial complex that you guys are trying to make him sound.

[HFishbine]

61. Clark's old boss or the Washington Post -- who to believe?

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7380-2003Sep26?language=printer

[Rose Siding]

62. Doesn't "technology" in that quote mean IT?

That's what CAPPS II is! Information technology- where does it say he worked to keep my financial info out of the hands of the airline ticket agent, rather than refining and marketing the product that would collect data on me without cause?

[Hoppin_Mad]

66. Thanks - Bump

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice ... people I know very well ... our president George W. Bush . We need them there." Wesley Clark at a Republican Fundraiser, May 11, 2001

[DFLforever]

67. Thanks, Brian, for this post

Makes you wonder just who all the people are behind the Clark candidacy. I for one am going to pour over the list of his 4-Q contributors when it becomes available at Open Secrets.

[madfloridian]

69. Sadly, CAPPS II is being implemented now on incoming flights.

I believe that is what I heard. Fingerprinting, and pictures. Soon it will be done all over the country.