what has he done lately? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.

But he did glare at someone who asked him about his previous statement- and said "America is a force for good":

Wesley "Evil Eye" Clark



People should remember that this Clark character commanded the very first PNAC war and almost started WW3 with the Russians



http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

John Pilger tells the truth about Wesley's bombing of Yugoslavia
http://johnpilger.com/articles/don-t-forget-yugoslavia

and many ignored the warning.

More recently, General Wesley Clark:

Remember Rwanda. Arm Ukraine. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/02/26/wesley-clark-balkans-putin-aggression-ukriane-us-role-column/23953497/

Exclusive Briefing from Ukraine’s Front Lines

US, Russia heading to another arms race.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/13/lead-intv-clark-russia-tensions.cnn?iid=ob_videoleaf_organicfooter&iref=obnetwork

Gen. Wesley Clark on ISIS: What’s next?

http://www.msnbc.com/the-reid-report/watch/gen.-wesley-clark-on-isis--what-s-next--401052227908

Decision of ordering the invasion of Iraq squarely on Bush. All of the other statements attempting to say others allows Bush to escape his responsibility of his decision. Give this to Bush, it is his.

It's about those who made the invasion he wanted possible.

that makes perfect sense

How does it make sense to protect Bush? As you say when someone lies about something then I do not want it to be my fault because believing a lie does not make sense, ergo Bush has the invasion of Iraq on him since he did not follow the IWR. Not my fault.

and that target right now is Hillary

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

Invade. The IWR said Bush should exhaust all means before invading, Bush pushed the invasion, the decision is on Bush.

eom

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109.html

a lot of people were misled by the lies the Bushies put out

eom

that she and millions of other Americans who were suckered in by the lies and they should apologize for what the Bushies did?

eom

in May 2003, nearly 80% in a Gallup poll thought the war was justified

September 2004 a CBS poll showed that dropped to 54% but it was still up from the previous poll in July 2004

let's not forget that Bush won the 2004 election so there must have been more than a few people who supported his positions

...and since when do great leaders go by polls?

In either case it makes her unfit to hold public office.

...and I was not alone. Lot's of us knew it was fixed.

Another example was the Patriot Act which was plopped on the desks of those about to vote on it the next day. Wow ...they really put some time into those important decisions.

We have a history here and we need to keep repeating all we have learned through these years before we VOTE in the next Election.

Need to hold "Officials" accountable when they "Tell the Truth" and when they "Back Track" because they are compromised.

It's well worth the watch! Even though Wes often contradicts himself after a "Truth Telling."

when the PNAC pages were still online the plan was right there for each section of the world around us.. There is still some of it at the Wayback machine and Information Clearing House.

I am not a big fan of Clark, but all too often we go into denial and attack the messenger than look at the message.

I AM a big fan of Wes Clark. He should have been president or held major positions in every administration since 2004.

Unfortunately the 'professional' democrats wouldn't pay attention.

Remember the horrible Clark/Dean primary wars here? It was awful.

The professionals did not pay attention because it was likely a done deal.

Clarkie friends said this place was hostile, so I didn't sign on until it was over.

Hope it doesn't get that way this time.

Both Dean and Clark were and are honorable people sincerely trying to do what's best for our country and our people within the realm of what they deem possible. I think the same holds true for Clinton and Sanders. Supporters of candidates for office can and should disagree passionately here on which Democrats they support and why, but it was/is also obvious that there are those who lurk on political discussion boards trying to stir up trouble among us by using character assassination tactics regarding the candidates we are drawn to. We should not tolerate that regardless of who we support.

Good as always to see you here Mad. Thanks for digging up this clip and related documentation. It is crucial not to forget.

Like old times. You are right about so much there.

You put it well, and we should remember:

You said

Supporters of candidates for office can and should disagree passionately here on which Democrats they support and why, but it was/is also obvious that there are those who lurk on political discussion boards trying to stir up trouble among us by using character assassination tactics regarding the candidates we are drawn to. We should not tolerate that regardless of who we support.

ALWAYS good to hear from you!

Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

It seems he's more referring to that time period. I agree, though, the democrats during that time period should have stood up to Cheney more, but he was a buzzsaw, and they were threatened with being traitors.

Best wishes on Memorial Day

So it's nice to see you acknowledge Gen. Clark. Good for you, MF. For me, he'll always be one of the finest of men.

It is quite long, and the specific goals for repositioning our troops around the world start around page 11. Hard reading, but well worth it.

The PNAC took down their website years ago, but some is there at other places.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

And if you have not read Jay Bookman's great column from 2002 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, you need to.

Iraq intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire.

The president's real goal in Iraq

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Just to set the stage a bit more:

He spoke out quite a bit on this. Thanks for the link.

They should be a warning of what we are in for if she becomes POTUS.

you only have to want to see them. Yep they hate us for our freedom.