A pro-Clarker thinks this is something we should all read :)

Click ME or the link below (sorry if this was posted elsewhere)

http://www.lowcountrynow.com/stories/080103/LOCrose.shtml

This is an interesting article. Keep on the lookout for
Michael Moore's next book, I think we will see more evidence
of this connection between PNAC and what has happened in the
last 2 years.

excerpt:

"Members of PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, a director of the organization.

All signed a statement of principles, one of which was to promote "American global leadership" with special emphasis on Arab countries. Another was to "transform" the U.S. military with huge increases in defense spending.

Here's the chilling kicker: To convince the American people to spend extra billions for defense instead of on Social Security, Medicare, etc., PNAC suggested it would take a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC's exact words.)"

that the Niger/Iraq statements were just the tip of the iceburg. We shall see what more leaks out.

I never thought for one second that the statements Bush made in the SOTU were put in there by "mistake." He said them on purpose for maximum effect and didn't give a rat's ass if they were true or not. So much for returning honor an dignity to the WH.

MzPip
:dem:

that he still has friends in the Pentagon and around the White House.

Aside from the JFK assassination, I've never been one for believing in conspiracies, but the more I read about PNAC, the Carlyle Group and other neo-con ventures, the more I start to believe Bush 9/11 rumors, etc.

Keep your mind just a little open. Keep exploring. If you run across something that you can't quite buy, let them sit there. Don't discard it completely, just allow "well, I'm not sure about that, but I'm not sure it's wrong or untrue either." And keep going.

You'll get to where you need to be.

One thing is certain: Whatever is "true" about some of these so-called conspiracy theories, the thing we need most in this country (aside from a free press, of course, and regime change, etc.) is an informed citizenry. You owe it to yourself -- and to your country -- to become as well-informed as possible. Sometimes the effort will lead you into unexpected territory, sometimes perhaps down the wrong road altogether. But you're also likely to find the truth if you persist. That truth may be found in the "conspiracy theories" and it may be found in rejecting some of those conspiracy theories.

If you check them out thoroughly, and keep informing yourself, and keep a slightly open mind while also trying to be discerning, you can't go wrong.

Eloriel

Just a business plan.

by Brisard and Dasquie lays out the background for the story. Read it if you haven't already. It's chilling. Add the information from this article posted to round-out the story and we now know maybe 10% of the lies, plots, bribes and treacheries of our own government associated with 9/11/2001.

The fact that this evidently will remain back-page news makes me sick to my stomach.

because it is in the same vein. Say what you wish about Kerry (and there's plenty to say), but his having former Bush White House Terrorism Czar as Kerry's National Security Advisor for his campaign is nooooothing but a good thing.

Clark was sitting at CNN headquarters for the last year. Beers was connected into every aspect of the White House's 'War on Terror,' and was so disgusted with it he quit and jumped to Kerry's campaign.

Kerry/Clark?

Clark/Kerry?

P.S. This is in no way intended to be flame bait.

C'mon Will, surely you knew it would be.

I don't see the similarities(?) that you do in Clark and Kerry. Clark is unapolegetic about his stand on the war in Iraq, and Kerry can't do enough to dance around the issue.

I hope that you use the power of your pen to promote Clark as the Savior for the Dems. Just my opinion, but that's how I see him.

I hope that you use the power of your pen to promote Clark as the Savior for the Dems. Just my opinion, but that's how I see him.

a "savior" who won't even openly commit himself to run under the banner of that party? some "savior". furthermore, by using the cowardly "stealth candidate" strategy, he is keeping his own options open at the expense of the other dem candidates. yes, Clark's indecision is clearly hurting the other candidates. if he's going to run, let him declare his candidacy openly, and take his lumps like the others who are currently slugging it out. if he's not going to run, then let him (again) declare so openly, so people won't waste any more time or energy on something that's not going to happen.

given that the main reason being put forward by Clark's supporters for Clark's coyness is a selfish one - unwillingness to risk his commentator income - i don't see Clark in any way shape or form as the "savior" of the dem party. if anything, he is or will be USING the dem party to advance his own ambitions.

and team up before the first primary in Iowa. This would blow everyone away, including Karl Rove and the entire GOP.

Kerry and Clark are the strongest team the Dems could have to beat Bush and take back the Congress in 2004.

I loved Clark's response to Shawn Hannity about the Democratic candidates' so-called negative campaigning, in a recent appearance on Hannity and Colmes.

Clark, by the way, totally handled Hannity--made him look completely ineffectual, all the while smiling and acting like a total gentleman.

Clark maintained our democracy was made stronger, not weaker, by the Democratic candidates' vigorous discussion and debating of all the issues facing our country.

:dem: