Has anyone read this article from Counterpunch? Want feed back on it.

Search CounterPunch
September 18, 2003

Wesley Clark for President?
Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons
By WAYNE MADSEN

Let it never be said the neo-conservatives are not persistent. That's why they must be rounded up by the FBI and charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. But let's save that issue for another time.

The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a "New Democrat." The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman's candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a "go-to" candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year.

The "New Democrats" (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark's presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of "Mecca" for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes.

Now enter "Arkansan" Wesley

I have read on DU that it's an ultra-leftist site, and I often see members who are of this persuasion (greens, or those who hate the Dem party for one reason or another) link to it, which causes me to think this perception of counterpunch is deserved.

"Extreme left wingers and conspiracy theorists." "Says things left wingers would not want to hear." Hee. That's all quite funny. What exactly do those particular labels mean, anyway?

He's done a lot of respected work exposing Bush, the DLC and JINSA.

Author: Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of the forthcoming book, "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."

I'm glad he's bringing these things up. They need to be known.

How long before someone shows up accusing Wayne Madsen of being a Rove agent?

---

Before becoming NATO Commander, Clark was the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From this vantage point, Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt. Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries deposited millions of dollars into U.S. coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians and train them in their use through the use of private military contractors like Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). And when some of the weapons and cash for the Bosnians became ''unaccounted for,'' where did some of the guns and cash wind up? In the hands of Al Qaeda and Iranian Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) units in Bosnia.

More interestingly is how General Clark's Bosnia strategy ultimately goes full circle. According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Both Feith and Perle advised the Bosnian delegation during the 1995 Dayton Peace talks. The chief U.S. military negotiator in Dayton was Wesley Clark.

http://thomasmc.com/0919b.htm

often in the past. I have also heard him say many things that many left wingers would not want to hear, like that Arafat and the PA are behind the Hamas and Jihad suicide bombings directly.

You haven't really heard him say many things Left Wingers wouldn't want to hear. We've been reading and quoting him for years on this board so he already has an established track record we can examine. No questions there. And as far as Arafat, Hamas, I haven't paid much attention to what he wrote on that matter but will let it rest because frankly I don't get all excited about the relationship between Arafat and Hamas because IMO they're both resisting an illegal occupation and OTOH we have quite a few old die-hard Liberal Democrats on this board whom I happen to respect who think the same thing you say Madsen does. If I give them a pass, I'm afraid I have to give Madsen a pass on that one too.

I respect him for his work exposing PNAC, JINSA, Bush, and AEI. When he speaks about neo-cons he's not pulling it out of thin air.

---------------------------------
The work he did with Bob Barr was a bi-partisan project also headed by Jerry Nadler(D) and dealt with some very important privacy legislation.

I respected Bob Barr and Jerry Nadler for pushing that through with Wayne Madsen's expert technical assistance!

November 1999

Georgia Republican Bob Barr is leading a congressional movement to force the NSA to answer for spying on U.S. citizens.

"There seems to be very credible evidence that this operation is taking place, and has been taking place for quite some time," says Barr. "At this point, all we're asking for is the basic information telling us what do you at the NSA, the National Security Agency, believe is the legal basis for you to gather this information? That's the starting point: What's the basis that you believe you're authorized to do this?"

That question set off a battle royal between the NSA and the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year. When asked about the legality of their procedures, the agency refused to provide Congress with any information, citing attorney-client privilege.

<snip>

In response, Barr proposed a measure that will require the NSA to report to Congress on the legal standards they use for spying. The measure was passed by the House and is now under consideration by the Senate. Congressional hearings on ECHELON are expected early next year.

<snip>

http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/nov99/msg00222.html

I was under the impression that he was quite involved with Bob Barr, and I believe he did a lot of PI work for Barr.

If Arafat and PA were behind the Suicide bombings, it would make the occupation quasi-legal because it would justify war measures against the Palestinian Authority. It would also show me that the Palestinian leaders and not just the Islamists are actively trying to subvert any peace and will never recognize that Israel exists.

I do not consider suicide bombings to be a legitimate method of resistance.

but that's the only thing I recall him having done with Barr. I understand your views on suicide bombings. I do not support them but I understand the despair that pushes people to that point. I truly regret that suicide bombings are the only effective method of resistance the Palestinians have. Had there been no occupation, there never would have been any suicide bombings. Israel is not the innocent victim in this colonial story but it's horrifying that innocent people on both sides have to die as the hate increases.

Nothing would ever make that occupation either quasi legal or justifiable in my eyes.

In my opinion Counterpunch is an unreliable source, that prints the most extreme left wingers and conspiracy theorists. They are very adept at personal attacks, venomous editorializing and other things. Strangely, they often attack the same people and say the same things that RW talk radio says.I would take anything I read there with a grain of salt.

counterpunch is like RW talk radio...utter horseshit.

pathetic. CP was doing great work for the past two years when most media sources were fondling Bush.

Its a grab bag of stuff, and I don't much like Cockburn, but there's always something interesting in there...

and its JUST like RW talk radio.

Only without the whole radio thing to get in the way of the RW talk...

and say the same things.

Compare Limbaugh's statements on Clinton and the ones in Counterpunch. You will find some eerie similarities.

And of course, Limbaugh rails against the neocons and the Iraq war ALL THE TIME.

and even a good one at that. How many times do we have to answer these bullshit, cobbled together polemics? Every time somone wants to trot it out yet again?

:eyes:

"How many times do we have to answer these bullshit, cobbled together polemics? Every time somone wants to trot it out yet again?"

considering you're related, I'm guessing the answer is "as many times as necessary."

fellow DUers to actually exercise a little judgement after reading the same material time after time but hey ... after my experience here during the last week, I don't expect much.

from the left (and occaisionally shrill). Some interesting stuff time to time, but I always read them with a slight filter.

The contrarian combative tone might be what would lead one to make that comparison. I think the comparison ends after 'tone' (as in pitch, not substance).

i believe yo are supposed to do that anyway.

lied about Gore, lied about Dean, lied about Kerry, and therefore can be presumed to be lying about Clark.

when they attack democrats, the use the same venom that can be found on RW talk radio. They just aren't as obsessed with Hillary.

Well let me put it this way, next to DU, CP is my second home in political reading. I think you have to give them more credit. They have had some really brilliant, thoughtful articles and have people writing for them that I really do respect (Robert Fisk, late Ed Said...) They may be very critical of certain democratic candidates, but that doesn't mean they support Bush (far from it) Most of their criticism (brilliantly articulated, argumented with facts) is concentrated towards Bush, the neocons and seeking for changes (alternatives) to the current policy as we all do. Don't write them of so easily. We have to be self critical as well sometimes. I vote both for DU and CP! :toast: :bounce:

rw talk radio...my ass.

that didn't have some blatent lie in it. They either were the source for or repeated all of the following on Gore; the Occidental stock story, the invented the Internet story, and the Love Canal story. In the case of Dean they used unsorced quotes that turned out to have been very badly spun. They neglected to include his support for civil unions on the day the decision was handed down and went on to imply he never did support them. They also used quotes which have only two sources, one who is a whacked out Dean hater and the other who has since disavowed them, which made it sould like Dean wanted hanging judges. Again, these were blatent errors found by a non professional like me. They, who do this for a living should have a higher standard.

But I do know when he was asked he stated " I'm a New Democrat" (DLC)
This in itself is meaningless. He may have meant "newly converted"

The article is a classic neolib connecting dots to suit his theory and discarding any facts contrary to the preconcieved notion.

Appearances can be deceiving; after all Howard Dean enjoys significant support among the DLC membership.

Take it where you can get it has always been my motto.

But "you have to dance with them what brung ya" to quote Ann Richards.

http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/

<snip>

But members of the DLC, meeting in Philadelphia over the weekend and today for the group's annual "conversation," say they're holding their centrist ground. Their "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideas will reclaim the White House for the Democrats in 2004, they say, as they did for Bill Clinton in his two victories.

<snip>

Despite the political focus, however, the declared Democratic presidential candidates were asked to stay away.

<snip>

The absence of candidates has hardly back-burnered the presidential race. It was still the dominant discussion in the hallways and ballrooms where the group gathered over the weekend. Center-of-the-road names like Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were bandied about. As was a name that many participants said they were surprised to hear often: that of Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander. Clark has not declared his candidacy but has said he is considering a run. Supporters say he could go toe-to-toe with Bush on military issues.

<snip>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6400042.htm

Another article about this same fabulous meeting in Philly:
Centrist Dems weigh Dean dilemma

“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate. ((This was right before the Draft Clark movments sprung up)).

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp?cp1=1

You can read Dr. Chris Kofinis' (the same DLC consultant mentioned above) PDF Analysis of Zogby Poll Commissioned by DraftWesleyClark.com


If you want to listen the 2 hour speech (followed by DLC Q & A) he gave at the New Democrat Network Annual Meeting in DC: (Lieberman & Graham were also present) http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/kdrive/c04061703_newdemocrat.rm

Excerpt, if you don't have 2 hours to listen, here: http://manatt.net/clark.ram

And just to avoid a bunch of inane posts saying that NDN is not DLC- here goes:

DLC AND NDN
Two acronyms that junkies know and that Democratic candidates hear in their sleep. The Democratic Leadership Council, chaired these days by Sen. Evan Bayh and run for 17 years by its founding director, Al From, is the spawning ground of moderate “Third Way” thinking in the party. Bill Clinton was chairman when he launched his own presidential bid in 1991. The New Democratic Network is the DLC’s overtly political cousin, run by an operative named Simon Rosenberg. It doles out cash to candidates and, increasingly, supports independent spending efforts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/834591.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

More about the NDN:

Centrist Democrats launch new agenda
By Hans Nichols

The centrist New Democratic Network (NDN) unveiled a new six-point agenda yesterday that it says can serve as a blueprint for making the Democratic Party the governing force in American politics for the next generation.

<snip>

Several announced and potential Democratic presidential candidates addressed the gathering at a Capitol Hill hotel, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) addressed the convention by phone, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean sent a video greeting.

<snip>

Rosenberg explained in the interview that the network’s revamped agenda and new strategy are the beginning steps of “a 10 to 45-year” plan to elect centrist Democrats to local, state and federal offices.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/centrist.aspx

----
About the NDN


The New Democrat Network (NDN) is one of the nation’s most influential political organizations.
NDN promotes a new generation of leaders who advocate economic growth and fiscal responsibility, strong American leadership in world affairs and world markets, a smaller, smarter government, and a progressive approach to social issues that respects family, faith, and community.

<snip>

NDN is led by NDN President Simon Rosenberg, with advice from NDN's Advisory Board, a group of leading New Democratic thinkers and strategists. NDN’s Advisory Board includes former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew, pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen, former Army Secretary Louis Caldera, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Vic Fazio, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Dave McCurdy, former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former Federal Trade Commissioner and White House Cabinet Secretary Christine A. Varney.
------------------------------

History of the NDN

The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund," a special type of political action committee among political action committees. NDN raises PAC money from many sectors, which they then distribute to their top federal candidates -- Lucas received $10,000 from them. NDN also provides a mechanism for fat-cats to donate directly to candidates without worrying about all those pesky Election Commission limits. Clinton campaign aide, Simon Rosenberg, is now NDN's President. Joe Lieberman is chairman.

Note: The DLC does the same thing, actually. But, by forming the NDN, the DLC contribute more than twice as much to favored candidates.

It's such a horrid piece, and im speaking in terms of logically presenting an argument rather than content (which it's devoid of).

to all who weighed in the article. Sorry that it was brought up again to those who felt a little put out about viewing it again but I do think we will face much of that because it is "the nature of the beast".

trust me.

publication.

their credibility is barely discernable.

they are wing nuts from the left.

But come on, Counterpunch takes the cake for worst of the bunch. I wouldn't trust 'em. A lot of DU'ers are bigtime conspiracy theorists--why hasn't anyone claimed that Counterpunch is a covert propaganda operation run by Richard Perle's mother...or something?

comparable to RW talk radio, apparently :shrug: