What is Wes Clark's role w/ the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY?

Site if *'s speech.

http://www.ned.org/press/releases.html#Oct0405


http://www.ned.org/


Officers and Directors



For myself, I trust no organization that starches and irons its American flags.

:patriot:

that directs funds to fascist groups in south america.

NOT.

Dear Lord, another Clark bashing thread.

Look, John Edwards is a putz.
Kerry is a wimp.
Hillary won't flip a red state.
Bayh looks like a Ken doll.
Biden talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Dean isn't running.

Did that get everyone?

:eyes:

In any case, these topics hardly seem like CIA fronts:

1. Francis Fukuyama on "Do we really know how to promote democracy?"

2. Azar Nafisi on "Women, Culture, Human Rights: the case of Iran."

3. NED Venezuela Programs FAQ

Whatever.

(note1: I wasn't the one who drug Clark into this)
(note2: If these are Clark's buddies, it's not up to me to defend him)
(note3: Google is your friend)

heres a link to a interview with a former cia agent re: cia/ned/venezuela:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1403

<snip>
How exactly does the NED work with the CIA?

The mechanism would be that the Congress would give millions of dollars to the National Endowment for Democracy and the National Endowment would then pass the money to what they call the “core foundations” which were these four associated foundations, who in turn would then hand out the money to foreign recipients. This all began in 1984, and one of the first recipients of money from the NED was the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), which was then the focal point of the most extremist of the anti-Castro individuals and organizations in the United States. But the real test for this new system came in Nicaragua. In Nicaragua since 1979-1980 the CIA had this program of organizing counter-revolutionary military forces or paramilitary forces that became known as the Contras, with the logistics and the organization and backup all coming from places in Honduras. They infiltrated eventually something like 15,000 guerillas, whom the Sandinista army defeated. By 1987 they had terrorized the country-side, they had caused around 3,000 deaths, and many others were maimed for life. It was a strictly terrorist operation in the countryside, they were not able during all those years to take a single hamlet and hold it. So they were defeated militarily.

By 1987, Central America was war weary: El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua. And there was a meeting of the Presidents of these countries in a Guatemalan town called Esquipulas and they worked out a series of agreements by themselves—the United States was not a party to this—which included the disarming of the Contras and ceasefires in the various countries. So in Nicaragua there was a ceasefire, but the CIA did not disarm the Contras because they knew that elections were coming up in 1990 and they wanted to maintain the Contras as a threat. Although the Contras had been defeated military by 1987 they had caused enormous economic problems and Nicaraguans were suffering very badly from the destruction.

Following these accords of Esquipulas, US policy changed. More emphasis was placed on the penetration of civil society and the strengthening of the opposition forces to the Sandinista Liberation Front (FSLN), and one of the mechanisms was to the strengthen what was known as the Coordinadora Democratica Nicaraguense , which was comprised of the private sector business-leaders, of certain trade unions that were anti-Sandinista, anti-Sandinista political parties, and anti-Sandinista civil associations. A private consulting firm known as the Delphi International Group was contracted to run operations to influence the elections coming up in 1990. And they turned out to receive the most money of all, and they played the key role in the run-up to the elections in 1990. NED had been active also in Nicaragua from 1984 on, and NED and its associated foundations—all four of them—were also quite active in penetrating and trying to influence the political electoral process in Nicaragua which begins in about 1988, but really gets going in 1989. In order to get the anti-Sandinista vote out and to monitor the elections to create an anti-Sandinista political front the CIA and NED established a civic front called Via Civica and their ostensible job was political education and activism, civic action, non-partisan civic action. When in actual fact all their activities were designed to strengthen the anti-Sandinista side. So first there was the Coordinadora, then Via Civica, and finally the unification of the opposition, and they didn’t achieve this until about August of 1989, about 6 months before the lections, quite late, but they’d been working on it for a long time, and of the twenty opposition political parties, they unified—many simply through bribes—fourteen of these parties and they called it the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO). And UNO ran a single candidate for all the different positions, and the United States selected Violetta Chamoro to run as President.

</snip>

My God, have you never participated in anything that was bi-partisan? Or participated in anything where everyone's politics and/or religion aren't identical?

Look, I've worked on numerous projects with boards and groups. Some people in the group, I liked, some, I didn't. It didn't mean I acted like a bitch and ignored or cursed at those people, but they certainly weren't my "buddies."

Apparently, the fine art of diplomacy is lost on some people on this board.

but...about venezueala...?

There's nothing wrong with Venezueala or Chavez.

That was the list of topics on the home page. I would expect the NED would have topics such as these.

and NED's involvement.

I find it fascinating that the folks around here so easily dismiss the outsourcing of our government to these conservative think tanks.

page for NED to see that I was listing the topics of conversation on the website.

However what I dont understand is your comment that titles those topics.

"In any case, these topics hardly seem like CIA fronts"

but also isn't running, even though several folks would like to draft him.

You forgot Gore, but I'm not sure what the latest anti-Gore canard is. You pretty much got the others, though, except you forgot that Hillary is a DINO warmonger. :eyes:

Fukuyama- Signatory to The Project for a New American Century

All of these people you mentioned are Free Marketeers. America as the beacon.



More on the NED:
How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

<snip>

In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational materials, computers, fax machines, copiers, automobiles and so on, to selected political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, etc. NED programs generally impart the basic philosophy that working people and other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise, class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any shape or form. A freemarket economy is equated with democracy, reform and growth, and the merits of foreign investment are emphasized.

<snip>

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/National%20EndowmentDemo.html

“Nobody's free until everybody's free.”

“Sometimes it seem like to tell the truth today is to run the risk of being killed. But if I fall, I'll fall five feet four inches forward in the fight for freedom. I'm not backing off.”

-Fannie Lou Hamer

Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others.

-- Emma Goldman

The National Endowment for Democracy wants every country to follow an economically conservative agenda, on the condition that they hold a multi-party election once in a while.

I just found another reason to be unenthusiastic about Evan Bayh.

Wonder if that will erode his DU base?

Will it erode Al Gore's DU Base? What about Kerry's Base? and Clinton's? These individuals have supported NED for many via their actions in the White House and/or actions in congress.

NED has been in existence since 1984, and was organized at the time to fight communism in concert with the Pope and Poland's Soledarity Movement led by Lech Waleza, Poland's first democratically elected President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/special_report/1999/09/99/iron_curtain/timelines/poland_80.stm

NED is a govermental organization, not some secret organization. It has been funded every year, under all administrations since 1984.

Clinton/Gore did not see fit to get rid of such an organization, nor did either Republican or Democratic congress throughout to the present. Senators vote on NED funding every year.

NED's official mission is to "help strengthen Democratric Institutions around the world"....perhaps bullshit, perhaps not....depends who's involved.

Like all government organizations it has been used towards both good and BAD ends... as the Left and Right BOTH get to direct where funds go. The funds are dispursed through the following four organizations (two are Democratic/Labor & two are Republican).

"The NED sends its money overseas either through direct grants to foreign organizations or through four NED core institutes: the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)." (snip)

NED has always had SEVERAL Democrats on its board at any one time....some of whom were or are presently in Congress, including: Sen. Bob Graham(Fla), Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), Howard Wolpe(Michigan), Lee Hamilton(Indiana), Matthew McHugh (NY), Evan Bayh (Indiana). Clark was a Clinton appointee.

There are also Labor Representatives:

The reason there are both White and Black hats is because the NED is BI-PARTISAN non profit organization funded by Congress (after 1994 it accepts contributions from private sector).
-------------------
the IRI (Republican) arm of NED has been blamed for causing unrest in Venenzuela, and that may certainly be true. But NED has also done good Stuff by fellows who received grants from the NED (which has gotten good words from Amnesty International):

Chaihark Hahm, (November 2001 - August 2002)
Constitutionalism and Democracy in South Korea
Dr. Hahm's project focuses on constitutional review and democracy in South Korea. He examines the role of the Korean Constitutional Court in building democracy in South Korea, using a comparative framework that considers the influence of political culture and cultural traditions

Charlie James Hughes, (May 2002 - August 2002)
A Practitioner's Handbook on Civic Education Initiatives
Charlie Hughes is the director and "driving force" behind the Forum for Democratic Initiatives (FORDI) in Sierra Leone. His project focuses on civic education initiatives in the United States which can be applied in
Sierra Leone

Ramin Jahanbegloo, (October 2001 - August 2002 )
Intellectuals and Democracy in Iran
Dr. Jahanbegloo's project focuses on the role of Iranian intellectuals in promoting Iranian democracy, including the attitudes of youth and young professionals in Iran today

Yuriy Krynytskyy, (April - August 2002)
Political Technologies and the Promotion of Democracy in Ukraine
Mr. Krynytskyy is a young activist from Kharkiv, Ukraine, who serves as press secretary and head of a district division of the "Rukh" party (People's Movement of Ukraine).

Ndubisi Obiorah, (June - August 2002)
Corruption and Democracy in Africa: A Comparative Perspective
Mr. Obiorah is a Nigerian human rights lawyer who has worked for HURILAWS, the Human Rights Law Service in Lagos


Adotei Akwei, Ghana
Governance, Repression, and Human Rights in Africa
Visiting Fellow, July - December 2003
Mr. Akwei is Senior Advocacy Director for Africa at Amnesty International USA, serving as his organization's chief spokesperson, strategist, and liaison with the U.S. government, media, and the general public on
African human rights issues and U.S. foreign policy toward Africa

Ladan Boroumand, Iran
Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Iran
Visiting Fellow, October 2002 - September 2003
Dr. Ladan Boroumand is director of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation for the Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy in Iran. She earned her doctorate in history from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en
Sciences Sociales in Paris, where she published La guerre des principes (1999), a book exploring the tensions during the French Revolution between the rights of man and the sovereignty of the nation. Her
project examines the prospects for democracy in Iran from a historical perspective.

Clark May ver well propose closing NED activities and replacing it with a DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AID (similar to Kecinich's Dept. of Peace, but as an International dept/not so much domestic) to replace it:
Clark Wants More Foreign Aid, New Department to Handle It
Book Faults Bush for Pursuing Notion of American 'Empire'

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A05
A new book by Wesley K. Clark, the retired Army general running for president, calls for a major expansion in U.S. foreign assistance programs and establishment of a Department of International Assistance to
manage the initiative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14400-20...

This is a rather long critique of NED by the Cato institute with a heck of alot of information in it... Keeping with the copyright guidelines, I will simply post this:

"NED's 10-year history has proven the skeptics right, however. On a number of occasions the lack of coordination between NED and the federal government has resulted in NED programs that undermine official U.S. foreign policy. Examples of NED failures are ubiquitous, but NED's defenders are hard-pressed to cite definitive successes.

At its most innocuous, NED is a slush fund for politicians.(3) Journalist David Corn has described it as "a porkbarrel for a small circle of Republican and Democratic party activists, conservative trade unionists and free marketeers who use the endowment money to run their own mini-State Departments."(4) The distribution of money to opposing interest groups helps NED deflect charges of partisanship in the distribution of pork, but the fact remains that the taxpayer is picking up the tab for politicking.

Moreover, although the four core grantees appear to represent diverse constituencies, Corn and other liberal critics accuse NED of leaning too far to the right, because the Republican party, business (represented by the Chamber of Commerce group), and organized labor all generally adopt a conservative stance when it comes to foreign policy. That leaves only the National Democratic Institute to represent more liberal views.

At the same time, conservative critics bring up the issue of proportion among the four main recipients: the AFL CIO receives approximately 40 percent of available funding, while each of the other groups receives around 10 percent. That imbalance has prompted speculation that NED is in the hands of the neo-Trotskyite Social Democrats/USA, whose membership includes both NED president Carl Gershman and a number of AFL-CIO officials involved with the endowment.(5) Such political rancor is inevitable when an organization is authorized to pursue partisan agendas abroad at taxpayers' expense."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-027.html

and along with the funding towards programs that the GOP picks are programs that DEMOCRATS PICK.

Why the fuck DU'ers post stuff without knowing any actual facts is beyond me.

"come and get it!"

However, I am in agreement with Clark on establishing a more coherent and transparent Dept. of Foreign Aid as opposed to NED in a Democratic administration.

to work within an existing structure to change policy.

It's just another "Clark is a PNACer" thread. Which, of course, makes me laugh my ass off since he's the only primary candidate who dared utter the phrase.

Yes, you are so right, it IS Bi-Partisan.

Funny thing is that the "Partisans" aren't really all that antagonistic toward each other.

Is that what you were hoping for?

Because, I seriously doubt it, given the fact that it's already been hashed and re-hashed.

In fact, those of us who support mainly one person or another has heard the talking point for each one many, many times. And since we know our guy so well, it is ludicrous to us to even see them brought up again and again.

All part of the old primary era bullshit, I'm sure. I wasn't here then, but I can only imagine. It would be nice to get past that at some point.

:eyes:

So likely you're out of luck, erosion-wise.

He's on that list, and I've never considered him to be an "economic conservative".

I grew up in Flushing, Queens; not sure if he represents that area, but he does represent Jamaica, which is just next door, figuratively speaking.

I can't imagine his district electing a particularly conservative rep.

and a supporter of the IWR.

He also has strong ties to labor, and I remember reading that the AFL-CIO has gotten roped into the National Endowment for Democracy as a way of encouraging the growth of unions that aren't "Communist-inspired," i.e. disrespectful of the corporations.

Neoliberals make up 99% of the Republican party. In the Democratic Party they make up a proportion roughly equivalent to the percentage who voted for NAFTA and then CAFTA. It's a percentage that is shrinking, but it includes people who support labor (because labor groups are only now realizing that exploitation of labor abroad doesn't give companies more money to pay American workers, but that it forces American workers to compete with cheaper foreign labor).

It doesn't defy logic that Gephardt is a neoliberal and, in fact, follows a pattern that is hopefully starting to disintegrate.

That'll hurt some dingers.

him out? Your original header was a question about NED NOT about Wes Clark. Why not ask the same question about EACH of the members?

The question about NED in general is legitimate but singling out Wes Clark out of all the names smacks of a hit piece, imo.

i'm sorry i fell for it.

this is a fine example of bait-n-switch, and is terribly dishonest. AT THE VERY LEAST, THE OP SHOULD NOTE WHAT EDITS WERE MADE SOMEWHERE IN THE POST!

:shrug:

He can't very well bash Kerry for trying to keep poor people from freezing this winter, so I guess Clark is the target of the anti-Democrat thread du jour.

The original subject line was about NED. Then I read the list of directors. I was aware of all the other Dems. But editied the subject line when I saw Clark's name, which was news to me.

You seem to be good at that. :eyes:

OMG, Clark appears on Fox News, too. That must mean he AGREES 100% WITH O'REILLY AND HANNITY!!!!!!!! DINO!!!!!


(That was :sarcasm: for the sarcastically impaired, btw.)

that some folks on this thread need to educate themselves on what NED is and what it has done in the past two decades, before they open their mouths and show their ignorance.

Agencies like NED and the School of Americas (or whatever the F their new name is) have one purpose.

And it isn't good.

Trojan Horse:
The National Endowment for Democracy

by William Blum

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

<snip>

In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational materials, computers, fax machines, copiers, automobiles and so on, to selected political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, etc. NED programs generally impart the basic philosophy that working people and other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise, class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any shape or form. A freemarket economy is equated with democracy, reform and growth, and the merits of foreign investment are emphasized.

<snip>

The Endowment played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy "Project Democracy" network, which privatized US foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs and engaged in other equally charming activities. At one point in 1987, a White House spokesman stated that those at NED "run Project Democracy". This was an exaggeration; it would have been more correct to say that NED was the public arm of Project Democracy, while North ran the covert end of things. In any event, the statement caused much less of a stir than if-as in an earlier period-it had been revealed that it was the CIA which was behind such an unscrupulous operation.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/National%20EndowmentDemo.html

We did this back in 2004, remember? It was boring, then, too.

:eyes:

on what some federally run agencies do, should only be boring to those who want to cover their ears and eyes and sing do ra me repeatedly.

Many new DUers have come upboard since the discussions of NED and the like in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

It is a topic worthy of discussion.

An organization that looks as imperialistic as most other Neocon organizations.

However, I will ignore an undeniable fact that reveals an important affiliation of Clarkes because if I deny it, then it must not be real.

It only hurts us to deny the truths. The facts however difficult they may be at times, are our most empowering tools in making the smartest most effective decisions.

With regards to Clark's connection to the NED, imo, it is a sign that Wesley Clark looks to be someone who's loyalty is in question. Perhaps Im wrong, however this is not the first time this has been revealed. It doesnt mean he's not a good person, however he's been dancing with both teams much too closely for me to ever feel comfortable or that I could fully trust him. From what I have observed from his connections and affiliations, Clark's potential opportunism is something to consider, and seems to be a persistent part of his life and/or his connections in Washington.

as will come as no surprise, that Mr. Clark is a proponent of a strong military.

Autohritarian-Militarism-Hierarchy-Dominion

i'm curious about such allegiance to these father-figures. I recall a very good article/essay that was written by a DUer titled "Father Knows Best". It was re-posted in the articles section a while back.