Clark and the Globalist Neocons

Since his "encouraged" retirement from the miliary in 2000, Clark has joined up with the following organizations, either as a board member or an analyst:

(Jackson) Stephens Group, Inc ( http://www.stephens.com/ )
Acxiom Corp. ( http://www.acxiom.com/ )
SIRVA, Inc. (as in SIRVA Relocation -- http://www.sirva.com/ )
The Markle Foundation ( http://www.markletaskforce.org/ )
Council of Foreign Relations ( www.cfr.org )
The National Endowment For Democracy ( http://www.ned.org/ )
Center for Strategic and International Studies ( http://www.csis.org/ )
The Atlantic Council ( http://www.acus.org/ )
Soros' International Crisis Group ( http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/ )
Messer-Greisheim ( http://messergroup.com/de/index.html )
Entrust, Inc. ( http://www.entrust.com/ )

So a guy who lobbied for Henry Kissinger and for the indefensible Big Brother CAPPS II no fly list is our new Democratic (Leadership Council) savior.

A guy who served on the board of a global relocation company (SIRVA) is the man we want to trust to keep our jobs in the USA.

A guy who worked with neocon globalists on the CRF, NED and AC is the "outsider" candidate we want to restrain our imperialistic tendencies.

A guy who lobbied for defense contractors is the man we want to clean up defense contracting abuse.

A guy who served on a neocon Homeland Security task force that likes the Patriot Act and actually recommended a whole new domestic super-spying agency within the Homeland Security department to replace the FBI for domestic surveillance is the man we want to trust to roll back the Bill of Rights' encroachments of the Bush Administration.

A Reagan Democrat is the guy we need to get back those damn Reagan Democrats.

A guy who spent most of 2001 praising Bush is the man we have to nominate to bury him.

Sorry if I'm dubious, but that's just the way I see it.

are not the same thing.

The UN is globalist.

Bush is a neo con.

This was clear to me as soon as I found out he lobbied for Acxiom. His personal views may be merely neo-liberal (which is bad enough), but as a result of Clark's actions his instincts are questionable.

That's a good rundown stickdog. Thanks!

So who is the" Trojan Horse"?

Seems like Dean could just as well be a Wall Street Candidate.... and a dupe for the PNAC'ers.

He'd have no clue how to deal with the Pentagon Neo-Cons and would be dead meat.

Clark, on the other hand beat the Neo-Cons at their own game in Kosovo. He succeeded with his hands tied.

Search Results -- Scroll Down

Dean's hardly lionized here.

And Clark did what his neocon masters told him to do in Kosovo or he would have been court martialed.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

And when, where and how did Cato lionize Dean?

one way or the other.

Globalists and neo cons still aren't the same thing.

But that doesn't rule out the existence of neocon globalists, now does it?

Globalist and neo con are still not the same thing.

the set of neocons and the set of globalists is not null.

And this fact is proven by the Bush Administration.

We haven't had one for what? 3, 4 hours yet? And all new material, too! /sarcasm off.

You're one of my favorite Dean supporters. You know how to cut through the BS, and you're definitely keeping your eye on the ball, namely the ejection of Bush in 2004.

:loveya:

stickdog: Yawn. It sure must be tiring to keep carrying that axe around. Let go of the hate, man.

DTH

:hi: I'm getting tired of even having to read the same old crap used again and again. Sheesh, you'd think they could at least use something NEW, rather than the same, tired, useless garbage that has been beaten to death over and over and over and over and... :eyes:

napalm bomb.

SIRVA, Inc. (as in SIRVA Relocation -- http://www.sirva.com/ ) is new to me. Do you have any comments about it?

The Atlantic Council ( http://www.acus.org/ ) is new to me. Care to tell us what you think of this organization?

Messer-Greisheim ( http://messergroup.com/de/index.html ) is new to me. What role did Clark serve for this giant corporation?

Or would you rather flame away and avoid all issues, as usual?

The Atlantic Council, intends to oh hte horror RENEW alliances
with our old allies and friends.

Have YOU read Waging Modern War?

You should, must of his goals are stated just in the
intro, to renew those alliances, in particular NATO... which is
part of teh 50 + year MULTILATERAL agreements.

HONORARY DIRECTORS

James A. Baker III
Frank C. Carlucci III
Warren Christopher
Harlan Cleveland
Russell E. Dougherty
Gerald R. Ford
Alexander M. Haig, Jr.
Christian A. Herter, Jr.
Robert S. McNamara
Paul H. Nitze
Bernard W. Rogers
Edward L. Rowny
George M. Seignious II
Raymond P. Shafer
George P. Shultz
William H. Webster
John C. Whitehead

Directors

David L. Aaron
*David C. Acheson
Donald M. Alstadt
G. Allen Andreas
Marilyn W. Andrulis
Nancy Kassebaum Baker
Donald K. Bandler
Reginald Bartholomew
Judith Bello
Lucy Wilson Benson
Dennis Blair
Julia Chang Bloch
Avis T. Bohlen
Beth A. Brooke
Harold Brown
Kent N. Brown
Dan W. Burns
Richard R. Burt
Sarah C. Carey
Michael P. C. Carns
Gareth C.C. Chang
Daniel W. Christman
Wesley K. Clark
William Clark, Jr.
Vance D. Coffman
*Curtis M. Coward
W. Bowman Cutter
W. Kenneth Davis
William H. Draper III
Stanley Ebner
Stuart E. Eizenstat
*Robert F. Ellsworth
Richard W. Fisher
*William H.G. FitzGerald
Rosemarie Forsythe
Leon S. Fuerth
*John L. Fugh
Sherri W. Goodman
Andrew J. Goodpaster
Lincoln Gordon
C. Boyden Gray
Maurice R. Greenberg
*Janet Mullins Grissom
Donald L. Guertin
Kenneth H. Hannan
*Harry Harding
Rita E. Hauser
Marten H.A. van Heuven
James Hogg
*Mary L. Howell
Chun-tu Hsueh
*Benjamin Huberman
Robert E. Hunter
Mercy W. Jimenez
*George A. Joulwan
Paul G. Kaminski
Arnold Kanter
Robert M. Kimmitt
*James V. Kimsey
Henry A. Kissinger
Michael V. Kostiw
*Charles R. Larson
Roderick von Lipsey
*Jan M. Lodal
John R. Lyman
Diana MacArthur
Barry R. McCaffrey
James P. McCarthy
Joan M. McEntee
*David E. McGiffert
Judith A. Miller
*Steven Muller
William A. Nitze
Robert E. O'Brien
Philip A. Odeen
Harry A. Pearce
Charles R. Perry
William J. Perry
Thomas R. Pickering
Joseph Prueher
Joseph W. Ralston
Norman W. Ray
Stanley R. Resor
Joseph E. Robert, Jr.
Paul H. Robinson, Jr.
Marjorie M. Scardino
James Schlesinger
John P. Schmitz
*Brent Scowcroft
John M.D. Shalikashvili
Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall
C.J. Silas
Matthew R. Simmons
Kiron K. Skinner
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Esther T. Smith
Roy C. Smith
William Y. Smith
*Helmut Sonnenfeldt
George J. Stathakis
*Paula Stern
Robert D. Stuart, Jr.
Gordon R. Sullivan
*Sandra E. Taylor
Terence A. Todman
Carl E. Vuono
Roger W. Wallace
J. Robinson West
Togo D. West, Jr.
Mason Willrich
R. James Woolsey

* indicates members of the Executive Committee

I've had small doubts about Clark ... but seriously ... on a board with Carlucci and Baker?

:wtf:

Have you looked at the SIRVA website? It's really just a very sophisticated moving company. There have always been people who needed to do major relocations and if you're at a high enough level in your organization you get a company like this to help you do it. This is nothing new, and nothing insidious and they have nothing to do with outsourcing jobs, or anything remotely like that.They just provide services to people who are relocating to a new part of a country or the world. If you're an executive in the New York office, you might relocate to the Belgium office. They offer the services to the military, too, which is likely how he became familiar with it.

As to the Atlantic Council of the United States, I see that Wesley Clark shares a credit there with such characters as Max Cleland. There are papers on the site for such sinister plots as energy efficiency, improving relations with countries like Cuba and other such plans and plots.

Have you read this stuff and if so, what are your concerns exactly?

And why?

to wherever labor is cheapest. The globalist dream moving company, and the death of millions of American Dreams -- that Clark is suddenly committed to protecting!

And on the Atlantic Council -

James Baker III
Frank Carlucci III
Alexander Haig, Jr.
Robert S. McNamara
George O. Shultz
William Webster
Gerald Ford
Warren Christopher
Harlan Cleveland

to name just a few.

That's the sound of my head banging on the desk. It's a MOVING COMPANY. It doesn't move corporations. It moves individuals. Sometimes corporations pick up the tab to move high level individuals. It includes such services as:

Home Buy/Sell
Mortgage Services
Title Search and Insurance
Expat/Repatriation
Destination Services
Expense Management
Consulting

For instance, in the company where I used to work, a VP moved to our NY location from London. One of our sales execs moved to start up a Canada office. Several executives relocated from FL.That's just a few I recall. That kind of move was happening all the time. They all used services like this company offers. If this is the kind of thing you find incriminating, then you have no credibility.

Come on.

We all know they are helping to match multinationals with cheaper labor.

That's what drives the damn revenue.

"They help move companies overseas!"
"Um... no they don't."
"Yeah they do, and you're not answering my accusations. Wah!"
"OK, here. Here's what they actually do."
"Oh, come on. We all know what they're really doing. You're just denying the truth."

Projection, anyone?

God, the sophistry is so predictable.

They'd provide moving services. They'd also facilitate expansions. But that's a far cry from matching up companies with cheap labor markets. They serve consumers, corporations and the military. I never meant to get into a whole thing about some company that I don't care about one way or another. It's just a little infuriating that you're seeing these very dark plots behind everything that you can associate with Clark. You post these links that then read the most nefarious things possible into them. Why?

NY to LA?

Is that why they brag about being GLOBAL and offering value added GLOBAL products?

that's one reason to be very wary of Clark, all of the influence of the neo-con dominated military think-tanks during his career that's another-here is but one example of that compare to his statements on defense.
Revolution in Political and Military Affairs/RPMA
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm

I don't know any such thing. Do you have any actual basis for what you're saying?

"streamline the supply chain."

Meanwhile, our jobs are moving to other countries.

Do I have to draw you a picture or can you take it from there, "union" maid?

their businesses moved to the US...for cheaper labor, or lower taxes or a sweetheart deal offered to them.

Lotsa screaming when the shoe is on the other foot tho hmmm?

Tsk.

under Bush!

Thanks, Wesley!

I'm combing through some of it's papers now, but it doesn't seem bad at all. The one I'm reading right now: http://www.acus.org/Publications/policypapers/internationalsecurity/Permanent%20Alliance.pdf talks about how to strengthen our alliance with Europe.

One thing that stood out when I was reading it: should a missle defense shield be deployed, it's necessary that it covers our allies as well as us. That sounds like a neo-con idea to me. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Attack! Attack! It's already been beaten into the ground, but we must find a way to compensate for Dean's poor showing in Pennsylvania!

When he joined these boards, and when he left (where aplicable.)

Here's Stickdogs's comment in the thread about the New York Observer effectively endorsing Clark:

"Neocon paper supports neocon candidate! Hold the Presses!"


Why would ANYONE care what you have to say about Clark, Stickdog?

personally.

Where did I attack you?

Instead you sought to discredit me because I confused the NY Observer with the NY Sun on an entirely different thread.

That's called an attack ad hominem and it's an extremely common logical fallacy.

Are you saying you've answered all of these questions before?

If you can just point me to a thread, I'll do the rest of the work.

Who doesn't even support Clark. He's merely tired of cheap candidate slander...

And let him serve as a example to anyone who would ask questions.

all the Clarkettes know how to do, Stickdog.

Don't worry, take it as a compliment. It's a sign you're getting under their skin.

Make no mistake, the right folks are seeing this post and others, and are taking action and spreading the word.

Thanks so much for this, and other, posts!

KUCINICH, DEAN, or GREEN right stickdog?

but choose not to?

Okay. But when paranoia about Clark starts hitting the mainstream, you have no one to blame but yourself.

at least you are very environmentalist in
your slams and smears.

concern.

It makes me wonder if anyone can sincerely answer any of these questions.

Or perhaps this one: If Clark's MIC involvements don't concern you, then why not?

Surely Clark's supporters have their own reasons. Right?

no surpise he's a neo-liberal imperialist... where you got neocon i'll forgive as emotional writers liberties.... but really... it is not an appropriate phrase for what you are trying to say.

I agree that clinton-style sold-out neoliberalism is a DLC recipe for disaster, and that is why i loathed clinton and his technicolour dream coat of false liberality... and equally loathe that aspect of the democratic center party... which is why i did not vote for the bastard (or the other guy). At the 2000 election, i could be best described as a green abstaining from voting (in NY where gore won)... as there was nobody i could vote FOR in conscience like Dennis Kucinich.

So clark has taken that mantle and it is equally distasteful.. sort of 25% bush instead of 100%... and i'm willing to settle for less evil these days hoping clark learns on the job and discovers the wisdom of REAL liberalism.

And please note that these concerns have NOTHING to do with anything Clark did under or for Clinton.

Nor are they ancient history.

Nor can they be excused by the "military orders" defense.

and if clark wins, i'll support him. You are absolutely correct that supporting clark is a grey vote of confidence in grey principles unclear even (i believe) to clark himself who has adopted his positions not out of belief but rather in order TO WIN.

He is 100% amorphous actor playing the part to win, and hoping you'll buy the image so that once he gets in office he can do, like shrub before him, nothing that he discussed while campaigning... so in the end, it is a psychic vote (for me) of confidence in clark's moral fibre... which in all honesty... is not so bad. He may turn out to be a real eisenhower underneath it all... and that is why i don't get really mean about him on this site... the dark horse may indeed be the winner and by being non-partisan historically, clark has the potential to really (outside meida spin'ism) unite partisan divides that american come back from the brink of implosion.

my optimism is such that i've moved out of the USA that i can get away from criminal government and corporate media for the latter part of my life.. so my vote of optimism must be coloured by the fact that i don't trust the US political system enough to live INSIDE it.

You are the optimist. I am a realist. Clark is LESS EVIL THAN BUSH.. that is all i expect of him.

because he will have to answer politically to his grassroots activist supporters (like Bush must answer to the Christian Right) if he doesn't want to take a big hit in popularity once he's elected.

Clark will only have to answer to the DLC schemers who coronated him when Kerry stumbled.

And Clark's far smarter and slicker than Bush, hence ...

Can you name some DoD contractors that it would have been acceptable for Clark to work for?

But specifically: what did he do, why did he do it, and why isn't it an issue for you?

Perhaps it's because my father has worked for various defense contractors for most of his life, and I don't buy the "guilt by association" idea that pervades these posts.

You assume that these companies are all hive-minded, but just look at any organization. There are lots of disagreements... hell, there were disagreements in the Bush Administration prior to the war. You've automatically assumed that everything wrong any one of these companies has done is directly attributable to Clark.

IMHO, the more you can elaborate on that point, the better you will be able to defend Clark.

And I'm not assuming anything, I just want to know what he did, and why he did it. If I thought Clark was somehow evil, trust me, you would know it.

Lumped you in there with others... I think I read your posting too fast.

I also feel that knowing what he did would be a good thing, because it'd probably clear the air of these type of allegations, but I doubt it'll come up, unless it's at another town hall meeting (like the Repub lite question in Iowa).

But I'd like to know that people are prepared nonetheless.

I apologize if my previous post sounded rude.

So far, WaveCrest Motors -- Clark was the Chairman, I think -- doesn't have me pissing in my pants.

Should it?