Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden and the 2004 Elections

A new article from Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Center for Research on Globalization and author of War and Globalization: The Truth Behind 9/11.

Regime Rotation in America: Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden and the 2004 Presidential Elections

Has General Wesley Clark joined the ranks of the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"?

Clark has not only accused George W. of "possible manipulation of intelligence",  he is also calling for an investigation "into possible 'criminal' conduct in the drive to war." (Daily Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/04/wclark04.xml 4 October 2003)

Strong words from the front-runner Democratic candidate in the presidential race:

"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than consciously to make a case for war based on false claims... We need to know if we were intentionally deceived... This administration is trying to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority... That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting." (quoted in Daily Telegraph, 4 October 2003)

General Clark's statement hints to a cover-up in the 9/11 joint Senate-House inquiry, regarding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which he identifies as  "terrorist sponsors".  In other words, the Retired Four Star General tacitly acknowledges the insidious role played by Washington's indefectible ally, the military government of President Pervez Musharraf, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

It is important that we understand the political motivations behind Wesley Clark's position.

While his observations regarding the Bush administration are accurate, his own record is tainted.

much more

Now Clark has ties with al Queda and bin Laden :eyes:

Fear make people say and do such stupid things.








Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

It's the old political motivations ploy...er...insinuations...er...yadayadabing!

I thought I'd seen all of the smear tactics.... now he is good friends with Bin Laden.

I missed that part.

Why does the left hate a man with the greatest chance of ousting Bush and returning America to a better, more progressive state?

If it was up to these people, Kucinich would be the nominee and they'd be 'rewarded' with four more years of Bushist rule.

You can chant that he is the most electable all you want. I support Kucinich and can be honest that he will not win the nomination. The Democratic party lost its way quite a while back--why should they find it this election.

You believe Clark is guaranteed to win. I think he is guaranteed to lose if he wins the nomination.

I notice Clark supporters RARELY counter posted facts with any of their own other then "yawns" or prophesies of "he will win."

Clark may well turn out to be the final death knell for the Democratic party despite his supporters need to cast him as a Saviour. Perhaps that is the reason some Progressives are angry. We believe you are supporting a shill.

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

I notice Clark supporters RARELY counter posted facts with any of their own other then "yawns" or prophesies of "he will win."

What posted "facts" would these be?

And while it may be frustrating for those of us on DU who would like some clarification on Clark's positions, you can't really blame his supporters for dismissive answers. They don't have legitimate answers yet. Their leader is still getting up to speed. Just take a look at the issues page on the candidate's web site and you'll see why people have a hard time offering any substantive discussion on Clark's policies or proposals.

But, you really can't judge Clark because his supporters are un-armed. The reality is, Clark got in late. Let's see what he does to catch up on matters of substance.

In the mean time, Clark suporters on DU are doing the best with what they've got, but they should indeed realize that the "yawns" and "it won't be an issue" type of answers are insufficeint and better only be temporary because they're not going to face kinder questions from Rove et. al.

than there suport of his is based on blind faith. How can he be the savor of the Democratic party, on a phantom platform?

I had a feeling about Dean early. It would have either whithered and died or, as it tunrs out get encouraged by reality.

The broader point is about the two-party system.
And it's true. You know why we're not going after the frickin' Saudis, who killed 3,000 Americans? Because almost ALL of our politicians are buddied-up to them! It's BULLSHIT.
This has been on my mind for a long time.

what great guys Bush and co. were after he knew that they were using 911 to falsely justify wars, KWIM?

I'd really like to hear what Clark has to say about this and how he can reconcile those two things.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here? :shrug:

We need to stop the conspiracy theories that Bush has ties with Al-Quaeda so that we aren't being hypocritical.

I haven't heard those.

Bush wanted war with Iraq, 911 helped him get it.

...which makes post #7 complete bull.

very few.

Welcome to DU, by the way. Most of us like credible sources for proof of claims such as these.

ad infinitum about the Bush family connections and cozy relations to the Bin laden family, and the Bush family's connections to Saudi Arabia, and MIHOP and LIHOP and .....

It goes on and on.

Where have you been?

..does not equate to Al-Quaeda.

How someone on this board could not allready know about this stuff is sad.

We are fuckin doomed.

I'd be interested in seeing it. We all would.

I don't mean a "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon conspiratorial" connection.

I know the story of Reagan funding the forerunners of the terrorist group in Afghanistan.

I know Georgie's dad was Reagan's VP.

I know the Bush's have business connections to the bin Ladens.

I know the Reagan/Bush people can be blamed directly or indirectly for the rise of Al Queda.

But where is the George W. Bush connection to Al Qaeda?

As I said before, I researched the rise of Al Qaeda and the first WTC bombing extensively and have e-mailed item to Moore on several occasions (getting a response back once, too.)

So I'm not exactly a newbie to the subject.

there were fifteen Saudis on those planes and the Bush administration doesn't seem to give a shit about it.

43 mil. do it, since the Taliban supported OBL?



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

...that was supposedly a pay off for either the Taliban halting the harvesting of poppy or as a payment on the oil pipeline. Or both.

One could argue that it indirectly benefited Al-Qeada but it isn't a credible link between Bush and Al-Queda.

I think we could indirectly tie a lot of people to the terrorist group by pointing out dealings with Afghanistan.

Thanks for the welcome. Like my new username?

Some people think that Bush is responsible for 911 via Al Qaida etc.

Michael Moore has a new movie in the works called farenheit 911 which may shed some light on the Bush Al Qaida connection? Or, maybe not...

I do anxiously await his next movie, which is to be released just before the coming election ;)

I have even e-mailed him info I have researched concerning the first WTC bombing of '93.

The film covers the Bush family's connection with the bin Ladens, not George W. Bush's non-connection with Al Queda.

To learn about this stuff. Everything else is secondary to 9-11 truth.

I would like to see it.

Why.

1. For the life of me, I continually fail to understand why people have been blasting away at Clark over Kosovo, yet fail to lay the blame at the feet of Bill Clinton. If one believes that the Kosovo war was a crime, that collusion between the US and bin laden was achieved, Bill Clinton should be the target. But that's not convenient politically.

2. The concept of 'Regime Rotation' is a hoot. We've been practicing regime roatation since FDR...hell, some would say since Lincoln. The idea that this is some new invention is outrageous. This will tag me as a jaded political hack, but I will take a rotation towards someone like Clark (or Kerry or Dean) with a big grin on my face.

3. Michel Chossudovsky:

Dismantling Yugoslavia; Colonizing Bosnia

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html

By Prof. Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, in Covert Action
No. 56. Spring 1996

Michel Chossudovsky is professor of economics, University of Ottawa. An earlier version of this paper was presented at 'The Other Face of the European Project, Alternative Forum to the European Summit, Madrid, 1995.

While Western soldiers make headlines as peace enforcers, an army of international bankers, lawyers, and creditors continues its economic conquest of the Balkans. --

As heavily-armed US and NATO troops enforce the peace in Bosnia, the press and politicians alike portray Western intervention in the former Yugoslavia as a noble, if agonizingly belated, response to an outbreak of ethnic massacres and human rights violations.

In the wake of the November 1995 Dayton peace accords, the West is eager to touch up its self-portrait as savior of the Southern Slavs and get on with "the work of rebuilding" the newly sovereign states.

But following a pattern set early on, Western public opinion has been misled. The conventional wisdom holds that the plight of the Balkans is the outcome of an "aggressive nationalism," the inevitable result of deep-seated ethnic and religious tensions rooted in history (1). Likewise, commentators cite "Balkans power-plays" and the clash of political personalities to explain the conflicts.(2)

Lost in the barrage of images and self-serving analyses are the economic and social causes of the conflict. The deep- seated economic crisis which preceded the civil war is long forgotten. The strategic interests of Germany and the US in laying the groundwork for the disintegration of Yugoslavia go unmentioned, as does the role of external creditors and international financial institutions. In the eyes of the global media, Western powers bear no responsibility for the impoverishment and destruction of a nation of 24 million people.

But through their domination of the global financial system, the Western powers, in pursuit of national and collective strategic interests, helped bring the Yugoslav economy to its knees and stirred its simmering ethnic and social conflicts. Now it is the turn of Yugoslavia's war-ravaged successor states to feel the tender mercies of the international financial community.

As the world focuses on troop movements and cease-fires, the international financial institutions are busily collecting former Yugoslavia's external debt from its remnant states, while transforming the Balkans into a safehaven for free enterprise. With a Bosnian peace settlement holding under NATO guns, the West has unveiled a "reconstruction" program that strips that brutalized country of sovereignty to a degree not seen in Europe since the end of World War II. It consists largely of making Bosnia a divided territory under NATO military occupation and Western administration.

...more...

I'm one of those freaks who thinks the Kosovo war did a great deal of good. Tinfoil theories about it don't gain a lot of traction with me.

1. Bill Clinton is not running for president.

2. MC is not saying that regime rotation is a new thing.

3. What's your point?

The excuse is beneith you Will. Are you truly prepared to sell your soul, to back the Panicea Man?

Ye battle not with monsters, least ye become a monster yourself. For as you stare into the abbys, the abbys stares back at you.

Clinton actually made policy decisions, personally. That means he can be held accuntable for them. Kosovo was a policy decision.

That was Clark's doing as commander of the theater. He chose the targets, and he defended the selections of those targets in his books. Just as Rumsfeld defends the carnage he has rote in Iraq today. And it is most amusing to see you trot out the exact same arguments to defend Clark, as this current administration brings out today.

Its been shown that there was no holocaust (or ethnic cleansing is you wish) taking place in Kosovo at the time. The Clark apologists have already conceded this, for now the argument is that Clark "prevented it" from taking place. WMD-P any one? Weapons of Mass Destruction – Programs!

But even if I was to take your word. And that I am to believe that it was Clinton who chose the civilian targets, this doesn't absolve Clark of any thing. "I was just following orders" is not a defenses.

But even if I was to set this aside as well, what measure of man hood remains for Clark? What quality do you see in a paper mashie General who dose as he is told, and doesn't ask questions? A General who's sense of passivity outweighs the lives of innocent civilians who proved to be more opportunistic of a target than Mosloavic's forces that some how still managed to escape. This is an image of him painted for me by your own arguments in his defenses. Where is this presidential quality that you sing of?

The task of removing the stain of his past deeds, dose not reveal a polish beneath, but a tainted residue.

The Clark apologists are faces with a futile task. Upon the one hand, they may chose to defend the indefeasible. To argue that the casualties that came to be under Clark's command was the inevitable result of war, echoing the words of Bush himself as he would defend his own deeds in the same tradition. A hypocrisy from the center, just as fetid as any thing given to us by the right.

But the other hand, they shall chose to paint Clark as a victim of circumstance. Powerless to effect the change fathomed by a crystal heart. Surrounded by evils that would darken its shine. Pushed and buffeted by the winds of his times beyond his mortal power. A hapless mortal thus inconceivably worth the praises of leadership dumped upon him like so much looted treasure.

A leader is one who shows the way. Not a man who "comes in late." A leader is one who takes charge of not only his one actions, that within his power to effect, but to take charge of his own fate, that witch is beyond his power to effect. Not a man who would blame Clinton, or blame his tardiness to the debates for his lack of substance, or any other tapestry of excuses for a single short coming.

Are you so eager to defend Clark, that you are prepared to unjustly accuse another? Are you so desperate to see Clark as a hero, that you shall discard Clinton, like an empty can, drained of its rhetoric? Think carefully you response. For Clinton defeated Herbert Walker Bush, in exactly the same manner as you would wish Clark would defeat Gorge Walker Bush in the coming election. I wonder to the fates, form whom shall you cast Clark away for, when history repeats itself? A fitting irony that your loyalty to the Democrats is as fickle Clark's newly discovered loyalty to the Democratic party.

Then again, for one who is willing to vote for a baloney sandwich, how high can your standards be?

Under the handle "Geronimo Skull" :D

You'd think he'd be more interested in jiving us about Kerry! :+

To have a president not connected to the BFEE/OBL or the MIC?

...a crying shame! :cry:

Everyone should read it. It's not about Clark. It's about our two-party political system and how everyone has connections to the Saudis. The past three years, hell, more than that, according to this, has just been a bunch of lies and magic tricks.

to pull a Max Cleland, when we can do it ourselves?

Edit: Typoe