When will Wesley Clark speak about PNAC?

Oh...wait...he did.

:)

===========

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_28.html#002033

(scroll down a bit in that link to find the interview)

TPM: As we mentioned before, in different capacities you worked for a number of different administrations. Whether it was Ford, working directly in the White House, or for the last 15, 20 years in various capacities at a fairly senior level. You've seen these different presidents conduct foreign policy. What are your opinions of the different ones?

CLARK: Well, you know, nobody gets to be president of the United States without conspicuous strengths. But the ability to conduct foreign policy draws not only on the president himself but on the leadership of the administration. If you were to start here and work backwards, you'd say this administration was doctrinaire. You'd say that it didn't have a real vision in foreign policy. It was reactive. Hobbled by its right-wing constituency from using the full tools that are available -- the full kit-bag of tools that's available to help Americans be in there and protect their interests in the world.

Clinton administration: broad minded, visionary, lots of engagement. Did a lot of work. Had difficulty with two houses in congress that didn't control. And in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy -- promoted by the Project for a New American Century -- much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.

...more...

:-)

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

He also discussed with Matthews on hardball a week or so ago.

I just want to know why more politicians are not talking about this. Why does it seem like Clark is being called crazy for it?

Wake up Deaniacs!

Howard Dean can not get elected in the present situation in America and around the world.

People are very concerned about security issues, and Dems, Indies, & Republicans, like Clark. Not just the way left of the Democratic party. Every day I speak to Republicans who would vote for Clark, but they won't vote for Dean (ergo vote goes to Bush)

If you win the battle, and we lose the war=four more years.
We all lose!

I thought we settled that already.

Would love to vote Clark, but won't even consider Dean. And I haven't been able to change their minds. Grrr..

Despite his assertion that, "we KNOW who was responsible for 9-11.", the facts are that there has not been a proper, publically open investigation. There are serious questions to ask and I would like to know if General Clark believes in a thourough, non-partisan enquiry to get to the WHOLE truth. Will he fight to have those 28 redacted pages regarding the Saudi involvement allowed back in as evidence?

That's what I'd like to know.

don't think he hasn't. I'll come back with that on edit....unless someone beats me to it.

http://www.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Wesley%20Clark

(snip)
Wesley Clark blamed Bush for the intelligence failures that contributed to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 'There is no way this administration can walk away from its responsibility for 9-11,' Clark said. 'You can't blame something like this on lower level intelligence officers, however badly they communicated memos with each other. ... The buck rests with the commander in chief, right on George W. Bush's desk.' Later Tuesday, Clark called on Bush to release the details of an intelligence briefing he received from CIA Director George Tenet in August 2001... Clark argued that Bush has manipulated facts, stifled dissent, retaliated against detractors, shown disdain for allies and started a war without just cause. He said Bush put Americans at risk by pursuing war in Iraq instead of hunting for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, pulling a 'bait-and-switch' by going after Saddam Hussein instead of al Qaeda terrorists.

http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_3157.shtml

(snips)
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a Democratic presidential hopeful, said an independent commission was needed.

"This administration has played politics with national security for a long time, but this is going too far," Clark told Reuters.

General Wesley Clark called on the Bush Administration to stop stonewalling the September 11 Commission.

"George W. Bush and his administration have stonewalled the 9/11 Commission long enough," Clark said. "Leadership means being straight with the American people. For the sake of our nation's future security, President Bush needs to give Governor Kean and the other Commission members the information they want, need and have demanded about the August 2001 briefings."

Clark '04

When he does that.....I might take another look. Just because he speaks about origins of PNAC doesn't mean he isn't a support of it or a sympathizer. I want' to see the side of him that "isn't" military before I go gung ho with a General in the White House in these terrible times.

He has many friends in high places who are and have been "wired in" through all the administrations he talks about in this interview. Which also means he's part of them, and they are part of him. You don't just throw over the Beltway Crowd or the Military/Industrial Complex because you become President.

I think it was a Town Hall Meeting in NH -- sorry I don't have a link -- he was very strong about reversing the new FCC regulations.

He said to roll it back pre 1987......

and called Rush a piece of shit too!....same Town Hall meeting...at the very end.

It's amazing how some complain he's vague and never take the time to learn about the details of his plans, like the proposed Coporate Subsidy Reform Commission. I really like the way the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission forces Congress's hand with an up/down vote to cut the congressional pork.


From his economic plan:

End corporate welfare and close corporate loopholes: $300 billion.
Wes Clark won't tolerate corporate welfare or corporate loopholes in the tax code. These provisions waste resources while providing companies with incentives to pursue handouts instead productivity growth and job creation. Wes Clark supports creation of the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to identify corporate welfare and then force Congress to vote up or down on an entire package of cuts. He'll also close loopholes in the tax code, like the ones that allow companies to avoid taxes by shifting income to Bermuda or buying life insurance for non-executive employees who never see a dime.

---

End Corporate Welfare and Close Corporate Loopholes


Wes Clark would save $300 billion by ending wasteful corporate welfare and closing tax shelters.

-End Corporate Welfare as we know it. Wes Clark won't tolerate corporate welfare or corporate loopholes in the tax code that waste resources while providing companies with the wrong incentives. That's why Wes Clark supports the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission, which would put in place a base-closing style commission to identify corporate welfare and force Congress to vote up or down on an entire package of proposals.


-Close tax shelters that benefit the few and harm the middle class. Sophisticated accountants and lawyers have created wasteful - and often illegal - tax shelters to reduce the taxes that corporations and rich Americans pay. As President, Wes Clark would aggressively prosecute illegal tax shelters and close down those that are legal but outrageous.



http://clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

87 like back to before Reagan. '87 was his Poppy when the Corporations just stuck their toes in the water after Reagan had done his dirty deeds.

I almost dropped my dentures (oh wait, I don't have any) the first time I heard him start talking about it.



He's got quite a pair.

..is PROOF that he IS PNAC! I mean c'mon, nobody important would mention PNAC in this day and age unless they were trying to push their pax-americana agenda..

So when do you get your check from the AEI, William?

Just don't burn a flag around him.

Enough with the candidate threads.

This does not make sense....that he should denounce it? because he is a part of it.

I hear Ray Talliaffero talk PNAC all of the time on his radio show....Is he PNAC?

Whenever I look in his eyes, I see those four letters, screaming out at me, loud and clear, in a fiery triumphant roar of deafening, blistering Bush-loving splendor. "PNAC, PNAC---PNAC!", is what his eyes tell me.

Don't you see, French? DON'T YOU SEE?

Vote for BushClone in '04--Vote Wesley PNAClark!

I'll drink the Kool-Aid!

You cracked me up.

I'm going to mention this down here where probably nobody will see it (unfortunately), but for anybody who's been at DU for a loooooong time: tickle your memory to the discussions about Faction 1 and Faction 2. You can probably search the old archives for it (also often referred to in shorthand as F1/F2).

Those of you who want to see Clark as some kind of republican plant might want to re-think things based on those old discussions. Me? I think Clark's F2, and that makes me feel very, very good about the man.

I still have the Kucinich sticker on my car, but I might send a few bucks Clark's way, too, if/when I get my Christmas bonus.

From one Canadian Clark supporter to another, you had me going till is saw your sig line! GO Wes!

Like looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul. It's a gift! ;)

It sounds like you're in some kind of a frenzy or something.

I said "Just don't burn a flag around him." He's for a flag burning amendment.

Whenever a pretty girl passes it says "Project for a New American Century"

Just tell them you're rich:)!

Don't forget who the real mastermind is!

GOP

www.newamericancentury.org for the newbie population.

Most people planning attacks on a candidate running against their canidate read the books wriiten by the candidate they oppose. This is very useful to avoid looking like doofi.

LOL!!! Best post of the evening!

I think the Black Commentator raised some damn
good questions about how long Clark waited to
divulge his knowledge of PNAC.

I know I know; people in this thread will go all
ballistic cause we/you have already discussed this!!!
Well, I can't help that and, again, I didn't start this thread.
And I have ongoing questions about how much Clark knew and when he
knew it (as was asked about Nixon).

Clark "claims to have learned in November, 2001 of Bush administration plans to attack seven nations over a period of five years, “beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/58/58_email.html

9/28/2003, Clark mentions it in passing in the quote given here.

The questions raised by the Black Commentator about his timing are
impossible for me to ignore:

"Apparently, gems like this are not to be shared with the public for free, so Clark kept the information to himself, even while turning out stacks of print pieces and CNN commentaries. Clark claims to have been “deeply concerned” by what he had learned at the Pentagon nearly two years ago, and that at some point in time he concluded that the U.S. was embarked on a “flawed strategy.” But the public had to wait through the invasion of Afghanistan, the long buildup to war with Iraq, his just-yesterday conversion to the Democratic Party, and last week’s presidential debate, for Clark to tell us what he claims to have known all the time in a book list-priced at $25!"

I wish I could figure out a way to bet money against everything Will Pitt has ever predicted, or selected......
I would be a millionaire.

I feel sorry for Kerry now, Pitt's loyalty to him was about the same as the loyalty to any principle.

attacking Will Pitt's character because he happened to say a nice thing about a Dem candidate?

that objectivity is a bad thing. B-)

Not in and of itself a bad thing.

He will be speaking at Town Hall at 1:00. I went to my first meet-up last night and found out he is coming here tomorrow. I am going!

On edit: I guess it's not really a novelty in the area, since he's been in New Hampshire a lot.

As I said in my post in this thread.

So I'll give it a kick.

about ? Clinton got his letter in 1998. So he knew. But the Iraq war didn't start to be talked about again until fall of 2002 (September).....so prior to that it was just a William Kristol etal. pipe dream.

Clark has talked about it a number of times. He even brought it up on MTP...and was called crazy for it. Still is being called crazy for it.

Most politicians know about PNAC. There's an actual article about Howard Dean on the website Project for the New American Century saying that he is not against their plan.

No George McGovern
Robert Kagan
Washington Post
November 17, 2003

http://newamericancentury.org/defense-20031117.htm

In this respect, at least, Howard Dean is no George McGovern. He opposed the Iraq war, he says, because it was "the wrong war at the wrong time," not because it was emblematic of a fundamentally misguided American foreign policy. Dean has not, in fact, challenged the reigning foreign policy paradigms of the post-9/11 era: the war on terrorism and the nexus between terrorism and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. "I support the president's war on terrorism," he told Tim Russert this summer. He supported the war in Afghanistan. He even supported Israel's strike against a terrorist camp in Syria because Israel, like the United States, has the "right" to defend itself. (European Deanophiles take note.) Dean does not call for a reduction in American military power but talks about using the "iron fist" of our "superb military." He talks tough about North Korea and at times appears to be criticizing the Bush administration for not addressing that "imminent" threat more seriously. And he especially enjoys lacerating Bush for not taking the fight more effectively to al Qaeda, a bit like John F. Kennedy criticizing Eisenhower in 1960 for not being tough enough on communism.
-----------------------'
Another possibility is that Dean's opposition to the Iraq war has been over-interpreted by his supporters on the Democratic left. They think he rejects the overall course of American foreign policy, just as they do. But maybe he doesn't. They think he's one of them, but his views may not be all that different from those of today's Democratic centrist establishment. When Dean criticizes Bush's foreign policy "unilateralism," he sounds like a policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, not a radical. "There are two groups of people who support me because of the war," Dean told Mara Liasson a few months ago. "One are the people who always oppose every war, and in the end I think I probably won't get all of those people." The other group, Dean figures, simply "appreciates the fact" that he "stood up early" and spoke his mind and opposed Bush while other Democrats were cowed. Dean may not be offering a stark alternative to Bush's foreign policy, therefore, so much as he is simply offering Democrats a compelling and combative alternative to Bush himself. The Iraq war provided the occasion to prove his mettle.

If so, that has two implications, one small and one big. The small one concerns the general election: The Bushies are planning to run against a dovish McGovern, but there's a remote possibility they could find themselves running against a hawkish Kennedy. The bigger implication, which the rest of the world should note well, is that the general course of American foreign policy is fairly stable and won't be soon toppled -- not even by Howard Dean.

I know General Clark discussed PNAC on Meet the Press
on 11/16/03. Did he discuss it on MTP before then?
'Cause the timeline is the very point I'm concerned about:

-November, 2001 - Is when General Clark found out about
the BFEE plan to invade seven countries, starting with Iraq,
according to his book "Winning Modern Wars."

-(On edit Sept 28, 2003 - General Clark discusses PNAC,
based on first post in this thread.)

-October, 2003 - General Clark writes in his book “Winning Modern Wars,” about the 2001 episode. Here's an exerpt:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. . . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

-October 16, 2003 - General Clark has a discussion on MTP about PNAC
(relevant portions attached).

So back to my original questions:

1) Did General Clark voice his deep concerns about PNAC
before (On edit Sept 28, 2003)?

2) If so, where?

3) If not, why on earth would a "deeply concerned"
General clark wait two years to openly discuss his deep
concerns, especially when he had an ideal forum as CNN pre-war
commentator to voice his concerns?

4) Has he answered question #3?

--

Here are portions of the transcript of the 11/16/03 MTP:

http://pub73.ezboard.com/fwesleyclark200463811frm2.showMessage?topicID=258.topic

PNAC exerpt:

"MR. RUSSERT: In your book, “Winning Modern Wars,” you write on page 130, the following: “As I went back through the Pentagon”—”November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed” in “part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries,
beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia”—”Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they” meant “when they talk about ‘draining the swamp.’”
This was November of 2001. In January of 2002, you were still praising the president. When did you have this St. Paul moment, where you suddenly saw the light, that the president was not a good leader?"
GEN. CLARK: Well, there wasn’t a St. Paul moment. What it was is, you have to praise the actions that are done and done correctly. And you have to work to head off the trouble that’s ahead. So at the same time that I had praised the United States and Afghanistan, I was talking to George Robertson and saying this business in Iraq—Secretary General said, “You think they’re going into Iraq?” I said, “Absolutely.”
And I said, “You’ve got to get NATO involved in that and you’ve got to hold the United States through NATO to a reasonable plan and so forth.” And so I was working on many different levels. I mean, that’s the way it’s done.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe there’s a five-year plan, to invade seven countries?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think this was being discussed at the time, just as that man told me, as part of a five-year plan. This administration made a fundamental choice early in the war on terror to go after states rather than to go after terrorists. They wanted to use the conventional power of the United States armed forces to take down states. And Don Rumsfeld’s still talking about it, as though these old states are central to the problem of terrorism. The problem with that is they aren’t, and when you take them down, you’re left trying to pick up the pieces, as has happened in Iraq. Attacking Iraq has done almost nothing to help us deal with the problem of al-Qaeda. In fact, if you had asked Osama bin Laden, what would he like us to do to sort of play into his hands, he would have said, “Well, why don’t you have the United States invade an Arab country?” He would have preferred we invade Saudi Arabia. Of course, that would have really mobilized opinion, but if you can’t do that, Iraq’s a pretty close second. He is using—and his organization is using—our presence in Iraq as a focal point. President Bush has said it’s the centerpiece for the war on terror. It isn’t. It’s a sideshow. It’s simply their easiest means of access to attack American soldiers. That’s all it is."

(I think it's safe to post a long segment; it's not copywrited.)

(On edit, corrected timeline. Ack!)

Maybe it was May or June...early and near that time that the mission wasn't accomplished. I was in the kitchen doing Sunday morning stuff. You know, cleaning the coffee maker, wiping the cat's paw marks off the counter...anyway, Clark was on with Russert, and dropped the "elective war" line. Then he started outlining the PNAC plan, country by country along with the ultimate strategy. He was at his Clarkiest, pointed and scathing in his criticism.

While it wasn't a St. Paul moment, it certainly was a "Holy Shit! Wes knows PNAC" illumination.

Does anyone outside of the online community know this plan as "PNAC" with PNACers at the helm?

I think it was only after the rolled out this monster, that those watching from the inside actually got over the shock. I mean anyone serious about foreign policy as we have known it, must still be shaking with rage.

I need to be convinced you are not the BFEE's plan b. I really want to believe.