Carlyle, Carlucci, Wolfowitz, and Clark : Strange Bedfellows??? NOT.

Clark in bed with these Bushies???

Can anyone refute Clark's involvement with an organization which helps destabilize democracies such as the one in Venezuela
.

Google Venezuela and the NED if you don't believe me.


In fact: DON'T believe me. Just check it our for yourselves:

http://www.ned.org/events/articles/mar2701b.html


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

Clark is ONE OF THEM.


But of course you have a mind of your own so...


YOU vote for Clark...

But don't say I didn't warn you.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020805&s=corn


And Clark was on the NED BOARD with Carlucci at the time.

Watch this space!

Clark is counting on the ignorance of the people to build his campaign.

Democrats are counting on the internet to expose corruption and oust the rethugs. Clark will lose because of this.

Actually the NED has SEVERAL Democrats on its board 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: Thomas Donahue (AFL-CIO) and Leon Lynch (United Steel of A)

It also has several arch Neoconservative/PNAC'ers such as Carlucci, Vin Weber, Frist, Fukuyama

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 NED's mission is to "help strengthen Democratric Instititutions around the world". 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 funnels 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)


The reason I am starting this thread is because a fellow DU'er started a thread with a HIGHLY INFLAMMATORY
AND MISLEADING TITLE: Trojan Horse: Wesley Clark's National Endowment for Democracy.

The original poster makes it seem that the NED is somehow directed soley by Clark and there is something
IMPLICITLY sinister about his being in the NED.

Said poster totally neglected to point out that another DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BOB GRAHAM
was on the board or that the board was bipartisan. He also inferred that because the Board contains SOME
Neocons that Clark is one also. He also linked to a Translated Venezuelan website that had an article from
Red Voltaire (French)... which stated/implied Clark personally ADMINISTERED the Venezuelan coup (the NeoCons in the NED
allegedly directed funds to Chavez's opposition).

This thread is my attempt to bring fairness into the discussion, as opposed to blantant propaganda.
Thanks to the following posters for doing the research to get a FAIR AND BALANCED view of the NED:
JudiLyn, Dover, Zuni, Maha, bhunt70, Andym, LoneStarLiberal.

The original thread has over 325 posts and I can no longer respond to it due to my dial up.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=460511



....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Some of the Good Stuff done by fellows who got 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.


....................................................................................................................................................................................
Unfortunately, the NED is alleged to have given funding to people who were part of the effort to overthrow the
semi-dictatorial but legally elected President of Venezuela- Hugo Chavez.

"While the endowment's expressed goal is to promote democracy around the world, the State Department's
human rights bureau is examining whether one or more recipients of the money may have actively plotted
against Mr. Chávez. The bureau has put a $1 million grant to the endowment on hold pending that review,
an official said." (NYTIMES)


Here is some more info on the NED and it's role in the Coup(the IRI being REPUBLICAN ENTITY):

(snip) In the Name of Democracy

However, the IRI evidently began opposing Chavez even before his 1998 election. Prior to that year's
congressional and presidential elections, the IRI worked with Venezuelan organizations critical of Chavez to
run newspaper ads, TV, and radio spots that several observers characterize as anti-Chavez.

The IRI has also flown groups of Chavez opponents to Washington to meet with U.S. officials. In March
2002, a month before Chavez's brief ouster, one such group of politicians, union leaders, and activists
traveled to DC to meet with U.S. officials, including members of Congress and State Department staff. The
trip came at the time that several military officers were calling for Chavez' resignation and talk of a possible
coup was widespread.

Trip participants said the U.S. officials expressed support only for a constitutional departure for Chavez. The
Assembly of Educators' Carvajal, who participated in the IRI trip, said that bringing varied government
opponents together in Washington accelerated the unification of the opposition. "The democratic opposition
began to become cohesive," he said. "We began to become a team." Shortly after returning from that trip,
Carvajal said, opposition organizations "precipitated" a plan of action against Chavez.
(Mike Ceaser, Americas Program, December 9, 2002)
(snip/)


...............................................................................................................................................................................
Here are some more Pros and Cons Re: NED:


THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY OF US

The post-Watergate enquiries into the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US exposed
details of its covert political activities in other countries in order to promote US foreign policy objectives.
Amongst such activities were the secret funding of individuals, political parties and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) favourable to US interests and funneling of money to counter the activities of those
considered anti-US.

After taking over as the President in January, 1977, Mr.Jimmy Carter banned such activities and imposed
strict limits on the CIA's covert operations in foreign countries. During the election campaign of 1980,
Mr.Ronald Reagan used effectively against Mr.Carter the argument that the post-Vietnam and
post-Watergate decline of the US under Mr.Carter was due to the emasculation of its military and
intelligence apparatus.

After his election in November, 1980, and before his taking-over as the President in January, 1981,
Mr.Reagan appointed a transition group headed by the late William Casey, an attorney and one of his
campaign managers, who was to later take over as the CIA Director, to recommend measures for
strengthening the USA's intelligence capability abroad.

One of its recommendations was to revive covert political activities. Since there might have been opposition
from the Congress and public opinion to this task being re-entrusted to the CIA, it suggested that this be
given to an NGO with no ostensible links with the CIA.

The matter was further examined in 1981-82 by the American Political Foundation's Democracy Programme
Study and Research Group and, finally, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was born under a
Congressional enactment of 1983 as a "non-profit, non-governmental, bipartisan, grant-making
organisation to help strengthen democratic institutions around the world."

Though it is projected as an NGO, it is actually a quasi-governmental organisation because till 1994 it was
run exclusively from funds voted by the Congress (average of about US $ 16 million per annum in the 1980s
and now about US $ 30 million) as part of the budget of the US Information Agency (USIA). Since 1994, it
has been accepting contributions from the private sector too to supplement the congressional
appropriations.

Thirty per cent of the budgetary allocations constitute the discretionary fund of the NED to be distributed
directly by it to overseas organisations and the balance is distributed through what are called four "core
organisations"---the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs (NDI), the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) and the Free Trade Union
Institute (FTUI).

In 1994, the NED set up two other organisations called the International Forum for Democratic Studies
(IFDS) and the Democracy Resource Centre (DRC), both largely funded by the private sector.

Since its inception, the NED and its affiliates have been mired in controversy in the US itself as well as
abroad. Amongst its strongest supporters in the US is the Heritage Foundation of Washington DC, a
conservative think tank, which played an active role in influencing the policies of the Reagan and Bush
Administrations.

It brought out two papers on the justification for the NED, when questions were raised in the US on the
continued need for it after the collapse of the communist regimes of East Europe. In the first paper of July
8,1993, (Executive Memorandum No. 360) it described the NED as "an important weapon in the war of
ideas" and said:" The NED has played a vital role in providing aid to democratic movements in the former
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam and elsewhere..... Communist
dictatorships still control China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. Moreover, ex-communists masquerading as
nationalists continue to dominate several of the Soviet successor states. The NED can play an important
role in assisting those countries in making the turbulent transition to democracy..... Local political activists
often prefer receiving assistance from a non-governmental source, as aid from a US government agency
may undermine their credibility in the eyes of their countrymen."..>>>MORE

http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper115.html
.....................................................................................................................................................................................


Even the conservative Cato Institute considered the NED a "loose cannon" ten years ago

"The National Endowment for Democracy is a foreign policy loose cannon. Promoting democracy is a nebulous
objective that can be manipulated to justify any whim of the special-interest groups--the Republican and
Democratic parties, organized labor, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--that control most of NED's
funds. As those groups execute their own foreign policies, they often work against American interests and
meddle needlessly in the affairs of other countries, undermining the democratic movements NED was designed
to assist. Moreover, the end of the Cold War has nullified any usefulness that such an organization might ever
have had. There is no longer a rival superpower mounting an effective ideological challenge, and democracy is
progressing remarkably well on its own.

NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often
destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the
duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of
democratic movements."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-027es.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-027.html

It appears to built in a way to allow democratic, republican parties, organized labor and the chamber of
commerce to do their own foreign policy:


"That convoluted organizational structure seems to be based on the premise that government money, if filtered
through enough layers of bureaucracy, becomes "private" funding, an illogical and dangerously misleading
assumption. In effect, the NED structure allows private organizations (in this case organizations with very
distinct and disparate interests) to pursue their own foreign policy agendas with out regard to official policy."

SO what is Clark doing on the board of directors:
My sepculation:
He was placed their along with Holbrook (and Albright who chaired the NED's NDI National Democratic
Institute) by Clinton as "Democrats" to help promote the NED's effort to bring down Milosevic in Serbia.

My evidence:
Here is an excerpt of an NED officer quoted on a seeming pro-Milosevic website (not sure):
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/ned-1.htm

"1) Independent media NED programs have helped ensure the survival of a number of independent media and
helped break the stranglehold of government-dominated media in Serbia by strengthening influential sources of
objective information. NED assistance has enabled newspapers, radio and TV stations to purchase
desperately-needed supplies and equipment, including newsprint and broadcast transmitters..."



--------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a reposting of some info by DU'er Andym... who obviously is interested in getting information rather than spreading propaganda:


As to Venezueala, my reading of the Soborenia article is that they were trying to shed light on the NED by
naming two of the board's
most prominent members: Clark and Carlucci. Both are well known in South America. They were saying that
the board oversees (administers) the NED, not that they administered the Venezuelan affair. Given the
structure of the NED, which allows each party, labor and commerce to make their own foreign policy (see
above) this is entirely reasonable.

Now, many DU'ers would not work for the NED, even less would they serve on its board of directors... For a
general interested in foreign relations, it may be more understandable. Still, it would be good to get Clark's
response to what he thought of NEDs involvement in Venezuela.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................

Clark May ver well propose closing NED activities and replacing it with a DEPARTMENT OF PEACE 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/A14400-2003Sep28.html

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................


Here's a repost that seems pretty evenhanded:
LoneStarLiberal (504 posts)
Fri Oct-03-03 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
176. In Defense of the NED

Edited on Fri Oct-03-03 04:07 PM by LoneStarLiberal

Interesting stuff. For those who are rigidly opposed to Wes Clark and any institution that allows
Republicans on their Board of Directors or to even come in the front door, I've included the alternative to my
rhetoric in ().

I do think it does the NED a disservice though to only discuss some of their errors in judgement in their
grant awards (or, if you believe they are all evil, "...to only discuss their most evil awards...") without giving
them credit for the many fine, neoliberal and liberal programs that their grants have supported over the
years including programs in support of civic culture in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, such as:

*economic, social, and political enfranchisement of women;
*financial support through direct grants of domestic elections monitoring and verification organizations.

They are not PNAC or even PNAC-lite. They are a well-intentioned organization (evil empire) that has made
mistakes (cynical choices) and should be judged by the balance of their actions and awards (should be
judged only by the worst choices and the fact that there are Republicans and ex-military people on their
Board of Directors).

I'm not going to lurk here and tell you the NED is all peaches and cream and this stuff is all tinfoil hat
rhetoric, because it's not. Yes, the NED has made mistakes (purposeful decisions). Certainly some of their
grants were politically awarded (awarded on purpose) to nefarious groups; should that slander the many
grants that they have made that have done demonstrably positive things around the world? I don't believe
it should.

Additionally, I don't see anything here that points to how this is "Clark's NED" (a point made by another
poster) or that every single grant and consulting decision the NED has made got the personal vetting of
Wes Clark (or that Wes Clark decided to help his Republican friends in the White House by knocking off
Venezuela's little empersario). The conjecture that Clark's involvement in the NED is what drives all of its
poor (nefarious) decisions requires a leap of faith that can only come from those who have already made up
their minds to not support Clark and thus scandalize ever organization that he is associated with, including
the NED.

"those who hate 'all things Clark'"

"hate" is not the appropriate or operative word here
caution is good; vigilence is another good one; trust is essential

"the NED has SEVERAL Democrats on its board"
that proves nothing

Lee Hamilton serves on the Nixon Center's Advisory Board, Chaired by James Schlesinger, who sits with Richard Perle and others on the Pentagon Advisory Board.

http://www.nixoncenter.org/boardac.htm

now ain't that a shame.

you said "hate" is not the appropriate or operative word here

but your friend seventhson, who you aptly agreed with in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=79583 POST #35
said:People who know NOTHING about Clark embrace him on a site called democratic UNDERGROUND even though he was fundraising for Repubs and was NOT EVEN a Democrat until a matter of weeks ago.

It is disgusting and stupid that democrats would fall for this trickery and deceit from ANOTHER corporate sponsored militarty contractor front man. Impossible! Ridiculous.
Just plain stupid.
Americans are just fucking stupid.seventhson

SO WERE THOSE WORDS OK? Please let me know what words to use and which one not to use.

I agree with you though in the end.....DON'T HATE

NED as a group sent money to monitor human rights in Tibet in a bill sponsored by Wellstone and Jeffords!
This is the sort of thing a DEPARTMENT OF PEACE WOULD DO FOLKS!
Like the one Dennis Kucinich and General Clark are advocating.

..................................................................................................................................................................................

To support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 9, 2001

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. WELLSTONE,
Mrs. BOXER, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. TORRICELLI) introduced the following bill;
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL- To support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity.
This Act may be cited as `Tibetan Policy Act of 2001'.
The purpose of this Act is to support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity.

SEC. 9. TIBETAN REFUGEES.
(b) EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS- Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for
educational and cultural exchange programs for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004--

(2) $250,000 for each such fiscal year is authorized to be available only for assistance to nongovernmental
organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, for the purpose of providing training and
education in democracy activities for Tibetans and monitoring the human rights situation in Tibet.

on which he served as a board member.

The evidence indicates support for a coup against a democratically elected country.

I do NOT hate Clark. That is not my deal. I do not need to hate people.

I despise what they do.

Destabilizing democracies and causing the deaths of civilians I despise. And Clark was a member of a group with Bush's conspirators who sit in power today - to destabilize democracies.

If he would do that THERE WHY does anyone thinkhe would not support that through subterfuge and lies HERE?

Only an ignoramus or a fool would put it past these bastards.

I hate THAT - that Clark would be part of harming our democratic neighbors and people at DU would STILL support him.

You admit the facts when you posted THIS in your post above where you accused me of hating the guy. Did you think DUers are too dumb to READ??? You make MY point. Thanks:

Unfortunately, the NED is alleged to have given funding to people who were part of the effort to overthrow the
semi-dictatorial but legally elected President of Venezuela- Hugo Chavez.

"While the endowment's expressed goal is to promote democracy around the world, the State Department's
human rights bureau is examining whether one or more recipients of the money may have actively plotted
against Mr. Chávez. The bureau has put a $1 million grant to the endowment on hold pending that review,
an official said." (NYTIMES)


Here is some more info on the NED and it's role in the Coup(the IRI being REPUBLICAN ENTITY):

(snip) In the Name of Democracy

However, the IRI evidently began opposing Chavez even before his 1998 election. Prior to that year's
congressional and presidential elections, the IRI worked with Venezuelan organizations critical of Chavez to
run newspaper ads, TV, and radio spots that several observers characterize as anti-Chavez.

The IRI has also flown groups of Chavez opponents to Washington to meet with U.S. officials. In March
2002, a month before Chavez's brief ouster, one such group of politicians, union leaders, and activists
traveled to DC to meet with U.S. officials, including members of Congress and State Department staff. The
trip came at the time that several military officers were calling for Chavez' resignation and talk of a possible
coup was widespread.

Trip participants said the U.S. officials expressed support only for a constitutional departure for Chavez. The
Assembly of Educators' Carvajal, who participated in the IRI trip, said that bringing varied government
opponents together in Washington accelerated the unification of the opposition. "The democratic opposition
began to become cohesive," he said. "We began to become a team." Shortly after returning from that trip,
Carvajal said, opposition organizations "precipitated" a plan of action against Chavez.
(Mike Ceaser, Americas Program, December 9, 2002)
(snip/)

flamebait.

punkingal, DU moderator