Clark to testify. Take his Iraq survey before Wednesday!

Kick!

And happy to do anything for the General.

Just six questions:

1. Are things in Iraq on the right track or wrong track?

2. Should the U.S. continue to stay in Iraq, even if it costs us another 1500 U.S. dead?

3. Should the U.S. take military action against Syria, if Syria continues to assist the insurgents in Iraq?

4. Should the U.S. demand military access to Pakistan to pursue Osama bin Laden, even if Musharraf says it may wreck his government?

5. Should the U.S. Congress demand a follow-on investigation to critique how policymakers used intelligence in the run-up to invading Iraq?

6. Do you know anyone, personally, who has served or is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?

It took a minute or two. Let Wes know what you think we should do in Iraq before his testimony tomorrow!

Link, again:

www.securingamerica.com

TC

:kick:

This is important !:kick:

to leave Iraq, I said we shouldn't attack Syria for arming insurgents.

We need to withdraw a good number of our troops, get other countries to participate SOMEHOW and get Iraqi troops trained and active.

THEN see what happens with insurgents and Syria.

Tough question.

1,500 more are killed vs. pulling out now.

Half of me thinks we "bought it, we own it" and the other half says "get those soldiers the hell outta there now."

I went with getting the soldiers out - but I still don't know how prudent that would be.

voting to get them out, but I share your doubts on that course of action as well.

What do you think of that? (And isn't it odd to poll before public testimony on military life-and-death matters? I think it smacks of campaigning, not democracy.)

The allegation of (supposedly) retired General Clark complicity in the occupation of Iraq came from Dennis Kucinich on live TV during a Dem primary debate in September, 2003.

Clark had just joined the race and Kucinich, when asked about providing $87 billion for the war, said it was important to clarify Clark's position. Kucinich said that Congress had been given a security document which Clark helped write which advised Congress to "stay the course" for a 5 year occupation by 150,000 troops costing up to a quarter trillion dollars.

Clark did not deny it. And noone else ever mentioned this document.

It appears that Kucinich blew the whistle on Congressional complicity in a long expensive occupation and Clark's role in it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true
Text: Democratic Candidates Debate
FDCH eMedia Millworks
Thursday, September 25, 2003; 6:45 PM
Following is the full text of the democratic candidates debate held in New York and hosted by Brian Williams.

>snip<

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

>snip<

the full plan that Clark supposedly supported, or even know if any of this actually happened?

Dennis didn't say ANYTHING there that means jackshit.

Get some details, and you'll regain a modicum of my respect.

This suggests that Clark's criticisms of the neo-cons are not all they seem to be. Kucinch claims that a mere two months before Clark's candidacy he was advising the neo-cons on their occupation and helping to sell Congress on it!!

I trust Kucinich. I'm going to make inquiries to his office about this and see if anything more is forthcoming.

Even if DK isn't willing to reveal more, it opens serious questions about Clark's dual role as advisor AND critic to the neo-cons.

That's plenty of "jackshit," cryingshame.

As a National Security and Foreign Policy expert Clark was called on by the party to give advice and prepare members for the debates in congress. that is a role he still fills today. I would suspect he is one of a group of experts called on, particularly since these people are not prepared for these subjects because they are new to this aspect of government.

Nowhere does it say Clark was advising democrats. It says he was advising the administration.

snip> "every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion."
Every candidate-we were each provided. The candidates were Democrats not the administration. Clark has served this function for the Party for some time. He has been asked to do this because he is an expert. Rubin, Albright, Holbrooke and others have served in this capacity for various candidates. Do you think some person who has been elected from a state elected office or the private sector have this background or knowledge? They either seek out advisers or take advantage of what is provided them by the Party.

I really like General Clark, but this would be a major problem for me.

Not having read this document, and not being an expert on foreign policy, I can only imagine that this document and recommendation were made on the basis of *'s cooked Intel being true.

I hope.

This was probably an assessment on what would be required before we could get out and not leave chaos in our wake.

...and quite odd that DK says it was "released in July ('03)" but never produced it, and never afaik mentioned it again... must not have been that important...

But IF it exists, and IF Clark helped author it, I would sort of assume his part was estimating what sort of force it would take to occupy and stabilize Iraq. That is after all the sort of question a retired general would logically be expected to answer, especially one experienced with employing peacekeeping forces in the Balkans.

And IF Clark said 150,000 troops over 5 years, then he was pretty much backing up the Shinseki position (the one Shinseki was essentially fired for). Absolutely NO indication that he advocated doing such a thing. And in fact, DK doesn't say he did.

I know for a fact Clark, like Kucinich and Kerry and probably everybody else running, was against the $87B appropriation. Not so much because he didn't think the money was needed, but because the administration refused to detail what it would be used for, which I think was a slightly different rationale than the one Kerry advanced. Don't remember exactly what Kucinich's reasoning was.

DK is answering another question and mentions Clark as an aside so it is a very brief. But DK says the people need to know where the candidates stand on the war when he mentions Clark's role in an accusatory manner.

The issue here is Clark's relationship to the NEO-CONS at the time.
It suggests that Clark is enmeshed with the White House, not seperate and opposing despite his criticisms of the 'prosecution' of the war.

This episode of DK mentioning an intel document never heard of again indicates both that the White House and Congress very early on hid the expected cost and duration of the occupation from the American people AND that Clark was in on it with them.

*Admittedly, maybe Clark has become as horrified as we are by the inept war and disengaged from the neo-cons to oppose them. But reading his website thoroughly (for I do my research) finds him planning, like Kerry, to do 'better' warring, not less.*

1) DK says "we were all given..."
-- "we" probably means Congress, not candidates since Sharpton wouldn't have been given an intel document advising "stay the course."

2) DK calls it an "intel document,"
-- this means it probably came from the White House, not CIA since Clark is in on it.

3) DK says the document "basically advises us to stay the course"
-- this means it did come from the White House because the NEO-CONS are the ones trying to get Congress to gear up for a long expensive occupation.

4) DK says that Clark "helped author it."
-- this places Clark much closer to the NEO-CONS than merely 'advisor.'
To say that Clark "authored" the document strongly suggests he signed it.

This means that Clark is personally advising Congress
>>>>for the NEO-CONS<<<<
to spend 5 years/150,000 troops/$245,000,000 in the Iraq occupation.

There isn't much assuming needed.
Obviously, some in this thread say 'so what?'

The White House and Congress withheld this from us and Clark was in on it.
That's what.

using the word "suggests"---reading-in meanings that are not actually even implied, let alone stated. Not really kosher, is it? The person doing the suggesting is you, and you are suggesting something (support by Clark of Neocon preemptive war policy) that is utterly false and unsupportable.

What is clearly "suggested" here, by reference to "staying the course," and "87 billion" in funding, is that the position paper was written post-invasion. That is, Clark was advising against bugging out and leaving. That's hardly a secret. It has always been his position. It continues to be his position.

You might want to try dealing with facts rather than these "suggestions" of yours, which appear to be nothing more than your own unsupported suspicions. Start with the fact that Clark has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the whole Neocon policy of preemptive war, and then try to square that with your theories.

IMO, you're reading way more into DK's statement than is actually there.

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

>>Hey mods, look at my mailbox for the pm's of others getting the same treatment from Clark supporters.<<

This is happening more and more. I present an opinion, provide links and excerpts, flamers attack me, and you and other Clarkie supporters accuse me of disruption for purposes of an agenda.

I had a long hair in high school and got beat up by jocks in the hallways all the time.

One day, a jock threw me against the wall of a classroom out in the hallway. Then he ran off. The teacher burst out the door and saw me lying on the ground.

He yelled at me for disruption and sent me to the office for discipline. That teacher was hostile from that incident on.

This is DU today. The future of DU looks grave.

I clearly stated this was an allegation made that no one ever spoke of again. And Clark didn't deny.

Of course I present my opinions combined with what I have to go on.
That's how DU works.

No twisting there.

Feel free to disagree or disbelieve what you like.
But don't make counter-assertions like "utterly false" because you can't back that up.

This is not a court of law, it is a chat group.

because you've taken one little statement out of a debate and read into it a lot of stuff it doesn't neccesarily imply and which are in complete contradiction of the entire (very extensive) public record of Clark's opposition to the neocon policies. You choose a contorted interpretation which presumes duplicity when a perfectly simple explanation entirely consonant with Clark's public record serves better.

Occam's razor.

Well I'm taking a part of an answer I wrote to your almost identical post on a different thread and posting it here also. I am bothered by your leaps of logic and that is why I sometimes have trouble with your posts. You make several here of which I will comment on one or two.

It really is shoddy to build an entire palace of cards on the single statement "helped author it" about a report which no one has ever produced. Take this wild slide of logic:

"4) DK says that Clark "helped author it."
-- this places Clark much closer to the NEO-CONS than merely 'advisor.'
To say that Clark "authored" the document strongly suggests he signed it.

This means that Clark is personally advising Congress
>>>>for the NEO-CONS<<<< "

First off you conveniently morph the original comment from "helped author it" to simply "authored" the document in the course of a couple of sentences. What "help" did Clark provide? Do you know? How much help did Clark provide? In what section of the report was his help used? Were there any dissenting comments in the Report? If so, which of the people who "helped with" the report made those comments? Can you answer any question about this report, or are you instead reading into Kucinich's comments your own theories?

Helping with a report is a very vague concept. Proof readers help with reports. Now I am sure that if Kucinich is correct (I have no reason to doubt his comment, but good people have been mistaken before) Clark almost certainly provided expert advice, but on what? If a military question was asked of Clark how many U.S. forces at what cost would be required to secure Iraq's Oil infrastructure, wells and pipe lines against insurgent attacks and attempts to sabotage it, so that it would be able to generate the ongoing funds for Iraq to become economically independent, the answer might well literally be "5 years/150,000 troops/$245,000,000 in the Iraq occupation." This is just an example, since it seems neither one of us has any information as to what role Clark played in that report.

For all we know that report could have layed out various post invasion scenarios for Iraq with differing implications for the United States. Dennis was campaigning, remember? Candidates very often lift facts out of context that help their own positions. I'm not saying he was flat out lying, I'm saying he was framing the debate on terms he felt were favorable to him and Dennis was clearly on record saying he would withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and the other candidates weren't. None of us are so naive as to not understand the politics of that moment , are we?. What you have done is take an undocumented vague 30 second campaign sound bite and spun it into an accusation that Wesley Clark supports the Neo Cons. The substance is lacking to make that claim.

You write: "neither one of us has any information as to what role Clark played in that report." BINGO! ("helped author" only.)

Your many unanswered questions are excellent ones. Thanks for expanding on it so rationally. At the very least I think that validates my concerns about Clark's post-retirement/pre-candidacy period.

You are right about candidates tendency to support themselves, too.
Absolutely correct.

But you mischaracterize my conclusions as 'Clark IS working for the neocons.' Not the right tense and not that simple.

I imply at the very least a past tense relationship (with implications for the future) in that 'ambiguous' time (obviously not to me!) between retirement and candidacy when Clark was praising Reagan and the Busheviks, meeting Admiral Poindexter at DARPA to sell Acxiom's data to the Total Information Awareness program, joining the Stephen's Group (linked to BCCI and Bush finances), and a military commentator for CNN at the same time he was a registered lobbyist seeking Pentagon contracts.

Revolving door military/investment/media relationships.

You see how enmeshed Clark is with the White House crowd before his candidacy in the period this alleged intel document he "helped author" was produced for Congress, not the American people.

Secret document, secret occupation, secret war policy.
And Clark was there.

I'm surprised this doesn't raise more eyebrows at DU and I'm portrayed as either as kooky, lefter-than-thou, or an operative with an agenda by a few hostile Clark supporters.

Like 9/11 starting all of US history, Clark's history begins with his criticising the neo-cons and his career and business ties are dismissed or ignored altogether.

Have you read all of his Securing America website position papers?
I have. They add up, IMHO, to continuing oil wars with better PR by cutting some deals with Europe. And adding troops. What a surprise.

The US oil-driven economy and military occupation of the middle east WILL continue regardless of who is president in 2008. I have tried to document that Clinton's policies in the Balkans were economic, not humanitarian, Clark's claim to being a 'just war' hero in a bad situation.

That doesn't go over well with those who think only in red/blue sports team fashion without seeing the bigger picture, the forest AND the trees. The neo-cons are merely a symptom of the US government, not something new.

Ignoring the War Powers Act...
ignoring the Geneva Conventions...
ignoring the UN security council...
ignoring Posse Comitatus...

This is standard operating procedure in every administration.


MY question is do we want 'better' executed wars or change?

Clark 'authored' two books with these titles:
'Waging Modern War'
'Winning Modern Wars'

I think this tells us a lot about the future. If we are going to settle for 'better wars' than we are damning ourselves and those who will die.

By the way, if we each find time to continue this exchange, why don't we keep it to this thread? You can always note such on the other.

"John my primary issue with you is your use of 6 degrees of separation

That and guilt by association. Though I am also troubled by the way you sometimes edit information that you present into bold arrows to conclusions that are at the very best highly tenuous when one actually views the entire unedited picture. And like I said in an earlier post to you, you tend to use Clark as your target child for attacking a host of policies and positions that are embraced by the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party, including many progressives, yet you fail to note that context while continuing to focus virtually all your negative attention on Clark.

Having said all that this post of yours is fairly straight forward. You clearly have your suspicions and suspicions presented as such can be discussed a lot more cleanly than suspicions presented as conclusions. I will again note however that all this talk of yours about a secret document aka "alleged intel document" is smoke and mirrors without any real hooks to hang it on. You assert this alleged document was "produced for Congress not the American people". Are you staking out a position here opposed to the very concept and existence of "classified information"? If so you are pushing the issue of government transparency a whole lot further than any elected official I know of from any party would be willing to advocate. Congress has always held closed hearings. Congress has always handled classified information. The theory is that Congress represents the American people through being elected by them. Are you saying that no degree of government secrecy, where sensitive information is shared with elected officials but not released for full media distribution, can be justified? I will not take that position.

Further, regarding this security document you bring up, you have done it again John, exactly what it is about so many of your posts that troubles me so much. I do believe that you sometimes mis-characterize information, based on fragments of real or "so called" data. Here is exactly what Kucincih said in the transcript of the debate:

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July."

Note that Kucinich only said "we were each provided with a document--a security document" so that document could even have been produced by a think tank under contract with the Democratic National Committee for all that we know (and of course Clark, Sharpton and CMB weren't even in Congress). Second, even Kucinich had to qualify his brief comment, first by using the phrase "more or less advised us" (an oil tanker could safely sail through that loophole), then by qualifying the costs supposedly stated by prefacing all of the figures with the phrase "up to" such and such. That implies that those were all upper end figures associated with certain negative scenarios. Hypothetically let's say that all the leading Shiite Religious leaders were assassinated by insurgents and/or radical Islamics and the Iraq was about to plunge toward a civil war with Turkey then threatening to invade and annex the Iraqi Kurdish regions and Iran threatened to invade Iraq itself if Turkey did. That could be a "5 year effort" keeping a lid on an awful mess scenario discussed in that report.

But you took it further. You accidentally, lazily, or intentionally blur all the time lines with your commentary. A key example. Above you note that many Clark supporters key in on Clark's public criticism of the Neo Cons:

"Like 9/11 starting all of US history, Clark's history begins with his criticizing the neo-cons and his career and business ties are dismissed or ignored altogether."

It is documented that Clark criticized the Neo Cons well before the invasion of Iraq. From context it is almost certain that the "security report" noted by Kucinich was written post Iraq invasion, hence the reference to "staying the course" in Iraq. So whatever role Clark may have had in the preparation of that report, he already was a public opponent of the Neo Con's ambitious Mid East greater war plans prior to being involved with in some way helping author that report. Yet you take the mere fragments of information found in Kucinich's campaign appearance to reach this conclusion:

"To say that Clark "authored" the document strongly suggests he signed it.

This means that Clark is personally advising Congress
>>>>for the NEO-CONS<<<<
to spend 5 years/150,000 troops/$245,000,000 in the Iraq occupation."

Every part of your statement is mere speculation spun to reach conclusions that fit your viewpoint about Clark, often at odds with evidence to the contrary.

And you blithely talk about Revolving door military lobbyists but fail to note that Clark worked to win a minor military contract for a small company producing highly energy efficient motorized dual use bicycles. Geeeze. You also fail to note that many TV viewers found Clark to be remarkably objective in his military commentary at CNN, actually expressing statements at odds with the rational for the Bush war build up. Clark later became a non person at CNN, his name literally not being mentioned on their Inside Politics show for three weeks preceding the New Hampshire Primary. Some feel he was too supportive to the war's critics while he worked for CNN and that was his pay back. Michael Moore's interest in Wesley Clark springs from those days.

Yeah Clark learned about the secret war policy, and he was the most widely reputable person involved in blowing the whistle on it. Clark broke the 4 wars scenario to the larger public. Clark called out PNAC. Thank God Clark "was there" with the inside connections he had from his long years in the Military. He had the sources to back up his words and he used them to fight Bush across the board.

Yes corporations, and even the literal current American dependency on imported Oil to maintain our current economy, play a huge role in America's foreign policy and will under whatever President gets elected in 2008. You don't doubt that do you? I certainly don't. Neither electing Clark or Boxer will swiftly undo that reality, so I do not expect the Presidential Election to be a cure all nor do I expect any specific President who can be elected to single handedly lead us out of this mess. Who are you backing and why?

Take it at face value, to do more than that is to create an anti-military fantasy world. We are aware you live there but that does not make it real. The Dem Party prepares talking points and documents to make the candidates aware. Clark did this for a number of candidates even after he dropped out of the race and has done preparation for the present Dem Congress since. Nowhere is the White House mentioned other than your suggestions and assumptions. Kucinich was calling for immediate withdrawal and later amended his policy to a deadline for withdrawal. Almost every other Dem at that time new that was impractical. Kucinich was pointing out the difference between himself and other candidates. This was not the Neo-con policy, their policy was to proceed to attack another six states and Clark told of this policy and was criticized for saying so.

This conclusion is based on a false premise. If DK had said "intel document" that would be one thing, but he didn't.




False. As we see from the transcript Tom Rinaldo quoted, he said "security document." That is not synonymous. It is entirely reasonable to think that a "security document" would be something produced by the Democratic Party, not the WH or the CIA. Especially since DK said "we were all given" in the context of a debate with all the Democratic candidates on the stage.




Clark's public stance at the time, and that of many other Democrats, was that once we were in there, it would be irresponsible to cut and run. Kucinich was distinguishing himself on that point vs. the other candidates (not only Clark).

Your concusion that this means "it did come from the White House" is building on the false premise above.




You continue to build higher, ignoring the quicksand which is your foundation.




And higher ...




Seems to me it's all assumptions.

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

Are you saying that Kucinich lied and Clark never called him on it?

in such a way as to suggest conclusions that are not necessarily warranted by the evidence. He does this through Republican type tactics of rumor, innuendo, and guilt by association.

I am saying that in the abominable format in which the debates took place, it was at times difficult to know the precise meaning behind various statements made. There was no possibility for follow up and clarification, and there was no opportunity for Clark to respond to the charges that were allegedly made about him.

I am saying that nobody that I know of has been able to come up with any official statement or clarification made by DK about this charge. The only thing that we have to go on in this is a few words that were thrown out in the heat and confusion of one of those debates.

I was advising the person whose post I was responding to to research this issue by looking at a variety of sources, preferably ones containing accurate and verifiable information and make up his mind on that basis instead of on the basis of a few words spoken in a debate, or the innuendos of a poster with a specific agenda.

I might give you the same advice, only I know it would be pointless as your mind is very clearly already made up.

and why would he get hung up on a point like that? I'm sure he had other things he needed to discuss; it's not shocking he didn't allow himself to get side-tracked on a comment like that. Most people would understand that. I suspect, Ches, that you do, too.

Why would you say that I am trying to deceive with innuendo for "an agenda" when I put on a silver platter all of the material for you to look at and decide for yourself?

Oh, I see. Face value. The link. The excerpt. IN ENTIRETY.
I even write that there is NO RESPONSE AT ALL FROM ANYONE ABOUT DK's WORDS.

Must be a trick, right? Why would someone with "an agenda" put the data to be considered right in front of your face?

I, like others, think Clark is wrong for the presidency.
For many reasons.
And I present lots of links and excerpts for anyone to look at for themselves.

Yes, do please examine and think for yourself. Please do.
That's my "agenda."

Clark was never allowed to answer that charge in the debate. Dennis just put it out there, and the debate moved along with it unanswered.

That, I believe, is unfair. And, to provide an unanswered charge, I also believe, is unfair. But, it is a good tactic... and one that wins Republicans election after election.

While I'm always glad to see a Democrat learning these techniques, I always feel it should be used against the other side, who I feel is, after all, our real enemy.

You just see it differently, I guess. Just go in there and destroy... Keep it up, and we'll both be living under Regressive RW Republican rule when out grandchildren are in college. America will be unrecognizable. And, the charges you make against Wes will have been done for real and worse than you ever imagined against more people than you dare dream. Do you really think the Republicans deserve to run this country? You post like you do.

We cannot govern until we WIN, fercrissake!

TC

in another post. There's nothing wrong with the "data" you present, except it isn't really data. It's a few words spoken about Clark in the context of one of the debates. A situation where words can easily be mis or over-interpreted, where there is no opportunity for further clarification, or for Clark to respond to the alleged charges. It is something that Kucininich never repeated or clarified in any other context to my knowledge, and has never issued any sort of official statement on. For that reason, in my book, it qualifies as hearsay and innuendo rather than data.

You have already had a thread locked for trying to bring this up and make it an issue (see Frenchie Cat's post).

I'm very sorry that you are so angry about my assessment what you're trying to do in these posts of yours.

Yes, I am well aware that you think Clark is wrong for the presidency. You say so in every thread about Clark. You say so in many, many threads that have nothing to do with Clark. For all I know, you may even be saying it in all the "cat" threads in the Lounge.

I will not engage you further in this, as I believe you are being disingenuous in your post, the information you want being freely available in another post of mine on this thread.

That type of evidence is not allowed in a court of law. So, the "evidence" that you are stating wouldn't even be allowed in court - in other words it isn't worth repeating because of the context in which it was made. Politicians speak with forked tongues- ANYBODY knows that. At the very least politicians know how to twist words and events to imply things that simply aren't accurate or maybe even truthful. If that is what you use to spew your obivious intense dislike of Clark, then it shows just how great a candidate he would be - because all you seem to have are trumped up unsubstaniated accusations... and that is translated to mean "nothing"

If you REALLY want to talk about a court of law, talk about the Geneva Conventions which Clark/Clinton/Albright violated.

Oh, and the War Powers Act.
Oh, and Posse Comitatus.

I want better Democrats than this.

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/lawyers_indict_nato.htm
(LAWYERS SERVE INDICTMENT ON NATO LEADERS FOR WAR CRIMES)
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm
Protocol 1
Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities
Chapter I: Basic Rule and Field of Application
Article 48: Basic Rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/23/kosovo.02/
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia (CNN) -- A NATO attack on Serbian television -- a day after another raid smashed the home of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- prompted hard questions for the alliance Friday as it prepared to mark its 50th anniversary.

NATO missiles blasted the building that houses the main studios and newsrooms of Radio Television of Serbia, knocking it off the air for several hours. Alessio Vinci, CNN's correspondent in Belgrade, reported that at least nine people were killed and 18 taken to area hospitals with serious burns.

An injured employee of the station dangles from the rubble upside-down


The remains of the Serbian TV station after the NATO attack on the building


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,688310,00.html
(Guardian: America Used Islamists to Arm Bosnian Muslims)
>snip<
Now we have the full story of the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamist groups from the Middle East designed to assist the Bosnian Muslims - some of the same groups that the Pentagon is now fighting in "the war against terrorism". Pentagon operations in Bosnia have delivered their own "blowback".

In the 1980s Washington's secret services had assisted Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Then, in 1990, the US fought him in the Gulf. In both Afghanistan and the Gulf, the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia.

The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah. Wiebes reveals that the British intelligence services obtained documents early on in the Bosnian war proving that Iran was making direct deliveries.

Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East. Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft. The report stresses that the US was "very closely involved" in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in, but they were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations.

>snip<

(This is about today's crisis of US vets down by the thousands due to depleted uranium weapon exposure, something Clinton and Clark blessed Yugoslavia with by the ton.-jom)
http://207.44.245.159/article8172.htm
(Heads Roll at Veteran's Administration Over DU)
02/23/05 "San Francisco Bay View" - - Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.”

Bernklau continued, “This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.”

He added, “Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

>snip<

http://www.fair.org/international/yugoslavia.html
(F.A.I.R. Resources: Balkans and Yugoslavia

http://brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/sources.html
(Analysis of the US-led Assault on Yugoslavia)

http://www.psywarrior.com/shapingperceptionsbalkans.html
(Shaping Perceptions During the Latest Balkans Imbroglio)

The one with legal jurisdiction for the crimes alleged.

Clark was exonerated of all allegations of war crimes.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

Note the source, John. The UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (hence UN/ICTY in the url)

Moreover, Clark willingly submitted to that court. Unlike the policy of the current administration to avoid all accountability for their decisions, at home or abroad. Not that being compared favorably with the BushCo gang of crooks is particularly difficult. But Clark could have weaseled out. He chose not to.

Ya know, it's bad enough to be unwilling to consider a man innocent until proven guilty. But you're treating Clark as guilty even tho proven innocent. What sort of legal standard is that?!

And while I'm at it, I'd like to recommend you try reading the actual Geneva Conventions sometime. Not an extremist interpretation by some group or individual who believes that every act of war constitutes a crime.

According to international law:
Bombing a TV tower that is being used for command and control communications is not a war crime.
Bombing transportation nodes and/or networks is not a war crime.
Bombing the power grid is not a war crime.
Bombing industrial facilities is not war crime.
Civilian deaths incurred in any of the above are NOT a war crime.

I would submit, however, that your post, since it has appeared in essentially the same form many times over, and in no apparent relationship to the discussion to that point, constitutes spamming. Which is against the DU rules. I wonder if the DU mods have an opinion on that. They would seem to be the appropriate "court of law" for such an offense.

that the court of law is a FAIR place to settle disputes and to prosecute crimes. If we apply those standards to your charges and that of media rags, THEY DON'T HOLD WATER.

He has said that we cannot abandon Iraq to the throes of Civil War or attack from it's neighbors. By removing it's defense forces we have an obligation to defend the people. He described to the Dems what that commitment would take. He also advised on ways to remove ourselves from the front.

Clark was a critic of the administration's rush to war from the earliest stages, in part because he knew they were being either ignorant or dishonest about the cost and commitment involved.

Clark wasn't the only Democrat on that staqe who suggested that success in Iraq (after we started the war) would require a significant amount of U.S. intervention over a long period of time. In fact, I believe Kucinich was the only candidate arguing for immediate withdrawal.

Of course, Clark spoke very clearly in front of Congress before the invasion. He said that there were better options on the table than war, and that Saddam was effectively contained.

:eyes:

You can see that for yourself.

So your posting this at me repeatedly suggests you have your search engine set on my username and you are hounding me with snark, doesn't it?

Ever heard of the "Hide Thread" feature?

And, I AM interested in news about Clark and it's bothersome to see you post the same disproven stuff over and over and over in them. I'm not following YOU - YOU seem to be following the Clark threads which I am interested in. I, in fact, started this one.

Good going, there are people that don't like Clark but continually follow discussion groups and make derogatory comments about him.

When I don't "support" somebody - I usually don't make a point of following all discussions surrounding them. Do you? For instance, I don't support Sharpton, I don't think that he would be a good choice in any way shape or form, although I think that he is entertaining and has the best one liners around. Since I don't support him, I don't follow discussion threads about him, I'm not interested. Unless the thread pertains to the Party as a whole I don't read those threads. Do you? So, if your not supporting a candidate, why would you spend so much of your valuable personal time reading and posting about this possible candidate?

There almost seems a spite or maybe a fear when you run into people like that.

when I started this thread. Logically, that's impossible.

:rofl:

Why is supporting Clark repeatedly legit but not supporting him suspect?

But I don't go to every thread you're in and spout off that you've done something awful or strange or suspect.
You, however, go to every thread regarding Clark and spout off with the same handful of disproven points (some, even the mods have deleted or locked).
The difference is that you might have something to say on another subject that I might find interesting; therefore, I don't put you on ignore. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever responded to you negatively on any other issue, at all. I don't dislike everything you stand for.
Clearly, however, you don't like anything Clark-related, yet, you persist in defiling every single Clark thread or mention (even if the entire thread isn't about him).
This is why I don't put you on ignore and why you probably should use hide thread.
I guess I'm not quite understanding why its become such an obsession for you to do this.


Edited for clarity.

and start talking about Clark. This is turning into a rather unhealthy obsession on your part.

If I were you, I would go to the lounge. There may be some "cat" threads that need to be spammed with this stuff.

Oh yeah, let soldiers from other countries die because of our fuck up. Well, except there are not and never were enough UN troops to send in anyway.

When somebody on the left comes up with a real, workable plan that can pull the troops out tomorrow; then they'll have room to complain.

U.S. out, U.N. in.

Problem with that is there were no takers....

not just Kusinich's assertion.

And, before you are "disturbed" by it, if I were you, I would ask the author to provide the rest of what was said after the >snip<.

This is a popular technique... provide just enough to make the person you oppose look guilty, but never actually get the part where he expains or rebutts down.

There is a link there, and since, as usual, JOM has decided to give you just what he wants you to know (he's assuming you're too lazy to use the link, and go through all the Q&A's), I ask that you do use the link, and decide for yourself. If this is a deal-breaker for you supporting Clark, I would want to see Clark's answer for myself, if there is one (those debates were not great for follow-up answers to the assertions that gang hurled around at each other, I have to say.)

TC

There is no reply because Wes was never asked to answer Dennis. Dennis just left it ourt there to hang with absolutely no proof or back-up. Shame on him.

Those debates were such a sham. No substance and too big a group. I'm disappointed there was no reply!

TC

Why I bother to be specific in my posts, I don't know.

Your so hellbent on demonizing me that you can't read anymore.

Reread my post and look at what you wrote here.

I specifically say something and you 'cleverly' warn others that I won't say it.

Sloppy. Very. You need to take your error as a warning to be more careful both about what you post and your assumptions.

This kind of sloppy personal maligning deserves an alert but I leave you right out in the open as an example for others to learn from.

I know with you John'O, Clark would be damned if he did, damned if he didn't :shrug:

I recall this as a favorite post of yours which was covered extensively relatively recently....and featured all of the usual suspects (some who have been deep sixed since).....
With the burning headline:
"9/23/03 WP: Wes Clark outed on TV for selling 5 yr/$245billion occupation"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1540262
---------------------
And here's the 130th post of the long thread....Yeah, it's me saying....

FrenchieCat (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-28-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #81

130. Hell,
I'm still waiting for that DOCUMENT!

Where is that DOCUMENT THAT STARTED THIS DAMN THREAD?
--------------
and POST #168 was a lockdown of this particular thread:
Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-28-05 04:22 AM
Response to Original message

168. This is two years old.

I consider this highly disruptive. I see no reason to dig up a two-year old story, unless your intent is to deliberately re-ignite the primary wars.

Unbelievable.
--------------

Ironic, that after that thread, what was "a fact" in your book is now alleged. At least it shows progress!

So yes....keep throwing shit; and hoping some of it sticks.

The GOP does it, and it works for them. So you might as well utilize their tactics, John O'.

Oh yea....and for those out there buying the crap.... make sure you read John O's post #103. He begged for more than a little bit that it should be read. Just remember, don't just read what he posted....go to the links themselves. You'll find that the good stuff is oftentimes left on the cutting room floor.

Why oh why do you and others keep saying I put up links because I don't want anyone to read them?

That makes no sense whatsoever. None.

You need to examine your ability to rationalize because your demonization of me is getting in your own way.

You are smarter than that, FrenchieCat. I know you are. You are thoughtful and pretty well informed. Fairly articulate, too.

I expect better from you.

1) Wesley Clark's career and his business associates are central to who owns and runs this country. Exactly as I wrote in the 'infamous' #103.

2) Skinner was dead wrong about "no need to dig up a two year old story" , wasn't he?

Clark is campaigning. You and others are campaigning for him and his history, especially on the Iraq war, is to be examined.

Your very own posts deny what Skinner, like a cranky rushed parent who is sick of it all and 'doesn't care who started it,' locked.

Good gawd, the mods must've been out of their minds with exasperation during the primary wars. Skinner shows evidence of that.

To say that the past is irrelevant to the present or future makes no sense. So your snarky little 'Dad said so' victory dance is for naught.

Hey, I've got an interesting adventure for you.
-Go to http://www.securingamerica.com/biography
-Look at Clark's biography.
-Now scroll to the bottom and look at the organizations where Clark is listed as being on the board.
-Now look each one up at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tanks
(This used to be called 'disinfopedia' and tells all about think tanks and front groups.)
See what those groups are and who he is associated with.
I dare you.

JOM challenged:


Well, the first one on the list (CSIS) says they put out a report which said:



Horrors! (/sarcasm)

The second one (Center for American Progress) says:



More horror! (/sarcasm)

If they're all like this, I'd say it all looks pretty good to me.

"International Crisis Group" isn't on their list.

Neither is "City Year Little Rock."

Neither is " National Endowment for Democracy."

The "United States Institute of Peace" says:



More horror! (/sarcasm)


And the "General Accountability Office" is not in their list.

So which of these horrific revelations were you "daring" us to see?

I found a site that was filled with hearsay, innuendo, guilt by six degrees of separation, no real facts at all, and that I couldn't tell whether it was run by an extreme leftist or extreme rightist.

My mother looked at the site more carefully and discovered that it was run by someone prominently boasting about being a graduate of Bob Jones University.

I think that many of the links that you use to back up your points do have a few itty bitty problems in the credibility department.

I do hope that you will come up with an official statement from DK that clarifies what you allege him to have said in that debate.

Edit: If you really believe, "Skinner was dead wrong about "no need to dig up a two year old story" , wasn't he?" and wish to characterize him and the mods like this, "Skinner, like a cranky rushed parent who is sick of it all and 'doesn't care who started it" and this, "Good gawd, the mods must've been out of their minds with exasperation during the primary wars. Skinner shows evidence of that.", maybe you should be bringing it up in the ATA forum.

Skinner probably needs lots of advice from you, both about his mental condition, and the way he runs this board. I'm sure that he would be very appreciative if you would give it to him.

I qualified the writer right up front as being so conservative that he used the expression 'Numb Chomsky,' didn't I?

He cited sources across the board and off of the source's own websites and documents. Look beyond the cover of the book!

**Again, examples of sources on left and right with same info.**

There are critics of Clark on the left and right. But rather than address the facts being weighed, real business and professional associations of Clark, the 'leftness' or 'rightness' of only one source is the subject. Or me. Too often.

This is exactly the 'guilt by association' syndrome you are decrying.

Example:
Christopher Hitchens writes that Kissinger is a war criminal. (Yup.)
Christopher Hitchens writes nice things about neo-cons. (Nope.)

Would you say then that Kissinger is not a war criminal? Of course not.

**Below are examples of sources on left and right with same info.**
(Please don't flame me for jumping topics, ok?)
**Again, examples of sources on left and right with same info.**

Example:

I found both the 'left-wing' Southern Poverty Law Center
http://www.zpub.com/notes/splc-waco.html
AND
'right-wing' World Net Daily http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22452

>>citing the Academy Award-nominated documentary, 'Waco:Terms of Engagement,' for revealing that the Danforth Panel looking into that disaster covered up the Posse Comitatus violations AND incineration of 80 men, women, and children by the 1st Calvary which Clark commanded.

**Again, examples of sources on left and right with same info.**

Example:
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/clarkatwaco.html
Look at all the sources, from US govt. documents to Counterpunch.org to the Moonie Washington Times in this large collection of articles making the case that Waco in 1993 was a clear violation of Posse Comitus with Clark in command of the 1st Calvary which was heavily involved.
------------------------------------
"Military Personnel and Equipment

Source: Department of the Treasury, Report of
the Department of the Treasury on the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Investigation of
Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh,
U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993

(My, there's an interesting source to consider. So I do.)
--------------------------------------------
Many many sources from 'right' and 'left' because that's the nature of being informed, not just listening to sanctioned certified 'Democrats' or your own camp the way Bush** does.

Don't forget: that asshole Zell Miller is a Democrat, right?

Now you've got the 1st Cavalry, with Wes Clark in charge, running the raid on the Waco compound.

Does the truth mean nothing to you?

What I found was hearsay, rumor, innuendo, and vague suggestions of guilt by association, as well as out and out falsities.

I tend to avoid sources from both the extreme left and the extreme right because I find that the quality of information in them tends to be of that nature and it's simply a waste of my time.

Anyway, it's been pleasant, but I'm finished engaging with you on this thread. See you on the next one.:hi:

I said I saw no evidence that the guerrilla war was winding down.

Clark: You can't tell where you are with this. If there is a way out, this is the way . There is no basis for the administration to crow that the guerrilla war is winding down.

Clark also made clear that he is not seeing military reports from the ground in Iraq, is not speaking from there, and so his assessment of the military situation is from a distance and not that of an insider. He did insist, nevertheless, that the Iraq crisis differs significantly from Vietnam in that the guerrillas in Iraq are so over-matched that they can never hope to engage in more than hit-and-run operations.

Those operations, however, could go on a long time if the political situation is not handled well.

Cole: I thought Clark put his finger on a key contradiction in the Bush administration "forward policy" in the Middle East, of targeting the governments of Syria and Iran for destruction even while the US needs their cooperation to avoid widening disaster in Iraq. This policy is not rational if it were intended solely for the benefit of the United States, and he thinks it derives from a concern to bolster regional allies even at the expense of US interests.

Clark was asked if this conference call was a sign of his interest in a 2008 presidential bid. He replied that he had supported John Kerry and John Edwards.

If the Democratic Party has any sense, it will indeed go for someone like Clark (who you could imagine winning Arkansas and West Virginia against the Republican candidate) in 2008. If the Dems go for Hilary or someone else with that profile, the red/blue split will look in 2008 exactly as it did in 2004, barring some huge disaster that befalls the Bush administration in the meantime. Plus Hilary has started giving that disgusting standard AIPAC stump speach that Fritz Hollings told us is distributed to you as soon as you get elected to Congress. Now that AIPAC is under investigation for espionage for the Likud Party, maybe someone in the US political establishment can finally start standing up to them and pointing out that what's good for Likud isn't necessarily good for Peoria (or even for Israel, more to the point).

posted by Juan @ 4/4/2005 03:30:00 PM

http://www.juancole.com /

saving Bush's sorry ass isn't worth risking my kids' lives.

I have a hard time with the notion that we should simply pull out, while Iraq is still so unstable ... the Iraqi people deserve better. It was wrong to go there in the first place, but we did. The Syria question got me, too. Definitely something to watch ... but military action? I just don't know.

It requires you to agree to an extraneous and controversial assertion in order to even make sense of the question.

Should the U.S. take military action against Syria, if Syria continues to assist the insurgents in Iraq?

If you don't agree that (or know if or to what extent) Syria is assisting the insurgents, then the question doesn't even make sense.

It appears to be a "push poll" style of question. Would you still support John McCain, knowing that he is the father of a non-white child? Would you still support Jerry Voorhees (or Helen Gahagan Douglas) now that you know he/she is a communist? Do you think they should starve Terry Schiavo, knowing that she is conscious and alert and wants to live? Do you still support John Kerry even though his medals were fraudulent and he committed treason with Jane Fonda?

I like his style. Too bad he isn't our President.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us (a good day to start living differently)

Done...please everyone notify everyone you know...We, THE PEOPLE, get to have impact in the War in Iraq, THROUGH WES CLARK....Thank You Wes...what a guy...who else would do this, I ask!!!!!

from the kossacks:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/4/18652/82217

Does anyone know if CSPAN will air this? It would be such a welcome bit of relief to be able to hear General Clark's take on what the pack of fools have done wrong and what needs to be done to get us the hell out of there.

Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover -

events@c-span.org

Thanks for the tip.

:kick:

n/t

1. Are things in Iraq on the right track or wrong track?
WRONG

2. Should the U.S. continue to stay in Iraq, even if it costs us another 1500 U.S. dead?
HELL NO

3. Should the U.S. take military action against Syria, if Syria continues to assist the insurgents in Iraq?
NO we can't afford to and it really is not our business.

4. Should the U.S. demand military access to Pakistan to pursue Osama bin Laden, even if Musharraf says it may wreck his government?
Demand access to another country? Why even ask that question?

5. Should the U.S. Congress demand a follow-on investigation to critique how policymakers used intelligence in the run-up to invading Iraq?
YES

6. Do you know anyone, personally, who has served or is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?
SEVERAL PEOPLE

You've had a say, isn't that great? As far as question 4. It might be because Bush has stated no safe harbor for the perpetrators of 9-11, yet he supports the Pakistani regime in spite of the fact it has not promoted democracy and harbors AQ Khan who spread nuclear capabilities throughout the Mid-East. As far as question 3. We removed the ability of Iraq to defend it's borders and have a moral responsibility to the people and the region. The obvious was not to be there, it's a little late for that now.

I like your answers. I would add for #3 there are other options for Syria than military action. It's called diplomacy, Dubya--the velvet hammer.

Frankly, I am surprised Wes Clark is sending out such a black and white survey, since he does not seem to analyze any situation without nuance. There is none in these questions.

he has been saying all along that the situation with Syria needed more diplomacy and less sabre-rattling.

He is all for engaging these countries and getting them and their insurgents to back off. He got the notice to appear and testify too late to get out a survey he'd have to stay up all night the night before reading.

Frankly, I think he deserves a lot of credit for gviing us whatever voice he can when he goes before that committee.

TC

Should the U.S. take military action against Syria, if Syria continues to assist the insurgents in Iraq?

Probably because there are no credible us diplomats left. You think Condorlizard is gonna propose anything but the neo-con line?

and "true believers" like Condi, or so it seems.

That said, I am still surprised that Wes did not mention diplomacy, as he does seem to see the world in other than "black and white."

I attended an event in NY, in August of 2004 where Wes Clark spoke for a long while. A large portion of his speech centered on our policies in Iraq and the rest of the middle east. Clark highlighted the need for a return to forging stronger diplomatic ties, and using means such as incentives with the countries neighboring Iraq, (Syria, etc) instead of seeking to impose our will by force and intimidation. So, I think it's safe to say that he clearly is interested in taking the diplomatic route.

Some of those questions indeed had no easy answers. It is good to know though that our views will have some representation tomorrow at the hearings.

is the phrase "military action."

I read the Securing America website pretty thoroughly.

While there were things I will discuss another time (you knew that, right?) I was glad to see under 'The Bush Administration's Inadequate Record':

"For example, it is reported that Syria provided extensive information to the CIA and the FBI regarding Al Qaeda operations and personnel prior to the war in Iraq. During the Bush Administration's unilateral march to war, this flow of valuable intelligence dried up."

I remember reading that Syria had lots of intel on al-Queda like groups because of their own problems with them and was offering it up to the Bushies since the son now ruling Syria is trying to make up for his father's bad relations with the US previously. But the Bushies blew him off, apparently preferring to keep the option of having Syria as an enemy later to threaten, bomb, or outright invade.

Good for Wes for putting that on his website.
Hey-I never said he was all wrong, did I? Just wrong enough not to be president.

But to my knowledge, you've never given the slightest indication of who you think isn't "wrong enough not to be president."

Every legitimate question you've ever raised about Clark's past (not many in my opinion) and probably all of the rest as well, concern actions that were backed by the majority of Democrats in Congress, as well as those positioned elsewhere in government or the party leadership. Even most Democrats who appear to me to be legitimately progressive.

The late great liberal Paul Wellstone himself refered to Wes Clark as "my general" and quoted Clark widely. I have a very hard time believing Wellstone was either ill-informed or politically motivated.

Just to take one example... You appear to believe the Kosovo War was motivated largely by oil (and pardon the oversimplication, but it's really not relevant to my point what motivated it). Set aside for the fact that Clark, as a military officer, had no actual say in whether we went to war over Kosovo, since he was obviously in favor of the effort, even fought hard against those within the Pentagon who opposed it. I fail to see how you can blame Clark more than the Democratic senators and congressmen and women who actually voted for the intervention. Certainly all the viable Democratic candidates in the 2004 primaries supported that war. As will likely be true in 2008. Where are your attacks on their votes and/or positions?

What spurs your crusade against Clark at DU, John? Because crusade is what you seem to be on, to post the same shit in every thread that mentions Clark, and even some that do not until you get there. Certainly you keep reminding us that you're on a mission that you have no intention of abandoning.

Is it simple prejudice against the military and anyone connected to it? The distrust you've expressed for those of us who are inspired by Clark? Fear that he will gain traction as more people hear what he has to say and may be a serious contender for the '08 nomination? Are you a Clinton-hater who holds a grudge against any "Friend of Bill"? Or are you hoping that the Democratic Party will turn to someone who doesn't have a chance in hell of beating the Republicans?

Enlighten us, John. Who is not "wrong enough not to be president"? Tell us who you stand FOR instead of only railing about who you're against. Is there anyone within OUR party who is pure enough to gain your support?

good questions. save that post for later use.

Gawd, there are so many 'Clark' threads and I seem to have acquired too many dialogues to respond both promptly and thoughtfully.

This is extremely thoughtful and deserves the same in reply.

You do go to the heart of some serious issues (FINALLY!) and I will address this after some off-line activities. Yes, I do those too.

Fabulous questions. Bookmark this thread.

He felt strongly for well over a year that this Administration is pursuing a larger military agenda in the Mid East that virtually no one, not even Congress, seems willing to openly discuss, and he believes the American public needs to discuss it. Clark feels Bush and company are leading this nation down their pre selected path toward further wars in small stages that will end up leaving us with virtually no positive choices after having slammed and locked all alternative doors.

These are very pointed questions that tend to point out that all choices have consequences. Making them all yes or no accomplishes two things. First it lures more people into participating since it seems simple. Far fewer people would be willing to write out their personal reasoning than simply check yes or no to 5 questions. Second, the difficulty involved for many in coming up with simple answers for what appear to be simple questions illustrates the danger in just buying whatever simple explanation the Bush Administration pushes to justify their actions. Think people! is the subtext I read in this test Clark has prepared for us.

The public is free to post more detailed thoughts about the survey at SecuringAmerica.com so there is no reason why any of us can't more fully share our thoughts on these questions there.

essence.

I sweated buckets over a couple of those deceptively simple questions--which of course is just what Wes intended.

Thanks for posting.

Hey, I completed this (and it was quite hard considering the yes and no only choices and the difficult questions) and got this message when I submitted:
"Thank you for completing Wes Clark's survey on Iraq.  We really appreciate your support and feedback on this important issue.  Don't forget to watch the House Armed Services Committee hearing on C-SPAN on Wednesday, April 6th!"

So, does this mean it WILL be telelvised on C-Span? I hope so!

and sent on to many others.

I too got stopped cold by the 1500 More US Soldiers, went back and forth several times on it. Finally went for "Yes" but only because I also took potential long-term Iraqi deaths through civil war into the equation. And my mood will likely change several times as I think about it.

Yaaaaaaaaaaa! I'm so glad its not ME having to make calculations like this. I'd probably go hide under the bed.

that I hope the neocons and Bush et al experience everlasting flames in the afterlife for getting us into a needless war that demands decisions like this.

Aiye! I'll drink ta'Dat! ... :beer:


:nuke:Neocons:nuke:

I gave all ultra-peacenik answers.:)

1. Are things in Iraq on the right track or wrong track? Wrong track. They've been on the wrong track since day 1.

2. Should the U.S. continue to stay in Iraq, even if it costs us another 1500 U.S. dead? No - It's too high a price to ask the volunteer army to pay, and that high a cost would indicate to me a no-win situation - a quagmire.

3. Should the U.S. take military action against Syria, if Syria continues to assist the insurgents in Iraq? No - There are many other ways to deal with this. As always, military action should be that last resort.

4. Should the U.S. demand military access to Pakistan to pursue Osama bin Laden, even if Musharraf says it may wreck his government? Yes, of course. Why not demand it? Never hurts to try...

5. Should the U.S. Congress demand a follow-on investigation to critique how policymakers used intelligence in the run-up to invading Iraq? Yes

6. Do you know anyone, personally, who has served or is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? I imagine this question was asked as a follow up to question #2. It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between this question and the answer to question #2. I imagine there probably will be.

Thanks for posting this.

Self-deleted.

I know Clark is getting ready for his 08 run. I don't care who runs, and I see nothing wrong with the poll of his. Whatever he wants to do is fine with me, I have my own opinions on the future.

I just know that the admins had asked the various supporters not to organize from the groups they set up for us. I don't think you should. You post a link there to come and make it to the greatest page, then someone else posts it elsewhere, and so on.

Many of us can not speak of why we will never support Clark. I tried once, but I got into problems here. You have a right to support whom you wish, but the organizing is non-productive. I fully expect to get in trouble for this post, I hope not. Since you are breaking the rules set up by the admin, I hope I don't get in trouble. My name is mud with all the Clarkies anyway, though I have mostly protected myself. It is a shame, as it is not helpful.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6203

At least technically I suppose you are right. This is somewhat of a different case though than simply promoting a candidate however. It would be good if a broad range of DU'ers did participate in this survey whether or not they are Clark supporters. Very few people in the Democratic Party are asking for public input on questions this fundamental to our national interest. These are not the fluff soft ball type of questions that mass mailing fund raising pieces usually ask to fire you up before taking your money. I am conflicted in my answer to several of them. They really are thought provoking and wanting the invitation for participation featured on Du's front page makes some sense beyond mere Presidential politics.

This isn't a "go support Clark in a poll" thread. It's a "go tell Wesley Clark, who will be testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, what you think about the future of our military involvment" thread.
Quite a difference.
It needs to have the wide exposure beyond Clarkies.

I am finding more and more that I have problems here for just one reason. My lack of support for Clark. He is a good man, that is not the issue. I have always asked for vetting this subject openly, but it will never happen.

I notice on a thread today that someone said I was the only Dean supporter who compared to the Clark supporters. They did qualify it, and it was not an insult.

It made me realize that many here make the main criterium of acceptance whether we will vote for Clark. That is just dead wrong.

I had to change my email address here, I even wrote a private letter to admins about a problem I had. That should NOT be happening.

I am sorry I felt like I had to say this, but I do think I do. When the organizing starts taking a toll on me personally, then I have a right to speak. Others have noticed and contacted me privately. Things got better for a while. I have tried to stay out of threads about Clark, but it is not always possible.

Thanks for the nice response, Tom. I will now back off on this. Everyone has their role to play in the party. So did Dean, but he did not get to play that role. He is happily playing another role now, because he cares more about the party than the glory.

And that wasn't my intention in asking that it be nominated.
My intention, as I stated, was to get more involvement outside of the Clark circle.
I see some very wonderfully-written pieces regarding America's role in the future of Iraq from DUers who supported and/or support a wide-range of political candidates and I wanted their voices to be heard, as well.
This is of interest to all Democrats (and should be to all Americans - even those with their heads still stuck up Bush's propagand-ass).
I would hope that we would all want to watch this testimony on Wednesday, as well.
You may not support Clark, but, come on - wouldn't it do your heart good to watch Richard Perle get his ass handed to him? :7

even the ones who wouldn't/couldn't vote for Clark did his survey and got their voices hear before Congress?

Surely you have felt like there was no way to get heard... well, be it with Wes or not... this is a way! I apologize if I have broken rules of this Board, but I swear it is out of enthusiasm, nothing else!

Women my age are nearly always invisible in this society. We rarely, if ever, are asked out opinion about anything -- and if we give it, usually it is ignored before it is out of our mouths. I am excited that Wes cares enough to ask us about this. I'm sorry you aren't.

Apologies.

TC

I appreciate that his web site allows for added comments:

"The answers are much less simple than the questions.

I suspect that there is an intentional message in that. Yes or no answers often do not fit complex International issues but the Bush Administration has a simple yes or no, right or wrong mind set that it always seeks to impose on reality and the American people.

Number One is fairly straight forward in my opinion; NO. Certainly No compared to what could have been instead. However a free Iraq in and of itself in my opinion would be a positive thing for both humanity and our long term strategic interests. Some progress is taking place now in that direction, but at what cost? And is the larger mind set of the Bush Administration working counter to the interest of hastening the birth of true Democracy in the Middle East? The American intervention was a mistake, Iraq was destabilized as a result in a manner that hurt the average citizens of that nation, and put a terrible burden on ours. Horrible planning and poor strategic thinking made recovery from the resulting chaos much more complex than it had to be, and a great deal now remains at risk. I do not trust the strategic thinking and priorities of the Bush Administration, so I am pessimistic regarding their ability to avoid a deterioration of the situation in Iraq.

Number two is harder, because a second 1,500 American deaths can probably be much more persuasively justified than the first 1,500 American deaths which can not be justified at all. I do not believe that America can now immediately pull out all of our troops. Leaving Iraq as a failed State in chaos would only create the exact threat that was NOT originally present in Iraq, the one which ostensibly was used to justify our initial military action in the first place. The answer is not simple because leaving American troops in Iraq with the current Neo Con mind set of the Bush Administration may in fact further destabilize the region as American forces are currently perceived as an offensive threat to other governments in the region. That complicates the question of determining whether our continued presence in Iraq will speed up the return of security to Iraq or speed it toward further instability. Very tough call. I lean toward trusting the new Iraq government on with this call. They would rather America was out of Iraq so if they think it is premature for us to leave, probably it is.

Number three is a relatively clear NO but even that has to be hedged. If Syria invaded Iraq and was known for certain to be directly allied to Al Quada we most likely would be forced to take military action. Only serious mismanagement by the Bush Administration could create those types of conditions.

No we should not demand military access to Pakistan at the risk of Musharraf's government, assuming for one thing that his government is for the most part willing to cooperate to combat the further spread of jihadist Islam against America. Further instability in Pakistan would be a truly frightening scenario. Any threat against Pakistan would need to be prompted and justified by extremely grave and dangerous developments there. Pakistan is a nuclear power.

My answers to the last two questions are very clear and straight forward. Yes and Yes."

Cool! I just took the survey and I'm about to email it to some friends.

Thanks for the opportunity to let our voices be heard.

n/t

I'm beginning to believe a 4-star is can actually be a human being. Thanks much for the post:)

The General is a great American.

thanks for posting the link!

Ended up saying we should go there to find OBL, but in my mind its something best left for our elite to take care of, we should not go in there with guns blazing.

5. Should the U.S. Congress demand a follow-on investigation to critique how policymakers used intelligence in the run-up to invading Iraq?
Yes

I am glad that Clark is wanting to feel our pulse too.

Hope those enlisted men and women get this survey. Most likely, they won't. Nor will they get to see the testimony, I'm sure, since it won't be on Faux.

I hope many answer this call to comment so he can go with us behind him.

:kick:

as reported by Juan Cole:

"He went on to imply that it also requires the cooperation of Iraq's neighbors. He saw a key contradiction in Bush administration policy in Iraq, which is that the operation in Iraq was seen as only a stepping stone to also overthrowing the regimes in Syria and Iran.

He located this policy in part in the Neoconservative circle of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense for Policy).

He said the aim was to punish Asad's regime and topple it, and likewise with Iran.

The problem with this idea of using Iraq as a springboard to finish off the regimes in Damascus and Tehran is that Bush has given Syria and Iran every reason to interfere with a soft landing of the US-- indeed, there is a danger of a wider entanglement of the US in the region. "
http://www.juancole.com/2005/04/wesley-clark-conference-call-wesley.html

were guilty of pursuing policies on behalf of foreign nations even when it came at the expense of US interests.

Whoomp. There it is!

I knew that you could.

Whoooop. There it is... indeed.

so get as many people as possible to take it.

There is lots of thoughtful discussion on the Wesblog as well.

I will be curious to see how much Clark takes the opinions stated here into consideration in his future plans and what he says in this testimony. I am going to guess not much.

The discussion there is a good one, far better than most of what passes for discussion most of the time at DU. I sincerely would like to read your own thoughts and would welcome you adding them there to the discussion. At the very least Clark is sparking some thoughtful comments in the public sphere. That in and of itself is a positive thing.

Many people have posted very thoughtfully there. It's amazing how forcing people to answer yes or no on a survey caused them to spew out paragraphs about paragraphs of logically thoughtout arguments. I doubt that as much would have been discussed had the survey "better" represented our thoughts with other than yes or no answers.

.

:hi:

NGU.

My entry has been completed.

Do you know anyone, personally, who has served or is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Do the troops, or friends and relatives of troops, whom I've met through DU qualify as troops who I know "personally"?

;)
rocknation

**ACTION ALERT** : (#142)
by larry on 04/05/2005 03:00:33 PM EST

Please write CSPAN to get them to air General Clark's HASC testimony live tomorrow. They will be having a meeting in the next couple of hours to make their decision. Please contact them NOW.

Contact:
events@c-span.org

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

General Letter: (Please feel free to tailor in you own words)

---------------------
Dear C-Span,

I recently learned that the House Armed services Committee (HASC) will be holding hearings and recieving testimony about the war in Iraq, tomorrow at 10am. Two of the principle leaders, yet who represent opposing camps in Middle East foreign policy will offer their testimony regarding the strategies for success in Iraq; Richard Perle, Buh'sneoconservative advocate for Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and General Wesley Clark, who is an outspoken critic of Bush's Iraq/ME policy and has advocated more political and regional diplomatic stategies for success.

I urge C-Span to boradcast these hearings live. It is clear, in my opinion, that the Bush administration has already begun to undermine broadcast of Clark's testimony by conveniently scheduling Yurschenko's speech before Congress at the same time.

The American public must bear witness to the flawed policies from the Bush Administration that still leads this country into deeper policy failures towards the Middle East.

Please make every effort to insure proper coverage of this important hearing. I am certain that General Clark's testimony will propose insightful, accurate and credible strategies for success in Iraq and the Middle East region.

Thank you,


-----------------
Contact:
events@c-span.org

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

a couple of hours ago.

Thanks!

****Tomorrow: Wednesday April 6, 2006 - Washington Journal - CSPAN:

Starting at 7am ET:

· Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN), House Budget Committee Member
· Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Judiciary Committee Member
· Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), Fmr. Supreme Allied Commander

:kick:· Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Judiciary Committee Member

I posted it on the board as it's own thread....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1707084

However, we DO know he'll be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal as a guest with host Peter Slen at 9 am and the segment will last until 9:30am.

Boo-YAH!

Looks like we can at least listen here:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/


It says to click on microphone icon to listen to an event, I tried a couple of "future" events that have mics next to them and each one right now plays back 3-17-2005, which I believe is the most recent event. Hopefully that means when the next event (at 10am 4-6) is live the link will work for it.

:think:

that man! Well most anything! :evilgrin:

unprovoked invasion of a disarmed nation is appropriate. Just like Kerry...an illegal war resulting in the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people is OK, it's just a shame they didn't run it right!

They launched an unprovoked invasion for God's sake...can't even ONE of these cowards shout it out?

of the show.

Clark has thoroughly lambasted, over and over, smiting Bush and the neocons both hip and thigh, the initiation of this needless war. The question is: "What in the hell do we do now?"