Wes and Perle, together again

You guys see this? Wes and Richard Perle are both going to speak at the Eurasian Media Forum in Almaty, Kazakhstan later this month. Gee, they're keeping Gen Clark so busy, he'll never be able to reschedule that Broadway thing....

12.04 / 19:41 | 18 US experts, Clark and Perle, to speak at Eurasian Media Forum

Almaty. April 12. KAZINFORM. The leading US experts – General Wesley Clark and Political Advisor of the US Administration Richard Perle- will attend the upcoming April 21-23 Eurasian Media Forum in Almaty. The two will discuss problems of interrelation between East and West, will consider issues of global politics and role of mass media in its formation.

General Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, was the presidential candidate from Democratic Party at 2004 elections. He will make a speech titled ‘Political globalization: new opportunities and new threats’ and will debate issues connected to political globalization and role of mass media in the process.

Richard Perle is the leading political advisor of Bush Administration. An authoritative expert on national security and regional conflicts, he occupied posts of assistant of US Defense Minister under President R. Reagan, and of chairman of Defense and Policy Council in Bush Administration. His speech is about problems of coverage of terrorist acts.

Eurasian Media Forum is a nongovernmental organization, established 2001 in Kazakhstan. Its purpose is to assist the development of free and open dialogue of politicians, journalists and experts on contemporary world problems, and the role of mass media in covering them.

More 400 delegates are expected to participate in the forum.

http://www.inform.kz/txt/showarticle.php?lang=eng&id=118519_

Or maybe he's so thoroughly wrapped up in his twisted world-view that he doesn't even understand he's getting his ass kicked.

Go WES! Between last week's HASC showdown against Perle, this week's unveiling with Pelosi of the 21st century G.I. Bill, an upcoming Bill Maher episode,
and now this, there is no moss growing on this rolling stone.

Marginalized, my Democratic ass!

where Gen Clark will be appearing for a speech and a rally with a private reception to follow this weekend....

This is the first I've heard Wes Clark is showing up. Good thing I read DU

He's supposed to stop by on Saturday sometime between 6:30 and 8PM for a speech and rally. All I know about the reception is that it's at a "nearby venue". I hope you get to see him and enjoy the Convention. :)

Glad he's helping out. That explains away what I'd heard earlier--a rumor that he was going to show up in CA with his own event, exactly at the time of the CA DNC keynote address.

he could be in full agreement with Perle at this meeting.

It's like, we heard the testimony last week. Did you? For all I know, you didn't....but I see that you enjoy entering a thread as a skeptic....just cause you can? At least, I know that.

debatable when it comes to neo-conservatives, maybe "keeping them in line" requires a group effort like the military behind General McPeak and John Kerry or the intelligence community's VIPS.

Clark supporters sound like junior level Stars and Stripes PR hacks sometimes, always painting a heroic picture of their candidate or even making direct comparisons between General Clark and Star Wars characters here at DU.

So far the PNACers have made a lot of progress overall. I reject militarism and empire, my father fought against both in WWII.
I wonder what General Clark's views on RPMA/Revolution in Political and Military Affairs are. This is a 1996 USAF/INSS Ocassional Paper discussing the efficacy of military coup in the USA from the future.
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm

For instance, JOM's citing of the Veterans for Peace below led me to ponder whether they might really be a secret organization dedicated to a military coup in this country - after all, their membership is largely former members of the military establishment, right?

...

That essay you cited is a kind of strange document. I didn't realize we employ officers to write speculative fiction. As for your question regarding what Clark would think of it - I doubt he's seen it, but in general he's been outspoken about keeping the role of the military circumscribed and well-defined, and he's also been outspoken about mending the breach between civilian and military culture (mentioned in the essay as one of the sources of the "new Praetorianism" ). So I'd say he's been working against exactly the kind of trends General Dunlap speculated about.

Ever hear of the Office of Force Transformation?
RMA/Revolution in Military Affairs?
Do you understand what Rumsfeld speaks about?
I've got some idea of what he's up to thanks to hanging out here at DU over the years.

But what does that have to do with Clark?

Richard Perle and the rest of the PNACers?

He's ripping Perle's theses to shreds.

Tell me, what was Howard Dean doing appearing with Perle a while back? Same thing, was my impression.

The fact is our officers are highly politicized today, which was noted nine years ago when the paper was authored.

what the "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategy Essay Contest" is all about. That appears to be what this essay won.

As I said, it's speculative fiction.

and you know longer have to worry about him or bother with those silly threads posted about him.

Oh wait! You are! Well, I'm glad that you're around to keep these silly threads about a marginalized political figure kicked to the top. Your hard work in that area is much appreciated.:hi:

Clark as a PNACer is highly improbable. It would be more probable that a PNACer would make an anti-Clark post. I've read those on other boards.

Maybe this was scheduled before Wes nailed his ass last week.

Or maybe he has a masochistic streak.

he's out there showing a more saner face of the US to the world than those in the Bush Administration do.

thinking that, at some point, the odds are Perle will say something right. Or, maybe they just want to know what Wes is up to. Whatever... the fact that he is "shoadowed" at all says they think there are two sides to this and all they have to do is argue theirs enough... Uh-huh....

TC

THEY ARE DISCUSSING HOW TO PROPAGANDIZE THE WORLD FOR THE US TAKE-OVER OF CASPIAN SEA OIL AND GAS. How fucking obvious is it?

As a Pentagon lifer, Clark specializes in psy-ops, not just bombing. This has been the Pentagon/CIA's shift in tactical emphasis since WWII. He's up to his eyeballs in military-industrial-media PR groups which the neo-cons are making appear benign with a 'bad cop' sneer for the public.

You do realize that the 4/6/05 House Armed Services Committee hearing was public theater, right?

In the 1980s many covert CIA destabilization efforts went above ground in front groups.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is one of them.
Frank Carlucci (Carlyle Group) and Wesley Clark work together on the board of the NED.

Clark is working with DARPA, CIA, Newt Gingrich, the Stephens Group, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and all the other fascist infrastructure that owns America. Look at his website's biography page. Look up the NED, and CSIS at SourceWatch.org, formerly Disinfopedia.com, a guide to front groups and think tanks.

He is the New Colin Powell, the kinder gentler facade for the secret government of corporations and hired killers reaching out for oil.

You can make the argument that conquering the world by placing more emphasis on destabilizing other countries with the CIA's propaganda, funding of 'US-friendly' opposition, and assassinations is preferable to overtly bombing them "as a last resort."

This is a false distinction to me and amounts to acquiescing to American Imperialist Fascism which is merely improving their PR.

(By way of showing that assassination is still in the CIA toolbox, consider that Mexico's President Fox just was relieved of his biggest opposition threat with yet another unexplained small plane crash. Some things do not change in global politics.)

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

Wesley Clark is on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA front group for US overt efforts to overthrow governments that used to be done covertly. Venezuela is one of its main targets.

From SourceWatch, formerly Disinfopedia, a guide to front groups and think tanks:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy

Funding of foreign political parties
The NED regularly provides funding to opposition candidates in elections in countries other than the USA. And according to Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED (and CIA front man of the 1960s-jom):

A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA
— W. Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180.

"According to left-wing critics, the NED only supports candidates with strong ties to the military and who support the rights of US corporations to invest in those countries."

>snip<

Former CIA agent Phillip Agee on the NED:
"So, basically what the program of subversion these days is what they call the promotion of democracy, which is nothing more than a lie. And all the other euphemisms that they throw into these programs are equally lies, because the real purpose, as it has always been since 1947 and the beginning of the CIA's covert action operations in Italy… The goals have always been the same, but since the CIA people who receive the money, i.e., their beneficiary organizations abroad had so much trouble in covering up this under-the-table money, and it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, that they decided to fund these openly. One should never forget that the CIA has many millions of dollars that they can add to the money that organizations are getting from the State Dept., the NED, or its four core foundations, or from USAID. So, it is a fairly sophisticated structure, and so far it has been somewhat successful.
Source: Dennis Bernstein, "Philip Agee, Former CIA agent speaks on Venezuela (http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html)", Flashpoints, March 14, 2005.

>snip<

NED Directors of the Board

* Frank Charles Carlucci III of The Carlyle Group
* Wesley Kanne Clark, retired General, presidential candidate, and board member of Stephens Group – a venture capital company
* Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
* Francis Fukuyama, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Clark is also on the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Here is the SourceWatch analysis.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies
>snip<

During the war against Nicaragua, CSIS produced several documents "proving" a communist plot, etc. For many years, CSIS was also seen as a think tank where right-wing "officials-in-waiting" could wait until their next appointment in government.

... "one of those ephemeral constellations into which the luminaries of the American political establishment frequently arrange themselves in order to encourage policy to navigate by their lights: Madeleine K. Albright, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Charles Carlucci III, Warren Christopher, William Sebastian Cohen, Bob Dole, Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger, Stuart Eizenstat, Alexander Haig, Lee H. Hamilton, John Hamre, Sam Nunn, Paul O'Neill, Charles S. Robb, William Roth, and James Rodney Schlesinger. That makes four former Secretaries of State, one former National Security Adviser, two former Secretaries for Defense, a former Secretary of the Treasury, a former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a former Director of the CIA, and three Senators"; ... signatories to a May 2003 Declaration (http://csis.org/europe/2003_May_14_JointDeclr.pdf) proposing that "the states of the European Union, which are among the richest and most powerful states in the world, should invite US government officials to attend their highest-level legislative and policy-making meetings, in order that these officials can ensure that the Europeans do not pursue policies which are independent of, or disapproved by, the American government."


THE CSIS-HALLIBURTON LINK IS ANNE ARMSTRONG, Trustee and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the CSIS.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anne_Armstrong

>snip<

Her board affiliations include American Express, Boise Cascade, Halliburton, and the Corporate Advisory Council of General Motors. Armstrong holds membership with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Alfala Club, Council of American Ambassadors, and American Academy of Diplomacy
--------------------------------------------------------------


Clark is also on the above CSIS's 'Task Force on the United Nations' working with Newt Gingrich, Boeing (which assists in virtual training for urban combat with DARPA, unmanned planes, satellite surveillance, etc.), The Heritage Foundation, and other FASCIST INFRASTRUCTURE.

This site is the source of the photo so many Clarkie's like to use.
http://www.usip.org/un/members.html

Task Force Members
(photo of Wesley K. Clark captioned
"Task force member Wesley K. Clark participates in a discussion during a task force session in February 2005.")




Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House of Representatives (Co-Chair)
CEO
Gingrich Group

George J. Mitchell, Former Majority Leader of the Senate (Co-Chair)
Chairman
Piper Rudnick LLP

Wesley K. Clark, Gen. U.S. Army (Ret.)
Chairman and CEO
Wesley K. Clark & Associates

Edwin J. Feulner
President
The Heritage Foundation

Roderick M. Hills
Partner
Hills and Stern

Donald McHenry, Ambassador (Ret.)
Distinguished Professor, School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University

Thomas R. Pickering, Ambassador (Ret.)
Senior Vice President, International Relations
The Boeing Company

Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy
American Enterprise Institute

Anne-Marie Slaughter
Dean
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University

A. Michael Spence
Partner
Oak Hills Capital Partners

Malcolm Wallop, U.S. Senator (Ret.)
Senior Fellow
Asian Studies Center

R. James Woolsey
Vice President, Global Strategic Security
Booz Allen Hamilton

Senior Advisors

Charles G. Boyd, Gen. U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
President and CEO
Business Executives for National Security

J. Robinson West
Chairman, PFC Energy
Chairman of the Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
---------------------------------------------------------

Does your fiddle have more than one string on it?

You insult us with these spasmic posts.

So you are speaking for yourself only, FrenchieCat.

Didn't you start a vanity thread telling DU you purged yourself of all things Clark? Have you decided to go back on your pledge?

here at DU, thank you. I'll never consider General Clark outside of a supportive role in government, which he would do well in. That's where I'm at, and I enjoy learning more about General Clark from a variety of sources, not being dictated to by his excessive crowd here.

You previously stated, and I quote: "This is my way of purging myself of him and his support group here at DU" (emphasis mine)

And now you say: "It's true about General Clark but not his overrepresented support group."

A least keep your story straight, please.

Bear with me, I know I'm not alone with some reservations about General Clark-that I'm sure of.

I fully respect your right to your own opinions. It is just dishonest tactics like the 7 degrees of separation, guilt-by-association tactics being used to smear Clark that I disagree with, and which you seem to praise JOM for.

Having reservations about any politician is something I can understand, and I hope you find your resolution to those reservations in the course of time and the process you're working through. You are under no obligation to like Clark, and I don't expect everyone to, and I certainly wouldn't forcibly badger you until you like Clark just because I do.

I respect you enough to let you make up your own mind, as long as you respect us enough to accord us the same right and civility. We're not a cult blinded by the four stars. Rather, we're rational people who have come to admire, respect, and support Clark after doing in depth research and a lot of thinking on him. At least respect our intelligence enough to allow accord us that.

I realize that there are some (a minority on DU, I think) who don't like Clark or Clark supporters. But I'd like you to consider something (disclaimer, this is from my point of view as a Clark supporter on DU, so whatever bias that might entail applies) --

As a group, DU'ers, and specifically Clark supporters, are probably one of the best informed groups about Clark that exists -- and we've become so out of necessity and adversity. Bob, you and I were both around during the height of the non-stop flamefests that obtained during the primaries.

More specifically, you may recall 24/7 Clark bash fests and an individual called Seventhson and his ilk. This individual later revealed himself to be a freeper mole, bragging about Bush's reelection on election night and pm'ing DU'ers to have gay sex and die of AIDS. His prime focus during his very long tenure on DU was to attack Clark as relentlessly as possible, using everything from Hatian Man-Tits to the Queen of England (literally, I kid you not).

Thus, courtesy of that idiot and his ilk, we've seen every type of argument under the sun used against Clark. What did we do? We researched all of this, to judge whether this man was still deserving of our support, and we found that he was and that all these arguments could be and have been refuted. As you can see, the arguments used by JOM may be new to you (because you didn't follow Clark closely during the primaries on DU), but not to us on DU -- and you can see that those arguments are being taken apart and presented for the logical fallacies and smear jobs that they are by stalwarts like Tom Rinaldo and Frenchie.

If you have honest reservations and want to work through them, I'm sure there are Clark supporters who would be willing to help you, as long as you keep an open mind and haven't decided that you dislike Clark and will stick with that come hell or high water.

But I would hazard that your recent declaration of purging yourself of Clark and evil Clark supporters, your anti-clark posts, combined with your ample opportunities to get to know Clark during the primaries had you wanted to, would suggest you've already made up your mind. I hope I'm wrong in that regard and you are sincerely working through a process and open to learning new info.

And because of the fact that the anti-clark wave was induced, nutured, and fanned by freeper moles on DU like Seventhson, we're admittedly wary and skeptical when it comes to people attacking Clark on DU. Now, I realize that not everyone who opposes Clark is a freeper mole on DU, but you know what they say. Once bitten, twice shy. And we've already seen the handiwork of Seventhson and how he conned some DU'ers into following the Rovian attack on Clark on DU. Some of those Clark opponents on DU still oppose Clark and bemoaned the fact that their strongest ally revealed himself to be a freeper mole.

Thus, when Clark attacks republicans (like the recent HASC hearing) and then some DU'ers start attacking Clark the next day, we're understandably suspicious of motives. I hope this explains to you the sensitivity and oppposition you face when you badmouth Clark.

Clark supporters on DU went through a trial by fire -- a 24/7 unending months long I-hate-Clark bashfest, courtesy of your local freeper mole on DU. We had to develop skills, such as countering each and every one of those freeper messages on DU. We had to research our facts, and delve into every one of those six-degrees-to-Kevin-Bacon why-Clark-is-the-devil arguments. As a result, as a candidate support group, we're probably one of the best informed about our guy. And the more we learned, the more we liked.

The surest way to bring Clarkies out of the woodworks and lurkerdom is to bash Clark, it's a reflex action from that period. We will not allow a lie or smear about Clark to stand unchallenged. The freeper moles on DU played us once, never again.

If you are sincere about wanting to solve your reservations about Clark, and not just using it as a soapbox to do some Clark bashing, I will give you the same advice I gave at the very beginning of the primaries last time around: Clark is his own best advertisement.

Read his books(yes, he actually writes), watch his media appearances. Judge from first hand experiences instead of third hand accounts and editorials spinning out of context quotes. Pay more attention to Clark (like listen to his recent HASC savaging of Perle), and less attention to the Clark promoters and Clark detractors slugging it out in the flamefests.

You may not like Clark, you never like Clark. But realize that we've all had reservations about candidates at the beginning -- only the more we've learned, the more we loved Clark (almost the opposite of what happens with other candidates where you start finding dirty laundry when you dig).

I could go on and on about the reasons why I like Clark, but I won't. Keep your eye on Clark and see what he does. Make up your own mind. I'll tell you what's on my mind -- Clark is a liberal and man of integrity, fully deserving of my support and the support he gets here.

If you're looking for specific refutations to the points JOM brings up, just read the Clarkie responses to him that analyze and take appart his arguments. They're not new. Identical crap pushed at us by the freeper Seventhson and his ilk.

Whatever you decide, good luck with your process, Bob. Just realize that smears against Clark will inevitably energize and bring us out of the woodworks. Frankly, I'm more confortable as a lurker :)

(And while I have you here, Bob, I like Feingold, and don't appreciate your attempts to artificially pit "Feingold supporters" vs. "Clark supporters." If Clark doesn't run, there's a good chance I might go Feingold. But right now, I see no one who has earned my trust and support more than Clark.)

Now I'm reacting to the news of the Feingold's getting divorced-lol.
But since I was a Kucinich supporter during the primaries I know I'm flameproof.

I'm not a neo-conservative mole like some Clark supporters have suggested and I will not attack Wesley Clark-he could be a real asset in some capacity, but not POTUS--that's my position.

I'm an independent voter with a State tradition of progressivism in recovery from Tommy Thompson. I've got Kerry/Edwards bumperstickers on my car, we voted them a win in Wisconsin last November.

I've expressed support for Feingold long before the news of a divorce.
Here's what I posted a month ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1671388&mesg_id=1672404

I, and many Clark supporters, have expressed our liking Feingold for quite some time now. And, you know what, I've even said good things about Kucinich as well.

I've tried to be nice to you, only to have you come back and accuse me of expressing support for Feingold only after his divorce news for political expediency. Pity.

motives based on our individual, filtered perceptions.
I'm an independent voter and an anti-fascist.

Such as this statement that you made in this thread: "Clark supporters sound like junior level Stars and Stripes PR hacks sometimes, always painting a heroic picture of their candidate or even making direct comparisons between General Clark and Star Wars characters here at DU."

But of course, you also claim to not know us well enough to attribute things via indiviual, filtered perceptions. I see.

And guess what, we're all independent thinkers and anti-fascist, too.

I like him. And the only comment I can recall making on the divorce was that this isn't the 1950's, and this would make no difference to anyone who would consider voting for him under any circumstances.

Wow,your post makes me even more of a passionate supporter of Clark. As a long time lurker here on DU, I suspected Seventhson as being a mole of the Right Wing. When someone actually paid for his "star" because of his claim of having meager means, I almost puked! I knew the guy was a major as#hole....

Please do tell!

...but you give the appearance of being obsessed, both with the General and his supporters. The obsession thing just strikes me as so weird....But I see all of the obsessors are here and they've caused my thread, which was pretty much ignored yesterday, to get one of little flaming thingys it's gotten so many responses. WooHoo!

Thanks obsessors! :)

Thanks guys (and gals).:toast:

Excellent stories about good versus evil.

But what ever spin suits your purpose is OK. After all he is the propagandist.

The General and the 'defense intellectual' are out near the Caspian Sea oil and gas region, the reason for the US occupation of the middle east.

We don't know how they are representing the US, do we? We know how they are represented inside the US.

I think it would be hard to go anywhere in the world that a connection to a natural resource could not be made. I don't think you will find any politician that does not meet the opposition. That is politics and that is diplomacy. You could bury your head in the sand but when you pull it out your rear might be gone. I know how Clark represents me, he represents me well.

That's just common sense.

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

When General Clark entered the Democratic Party and became a POTUS candidate I raised the kind of questions that other DUers not supportive of Wesley Clark are answering.

And your tactics don't work here anymore.

6 degree of separation and linkage via innuendos to conclusions that are opinions which were predetermined. That doesn't make it right or fact based.

I remember Seventhson, who was leading the charges at one point. Do you? I was hoping that those tactics wouldn't work anymore, but I see that my wish is not the case.

answering any of the reasonable questions that people have asked you which you previously promised you would reply to.

On both of the other two threads many people put a lot of effort into giving you substantial responses to your grand sweeping indictments complete with (in my opinion- yours may differ) specific and compelling evidence of how you are directly and intentionally wildly manipulating both the facts and the truth. When you are specifically called on it John, you have no replies other than further rhetoric and further factual omissions and tortured conclusions. You never go back and concede any errors even when they are shoved in your face. You just pack up shop and move on to another thread.

If any one is so unfortunate as to be encountering one of these innuendo based, distorted, inaccurately reported, flagrantly fabricated, hole ridden, propaganda attacks by John for the first time, you might want to trace them back through a couple of threads and read some of the many rebuttals John keeps trying to ignore and put behind him by constantly jumping to other threads without dealing with them.

Here you go. Try reading through these for starters. Look for the point where John shifts the focus of the original topic into his personal attacks on Clark, and read the back and forth from there. I suspect that John is hoping you won't, since he keeps promising to answer questions posed him on prior threads and then instead abandons them to attack fresh somewhere else. I can take you back even further if these two aren't enough:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1714332&mesg_id=1714332&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1717375&mesg_id=1717375

(I just put this at another thread where I'm being excoriated by you. This is getting really rediculous and tedious. And totally unnecessary, too. A half-dozen Clarkies kicking the shit out of me in a dozen threads. It's becoming a Clarkie rite-of-passage to disparage me for any lapses in timely response. Some are even partly valid. More below.)

As for 'spamming,' when I have a lengthy post crafted and copied in my cache and I see a dozen Clark threads that are relevant, I have added my post to maybe two more. Is this against the rules? If so, I'm not aware of it. Is this somehow immoral or manipulative? What is the difference between my criticising Clark on several threads and you half-dozen SAME Clarkies supporting him on almost every thread? What is the difference?

Anyway-


One of the tenets of that US Army FM 33-1 psy-ops manual is that "people need specific targets for their frustration." I'm feeling the heat of others frustration as they see me as using Clark for mine.
(To Other Clarkies: don't use that juvenile 'first one smelt it dealt it' accusation that I'm slinging propaganda since dragging it out in the open to show it comes from the PENTAGON belies that as an effective sneaky tactic, doesn't it? Brother...sigh.)

Tom, you wrote that you are concerned about stopping the 'right-wing consolidation of power.' I am too. Even if you all aren't, I am EXTREMELY concerned about Clark's:
1) career in the Pentagon
2) Pentagon's history of war crimes
3) Pentagon's tactics of psy-ops as 'a first resort'
4) Clark's post-'retirement' business deals, DARPA, Stephens Group
5) Clark's words about Fallujah and the War Department budget
6) Clark's potential role, intended OR NOT in militarizing our culture
7) Clark's role in Waco, the Balkans
8) Clark's role in CIA front groups,
8) the US continuity of war in the Balkans, oil, al-Queda,
9) the Geneva Conventions and the Balkans, war crimes charges

These all scream right-wing bloody murder, militarism, and lies to me.

You see Clark as the last chance.
...His campaigning and criticism of the PNAC plan gives you this conclusion.

I see Clark as the final nail.
...#'s 1-9 give me this conclusion.

In that thread about Neo-cons and Neo-Dems, Clark is a totally on-topic subject for that discussion. Hence my 'dragging' him in.

I understand your frustration at not getting responses to all your posts and I apologize for that. You spent time writing from the heart.

PRECISELY because you get to some real issues they warrant deliberate answers, not glib or angry ones which are very easy to write. I've spent time on some of those and tossed them in fits of good judgement! More on this below.

Too many Clarkies have shit on me with vehemence and I don't feel obliged to respond to them anymore. Now they crowd around my posts to warn people away from actually reading the links I put out-"nothing to see here, folks, just a raving lunatic who'll be locked up soon. Move along, now!" What is it they are so threatened by? I think some are guarding a final hope for a Just Father figure, not something that will come out of the Pentagon General who calls the US war crimes of Fallujah "the right thing" for the US occupation of Iraq.

Getting beseiged with insulting Clarkies is taxing and I spend way too much time dealing with them. I've only just started to alert on insults after taking it for a long time. No more.

I am both a perfectionist and eager to share what I have found along with what I conclude. I know there is high resistance and high suspicions about detractors of any Dem. Therefore, I include too much material. I realize this confounds readers and obscures my points causing some to think I'm reaching way too hard. This is my inclination to revelation and documentation of information many don't know or want to know or have contradictory info on. That's life in the info-war psy-ops maintained culture we suffer.

I always urge readers to open the links and see for themselves. Clarkies have taken to pre-empive scorning of my links and even accusing me of hoping no one will open them. Now that's an interesting tactic worthy of noting for both its audacity and desperation to avert.

When I put up links and excerpts, I have done hours of reading and carefully crafted the excerpt I include with the link. I'm saving posts I submit as evidence for my positions so I don't have to reconstruct them for the next three years. I recommend others do the same. There's a long way to go and thousands of Clark threads a-comin'.

Jai4WKC08 wants to know my problem with the military and why Clark is my focus for criticism. I owe a response.

Another Clarkie wants to know if I'm a pacifist or what my 'terms of engagement' would be militarily. I owe a response.

These are HUGE questions because they go to the heart of how to revive the Democratic Party and pick a candidate to survive the 100 year-old rightwing/militarist/fascist onslaught against the world.

This isn't the same as sloganeering like "will kick ass" which FrenchieCat offers for those with short attention spans, which I realize are many.

Even the ever-insulting FrenchieCat has made an effort to address criticisms of Clark and has saved posts to cut and paste for the future which I keep seeing. I admire the effort although I vehemently disagree. And the nastiness is why many stay off of DU and just lurk. I'm not intimidated and I read what FrenchieCat and others write. Almost always.

Sometimes the pro-Clark anti-JOM opinion offered is rife with so many errors of history, semantics, and mis-statements about my own posts that I hardly know where to begin and don't touch them. I'm sure this is something many Clarkies feel about my posts, too. That is when easy schoolyard insults are hurled at me and snowball into the future.

But I'm up to the challenge, doing the research, and will make the effort to answer these cogent questions.

What I'm FOR: Everything Dennis Kucinich represents is what I want for America, not General Clark's employers or co-workers.

We really are on the same side. I don't want Dems to make any more fatal mistakes. We can't afford anymore. We've been played for fools in a very sophisticated scam and here we are, getting a clue. Well, I think I am, anyway. Others, obviously have another opinion.

Or would you Prefer that only Neo-cons like Perle had careers in the Pentagon?

(I added my post with Veterans for Peace the same time you posted your question.)

Is General Clark a step back from Perle's reckless war? Hell yeah.

Is General Clark a potential tool for recharging the public's acceptance of US militarism to undue the Iraq-induced rerun of 'Vietnam Syndrome?'

That is my worst fear and what I am desperately trying to caution against with (probably) way too much history which distracts people from my point. Mea culpa.

Again:
(Can you see General Clark promoting this organization? I don't think so. He's recruiting and rebuilding "end strength" and urging huge Pentagon budgets for "Full Spectrum Dominance."-jom)

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
(Veterans For Peace)

>snip<

GI Hotline: 1-800-394-9544
Veterans for Peace, Inc. (VFP) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational and humanitarian organization dedicated to the abolishment of war.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

We, having dutifully served our nation, do hereby affirm our greater responsibility to serve the cause of world peace. To this end we will work, with others

(a) Toward increasing public awareness of the costs of war.
(b) To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations
(c) To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons
(d) To seek justice for veterans and victims of war
(e) To abolish war as an instrument of national policy.

To achieve these goals, members of Veterans For Peace pledge to use non-violent means and to maintain an organization that is both democratic and open with the understanding that all members are trusted to act in the best interests of the group for the larger purpose of world peace.

We urge all people who share this vision to join us.

I ask the question because you seem to equate "militarism" with anyone who has fought in a war and is not a pacifist.

Second part of that question; And Why?. I am warming up to having a long dialog with you John, I am not trying to just pester you with questions. All of the questions I have asked you, including the ones that you have not yet found the time needed to give thoughtful replies to, are important for me to hear back from you on so that I know on which themes and issues we agree and disagree. That will help me explain myself to you, and advance our dialog, from my end anyway.

Another question. Should the United States have gone to war with Nazi Germany?

Now I realize that you made some lengthy new posts and some time today I will find the time to respond to them. I will hold up my end of this "deal", if we have one. Having quickly skimmed those posts and replies, however, let me at least say that some of the Clark supporters who you from time to time claim are only "harassing you" have in fact here prepared direct responses, written specifically to the points that you raised, to some of the "evidence" that you are presenting against Clark. I hope you will not disregard the content of those posts simply because you have harsh things to say about the people who wrote them.

I noticed this post, or one so exactly like it as to make no difference to the world, and have several times thought about answering your points (not really questions--since they assume a posture of declarative absolutes--and yet, decided that 1) you weren't really interested in anything I have to say and 2) I have mundane pressures that demand my time.

Anyway, I thought to myself that while your posts are copious, the lion's share of the writing has nothing to do with Clark; and what does mention Clark directly is hedged with words like "alleged." You will assume whatever you will assume; you will imagine whatever you will imagine, and you will invent whatever mysterious rattlings and shakings that you will, but you cannot ever attest that what you write has any basis in fact. Assume, alledge..potential? I could say that you or Dennis Kucinich are "potential" alledged tools of the military industrial complex, but does that make it so?

Well?

Tom, you wrote that you are concerned about stopping the 'right-wing consolidation of power.' I am too. Even if you all aren't, I am EXTREMELY concerned about Clark's:
1) career in the Pentagon
2) Pentagon's history of war crimes
3) Pentagon's tactics of psy-ops as 'a first resort'
4) Clark's post-'retirement' business deals, DARPA, Stephens Group
5) Clark's words about Fallujah and the War Department budget
6) Clark's potential role, intended OR NOT in militarizing our culture
7) Clark's role in Waco, the Balkans
8) Clark's role in CIA front groups,
8) the US continuity of war in the Balkans, oil, al-Queda,
9) the Geneva Conventions and the Balkans, war crimes charges

I responded thus so:
based on your enumerated attacks, I guess is supposed to conjure up some kind of evil conclusion about Wes Clark.

Your goal and quest? To turn off others from him not because of anything he did....but on the simple fact that if you can generate enough controversy about him, you can actually scare folks into NOT wanting to support this "controversial" (as you have made him by spamming unsubstantiated accusations of the worse kind) individual. To that, I say, kudos in the effective tactic to be used on the gullible.

Psy-ops is what I call it.

I understand that you may not prefer Wes Clark, but I find your tactics extreme, ridiculous, and just plain libelous. I didn't know that DU was the place to come and hate all things military. No wonder so many Americans don't believe that Democrats support the troups! You make it positively true!

1. Yes, Wes Clark had a career in the military

2. Pentagon's history? What about our Government's history? What about our Nation's history? What does this mean, exactly? Does it mean that Wes Clark is guilty by associating with the pentagon because the pentagon has done some nasty things? Are you to be avoided because as an American, you are linked to our Nation's history. Should I blame you for slavery? Where's my fucking reparations, if that's so? If not, why not? Isn't Kucinich guilty of being a bad guy because he is in government....and you know, Government's history? This is some rather silly shit!

3. Pentagon's tactics of psy-ops as "first resort"? Again, What are we to conclude from this bulletin number? You don't even bother to imply anything on this one. Just the use of psy-ops is supposed to have us running towards the hills? Do you always use "hot button" rethoric to make points that aren't points? Are you referring to the Tin Foil thread that you started and requested from others that it be nominated....in where it was pointed out to you (something you ignore) that over 1/2 of the links didn't work, and the ones that did didn't really add up to the title of your thread?....as was pointed out by a poster here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

4. Clark's post retirement business deals, DARPA & Stephens Group.
Please provide some links about Stephens Group and DARPA and how Clark working for them is to be considered as evil.

5. Please provide Clark's words on Fallujah and the War Department Budget, the context and your interpretation.

6. Clark's Potential role in militarizing our culture? Potential? Militarizing our culture? Why, because he wants an all volunteer army? Because he wants better benefits for veterans and enlisted personnel? Because he proposed a voluntary program where those who wanted to get 2 years of experience should be able to do so in non combat civilian type positions and shouldn't have to learn how to use a weapon? ...something like Clinton's Americorp? Potential indeed. I'm scared (more of you)!

7. Clarks role in the Balkans and Waco? You're painting with a broad stroke, doncha know? I provided you with evidence that Clark had nothing to do with WACO, and although you say you read my posts and links, it's obvious that you don't. As far as the Balkans are concerned, what about it? We will be hashing that one again? The Pope called it a "Just" war....and although I didn't agree with everything the Pope believed, he sure was a pacifist who's word I will rather believe than your Serbian friends.

8. Clark's role in the CIA? What role was that? Please expand on this accusation which is "un"-accompanied by any evidence of what that is even supposed to mean.

Your second #8. The US continuity of war in the Balkans, Oil and Al-Queda. Great! What is this supposed to mean as it relates to Clark? Is this just more of number #7 with the "hot button" words like Oil and Al-Queda attached for effect?

9. What about the Geneva Convention and the Balkans, War Crime charges? I have already provided you with the facts that Wes Clark was not a War criminal. Neither was Bill Clinton. This report cleared them all, and I'm sick and tired of you calling them that. These are good Democrats that you are calling War Criminals. It shows the extremism of your beliefs that are backed by lightweight nothings.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

So you can go ahead and "conclude" based on your attack by numbers....I just hope that DUers have more sense than you give them credit for.

Funny how long it takes for you to answer anyone's queries about what you are about, but you are extremely quick in spamming every Clark thread with your unnuendoed propaganda.

In reference to your put downs of Clarkies, I'm sick and tired of that song. It is actually you, who appear to be attacking Clarkies now, yet you are trying to give the impression that you are the one being "ganged up" on. How convenient. Poor JOM! He's being given such a hard time by those evil Clarkies, and has to keep defending himself. Interesting tactic there JOM! You attack Clark and now Clarkies at every opportunity, calling him everything in the book....yet you are the victim! That should work. Can we say Psy-Ops? Cause that's all it is.

3. repost of link provided in above post....but didn't work (for whatever reason):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1708564#1710977

JOM's thread requested to be nominated....in where it was pointed out that over 1/2 of the links didn't work, and the ones that did didn't really add up to the title of your thread?....this is pointed out by a poster here.

(Can you see General Clark promoting this organization? I don't think so. He's recruiting and rebuilding "end strength."-jom)

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
(Veterans For Peace)

>snip<

GI Hotline: 1-800-394-9544
Veterans for Peace, Inc. (VFP) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational and humanitarian organization dedicated to the abolishment of war.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

We, having dutifully served our nation, do hereby affirm our greater responsibility to serve the cause of world peace. To this end we will work, with others

(a) Toward increasing public awareness of the costs of war.
(b) To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations
(c) To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons
(d) To seek justice for veterans and victims of war
(e) To abolish war as an instrument of national policy.

To achieve these goals, members of Veterans For Peace pledge to use non-violent means and to maintain an organization that is both democratic and open with the understanding that all members are trusted to act in the best interests of the group for the larger purpose of world peace.

We urge all people who share this vision to join us.

announced today?

bringing all the troops home "now" would be irresponsible and wrong, especially for the people in Iraq.

Maturity means dealing with reality, and accepting responsibility for the reality we have created.

So, I cannot support all the goals of this organization.

for keeping these threads kicked, and for ensuring that so many Clark threads end up with such a large number of responses.

I believe most people here can see through the kind of stuff you're posting, but it does give more people on this board the opportunity to see what all Wes is up to in the real world of fighting the neocon agenda, and working for the advancement of the Democratic party.

I know we don't see eye to eye on anything, but I appreciate your service, however unwitting, to the cause of getting the good word out about Wes Clark.:toast:

I just downloaded Hijack This, Norton Virus protection AND spy sweeper!
So why am I still getting this spammed dooky on my screen?

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

JohnONeillsMemory.
:thumbsup:

Might as well put in the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1715688&mesg_id=1717044

no text

who's not one to fabricate just to win....yet you find JOM's conspiratorial rambling as stuff relevant to inpugning a man like Wes Clark. I can only say, it's too bad that we can only have one Democrat left standing in your eyes. I respect both Feingold AND Clark. I don't have to put one down to make the other look better. I would love that both men should run. At least then, the American people would have a good solid choice among Democrats. I'm pro choice and against cheaply manufactured character assassination of the worse kind.

But to run down one great patriot in hopes of elevating another is not a winning tactic IMO. In fact, I see it as kind of sad and not very productive to Democrats in general.

Maybe that's why we keep losing.

When Feingold endorses Clark, or agrees to be his running mate.

Did you catch the two of 'em clasping hands and giving each other a "thumbs up" in the space between Washington Journal appearances last week? Looked like pretty heartfelt mutual admiration to me.

when Clark is not even close to winning the nomination in 2008.

did you also know who was going to win the nomination in 2004.....in 2001? Just curious. Hope you supported the 2004 nom ahead of time and fell in line in 2001. We wouldn't want you not to practice what you preach.

I for one will support who I decide....regardless of the outcome. I come from the generation who's motto is pretty much "what you believe, you can achieve". Otherwise, why even bother with politics....if as you put it, it's so pre-ordained?

You may be right in that Clark may not end up as the nominee, but I thank God everyday that there's one thing that others can't take away from me--Hope.

Thanks for trying though.

I really don't have much expectation that Wes will get the nomination, although it will certainly sadden me if he doesn't. I don't even know that he will choose to run again.

At this point I'm just glad to see him so active and speaking out. He's emerging as a highly respected leader within the Democratic party, one with a backbone who is unafraid to speak out. That's a good thing for our party, no matter what happens 3 years from now with the nomination.

Of course, I understand that you may disapprove of that sort of thing, perhaps being more comfortable with the more traditional type of Democrat like Tom Daschle. That's fine if you are. He was a decent guy, just not a particularly effective leader. I for one, am happy that the party is finding its spine, and I applaud every Democrat who is part of that.:)

I understand that a good internal cleansing can be very effective at getting things out of your system. It might be the best way for dealing with this obsession you have with Wes Clark.:)

Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Carter all lived in the same house as Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes! They even had the same f*cking address! This obviously goes back a lot longer, and reaches much further, than even I had suspected. How brazen can they be? How could the FBI have missed this in their investigations? I bet they could have prevented 9-11 if this had only made its way up channel to the right desk. Unless, of course, there were people who didn't want us to know. People who wanted 9-11 to happen. People who will never admit the truth about MAJESTIC11. (OMG! 9-11 ... MAJESTIC11) Maybe Carter's seemingly innocent admission was more than we realized. Don't take my word for it. Look it all up! Google it, now!

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot: :sarcasm:

With the Bolton nomination almost a done deal, it isn't going to matter much what olive branches are proffered.

Bolton's going to preen himself for quite some time and then declare "vengeance is mine"!

HELP!!!