Clark, Dean, Reid statements on DSM

I'd like to see more facts and a real congressional inquiry be called for. But this doesn't need to be pushed immediately. This needs to come to the surface when Congress is in full session and when opinions are gelling more. I'm concerned that the growing disatisfaction with the war is "soft" and that it needs more time to steep before we get a solid opposition that can override corporate interests.

When the time is ripe, I think you'll see Clark & Dean move forward on this. But timing is important in statecraft. Dean keeps finding that out the hard way. I don't want people to just denounce this war--that's only theraputic. I want people to speak out in a way that will END the war. That takes a little art. The right people to speak out against the war are THE people, meaning you and me. Rallies come first, politicians can line up and get the job done only when we the People give them the cover of popular consent first.

Slow, yes. But like Churchill said, the worst form of government except for all the others.

http://216.55.181.228/audio/cspan062205.mp3

his reference to the DSM came at about 3 minutes and 33 seconds into the clip ...

What does he say about it on his various TV appearances, where EVERYONE can hear it?

not here to defend him ... just wanted to add some information to the thread ...

i've been watching all the back-and-forth over DSM for some time now ... the mere fact that the Democrats might be able to go on offense for a while is great ...

but i do worry that, while it's great that this could impeach or at least weaken bush even further, it does not address the many other issues that are not being discussed by Democrats ...

for example, i've heard nothing but a few hawkish comments from the Democratic Party regarding Iran ... are we currently bombing Iran? do Democrats have a position on this? are Democrats planning to have a voice on this issue at all or are they going to cower in the corner fearful of the political implications of standing in opposition to bush ... or worse yet, are they too beating the drums for yet more war?

everyone's so focussed on the DSM ... well what about losing tens of thousands of more lives off this planet while the Democrats say nothing? i'm all for pushing the DSM but the Democratic Party is failing to show leadership on critical issues facing this country ... that's really got to change if we hope to become a majority party again ...

I doubt anyone is watching though.

That's a critical issue for this country and the world.

n/t

And we're still getting screwed! It sucks! They control the Senate. They control the House. If we can't get some protections for Global Warming passed do we expect we will get them to listen about Iraq?

there's certainly no question that the Dems don't have any power to control the outcome of votes in the Congress ...

but that doesn't make the Dem position on Iraq acceptable ... how are we ever going to convince Americans that Dems can do better running the country if our elected reps are only willing to bring up ideas that will get passed in the Congress?

the other thing that's getting kind of weird about Iraq right now is that it seems some republicans are starting to take the lead on calling for withdrawal ... the concern i have politically is that the American people have turned against the "war" and republicans might be the ones to cater to their wishes ... it's hard to see how the current Dem strategy on Iraq is going to help the Party ...

There will be consequences to a mass impeachment.

And tens of thousands... maybe tens of millions will die.

True - should this story gain anymore momentum, there is a very good chance that all of us who have know about this will be vindicated.
Sad that the truth is so evident, yet so many don't even look... this will force attention to the issue.

The problem is, if this administration is run out of office, we will be in dire straights economically.

Clark said "I told you so."

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/06/20/wes_clark/index_np.html

Where EVERYONE can hear it?

He told Wolf a couple of Sundays ago. That it was important although it has all been out there for a while.

He said that he had told the congress people behind closed doors, but he said, he and others were unable to persuade enough of them.

Surely the top Democrats all at least issued statements on the day of the hearings in order to give it maximum exposure- right? (Que in crickets & lonesome wind sound fx)

AND he tried, behind closed Capitol doors, to convince Senators to speak out.

You're picking on the wrong Democrat.

What Wes Clark has done is far more than the vast majority of Democratic leaders who have said zilch, nada, nothing.

Go kick their Democratic asses. How about other Dems stepping up the plate for once?

Where everyone, not just the choir can hear it. I've never singled out Clark, in fact.

I've been saying the exact same thing on DU daily for over a month- that top, house-hold name Democrats need to be ON TV everyday talking about the things that the media refuses to cover.

Democrats need to be ON TV everyday talking about the things that the media refuses to cover.

You don't see a problem with this statement? If the media refuses to cover it, how are Dems supposed to be on TV talking about it? Hmmm?

I've lost count of how many times you've mentioned that Dems need to be on TV all the time telling it like it is, but you KNOW the state of our media. How are we to know that Dems aren't TRYING like crazy to say what needs to be said, and the media (as it has been doing for years) is REFUSING to cover it? What makes you think that the media will suddenly do an about-face and start letting anyone say much of anything on TV that makes the Bush admin look bad when we already know that they've been walking in lock-step with the Bush admin since the Repukes first hijacked the White House?

I'm getting really tired of people complaining "why is Dean not saying XYZ", "Why is Hilary not saying anything", "why is Kerry so silent", "where's Reid", etc.... conveniently forgetting that we have NO balance in the media, and they've been ass-smooching Bush and the Repuke party for years. We KNOW that the media only gives face time to Dems when they say something "foot-in-mouth", when they agree with the Repukes, or when they can spin it to make Dems look like idiots or to portray the opposite of what they meant to the public. To believe that it's the fault of the Dems for not getting their message out through the media when we KNOW the corrupt unbalanced state of the media is, quite frankly, stupid.

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

Your argument against my idea is really tough to counter. Oh well- when you cant do that, there is always the personal attack.

Tell me again why its a bad idea for DEMS to go on TV and speak on issues the media refuses to cover?

I, know, I know, such a "zealous" idea...

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

...issues that the media & Republicans are not covering.

You countered this idea with personal attacks against a ground-floor DUer. I've been here for 3 years- long enough to know personal attacks & insinuations that posters are not loyal DEMs are against the rules.

I'm ready whenever you are ready to tell me what is wrong with my ideas.

What have you done for DEMs over the past 3 years anyway?

How much money have you raised?

How many DEM organizations did you help found?

How many Red State Iraq War protests did you organize?

How many doors did you knock on? Phone calls?

How many HOURS did you spend on corners campaigning?

You must have ignored all the threads I've started on what I've done.

How dare you question my loyalty just because you cant debate my argument.

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

I daresay, not a single Clark supporter was surprised about the contents of the DSM. That they wrote it down, yes... but not the content.

why?

Because what has come out in the 'memos' verifies what he's been saying more than for 2 years.

Not a single Kerry supporter was surprised either.

They watch TV and read the papers.

It's not really on Clark to speak out- I think it's on Dean & Kerry and elected DEMs- but he does have media access and he could mention this on TV more than he does.

On Crossfire.

B*tch-slapped Tucker "I have a bow tie and I know how to use it" Carlson with it.

He continued to discuss it all during the campaign.

I'm sure he'll continue to speak about it on TeeVee whenever he gets the opportunity.

n/t

Clark was ridiculed for talking about his trip to the Pentagon two days after 911 when he was told that they were going to war with Saddam. He said this in June of 03 on MTP. Not ONE Democrat stood up to defend him.

Bamford's book, Clarke's book, Clark's book, O'Neill's book all lay out the facts. The DSM verifies but did not introduce us to this information.

Criticize Clark if you must, but that will not change the facts: he has and will talk about this, but the so-called "stars" still have their fingers in the wind and will remain silent UNLESS....

there is something in it for them. They figure that we will all just break out our check books and give them our votes no matter what they do. Afterall....gasp! you don't want to play Rove's game.

Plan B sucks.

...a General & TV commentator- who better?

He's been on Fox a total of maybe ten minutes so far. He doesn't have a show. He is asked a question in the course of a discussion on a specific topic and he answers. It's not an open format where he gets to raise issues he wants to raise. He's not a host. He's not even in the studio. He has very limited time, like a minute or two, to say what he has to say on the topic. He's made maybe three or four appearances of this kind. He needs a little time at least to get established there. Your expectations aren't reasonable.

As for the rest of the media, well, they never wanted to hear from Clark on this in the past, when he tried very hard to get this information out, but not many even here at DU wanted to hear it, either. His opponents were just as happy to let Tim Russert and others paint Clark as loco, and a few of them KNEW he was telling the truth, and his opponents' followers were happy to ridicule Clark's story here on DU and around the web -- it served everybody's purposes at the time.

I am rather surprised he hasn't been brought in on DSM by the MSM currently. But we're talking about a man who said "I am proud of Howard Dean" at a time that any Democrat uttering the name had his face on TV and splashed across newspapers, yet not a peep about Clark's defending Dean, except for one or two local papers and, I think it was, the Baltimore Sun. Even in the course of a roaring media lust, it was picked up nowhere else.

The media has their motives.

In the case of DMS, maybe they don't want to remind people they had this information two years ago, at least, and ignored the early warnings that became the basis of the DSM story.

No sale.

If ANYONE brings up Iraq- that is his opening to bring up the DSM.

I supported Clark for the nomination, but I cant except this excuse- THE IRAQ WAR is a topic discussed that is discussed DAILY on Fox and the memo is ON TOPIC.

Come on! This is Faux News. General Clark has walked into the lions' den here with these people. It's going to take time. There is no one better to hold his message, not incite, and possibly sneak the truth about anything into their broadcast.

Furthering exposure of the issue and the fact they are hiding it.

No Sale. Excuses are just simply no longer acceptable.

Maybe he already has said something. I would guess he already has done it. He's not been on the air that long. But if he has said anything, who would know? We all know they will take things out that make their boy George look bad.

Until he verifies this, I'll assume it's an excuse/conspiracy theory.

That said, he has remarked on the DSM in other capacities, as pointed out in other places on this thread.

Excuses simply wont cut it anymore.

We cant blame the media for what DEMs won't say.

The DSM needs to be discussed DAILY until it is a household scandal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html

Wes testified to Congress, along with Richard Perle, where many of the lies were exposed.

Congressman "Freedom Fries" Jones lost his temper during the hearing & is now leading the group of Republicans who are questioning the rationale for the war. This change of mind happened because of Clark's testimony.

The Downing St Memos had not yet been revealed, but Wes had the info & it was covered by Dana Milbank.

Was anyone listening?

Re: DSM

Has the Downing Street memo had any impact on your views about the war?

You should go back and take a look at the book I wrote in the summer of 2003 <"Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire">. Essentially, the Downing Street memo confirms everything I said.

Do you think the memo will change the way Americans think about the war or the president?

The Downing Street memo hasn't been given adequate recognition in the press. I think the truth about Iraq is this: It was an elective war; it was a war we didn't have to fight. But this administration chose to fight it. I've said that very consistently, from way before I became a candidate and all through my campaign.

had to say?

n/t

:eyes:

I was being a smart ass, sorry if it was misunderstood.

Please, no lectures!

It's a fine day when Democrats can apologize to Bush for telling the truth about him, but are too frightened to speak up on things like the DSM.

Read the entire thread ... puleeze.

I mean, they are meant to be our front runners according to the Powers-that-be and Bilderberg....

And what about Senator Jo "where's the camera?" Biden? The last thing I heard quoted from him (like two days ago) seemed to have been plagerized from the Clark '04 campaign, circa October 2003! And didn't refer to any DSM....either! :shrug:
But maybe I'm out of date.

Here we go again. Give it a rest. Huh?

If you don't believe it, next time you get to talk to John K, ask him.

with Bush.

I'm just sayin'...

Link, please.

but as long as they were put to good use, Wes Clark would have been very happy.

:)

to say that Clark WAS Kerry's "go-to" guy during the FP debates


I guess if no one ever challenges people when they make false statements they start to think they are actually true.

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

A lot of Clark supporters like to spin this fantasy that Clark is some kind of guru that everyone goes to for advice, lol.

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

That's my question too. No such link exists because it is a false and untrue statement.


As far as the question of upon whom the burden of proof rests, I will be willing to prove to you that Kerry did not rely on Clark for the debates right after you prove to me that he did not rely on the Dalai Lama for the debates, lol.

Clark was with Kerry backstage at the foreign policy debate in Miami. It was reported on DU by a number of witnesses. Look it up.

He also accompanied Kerry on Kerry's own aircraft to the VFW speech in Las Vegas. Sat on the dais with him. And then flew on a big rally in New Mexico, where Clark spoke at some length before Kerry, and didn't just give an introduction.

Clark could have flown in to Vegas on his own. I'm sure it would have been cheaper and less time consuming than Kerry having to set down in Little Rock to pick him up. But Kerry wanted the time to discuss the issues, go over the speech, or maybe just shoot the shit. That's something we'll never know.

But to say Clark wasn't advising Kerry, especially during the latter part of his campaign, is to be totally unaware of what was going on, or to try to rewrite history.

Ya know, it's not an attack of Kerry to say any of this. If anything, it shows he has the good sense to consult with people who know foreign policy and military affairs.

When Clark was fighting in Kosovo, he brought in a retired four-star to advise him--someone he could bounce ideas off of, get a different perspective. Clark didn't feel threatened that maybe the guy knew more than he did--I sort of doubt he thought so. But he valued the guy's judgment and insight. And having him there in no way detracted from the fact that Clark was the guy in command, making the decisions, being accountable for the war.

Clark WAS Kerry's "go-to" guy during the FP debates





I have yet to see someone try to support this positive assertion with any type of reference.


It is a falsehood, an untrue statement.

Your illogic is clear to all of us.

I will prove to you that Kerry did not consult with Clark during the debate right after you prove to me that Kerry did not consult a ouija board during the debates, lol.


Wes Clark was clearly on the Kerry team for a reason. It isn't hard to guess what it was.

What's that even mean "on the Kerry team"? In fact it has no meaning. Clark did endorse and campaign for Kerry after his failed bid for the nomination... is that what you mean by "on the Kerry team"?


It is a common fantasy among Clark supporters that he is some sort of guru that everyone goes to for advice. but in fact, he's just a failed candidate with following of loyal supporters.

Your assertion and your implication that Kerry sought advice from Clark, is not based on any verifiable data, and is not in fact true, (which is why you haven't been able to support your assertion with a reference), but based merely on that Clark-as-guru fantasy so common among Clark supporters.

Never mind...

TC

Just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean it's not true. It would be obvious to anyone who reads through these articles (and follows a few links) that some people are not paying attention.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4303.html



And from "the Hill" ( The Newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress )

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051705/dems.html



And when John Kerry needed a strong voice:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/


And even more interesting.... from a Washington Post online chat with Joe Trippi back before General Clark got into the race,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A53796-2003Aug27¬Found=true



I think it's time for you to sound a strategic retreat on this line of attack.

and posting off-topic and unrelated links won't change that fact.

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

Clark has been helping out the entire Democratic party with national security issues.

Kerry posted Clark in the spin room after the first Presidential Debate with Bush. Remember? The one Kerry beat Bush up in 6 ways from Sunday? Wanna bet Clark was one of his coaches?

Or perhaps you weren't watching the Daily Show (where Clark was on live from the spin room that night) making fun of posters at the 'site which cannot be named' who were screaming about what a disaster it was for Bush.

Think Kerry wouldn't put a close advisor in the spin room on the night of the first debate (arguably one of his 'first introductions to America') to talk to the press?

Think again.

Saying something is not 'off-topic' doesn't make it so. Saying something is 'untrue' doesn't make it so either.

and nothing in your comment indicates otherwise.

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

:eyes:

I will prove to you that Kerry did not consult with Clark during the debate right after you prove to me that Kerry did not consult a ouija board during the debates, lol.


Wes Clark was clearly on the Kerry team for a reason. It isn't hard to guess what it was.

What's that even mean "on the Kerry team"? In fact it has no meaning. Clark did endorse and campaign for Kerry after his failed bid for the nomination... is that what you mean by "on the Kerry team"?


It is a common fantasy among Clark supporters that he is some sort of guru that everyone goes to for advice. but in fact, he's just a failed candidate with following of loyal supporters.

Your assertion and your implication that Kerry sought advice from Clark, is not based on any verifiable data, and is not in fact true, (which is why you haven't been able to support your assertion with a reference), but based merely on that Clark-as-guru fantasy so common among Clark supporters.

You probably weren't following Clark like we were. That's understandable.

We remember how he had to juggle his schedule to meet with Kerry before the first debate. We heard his Ed Shultz interview that had to be moved up, and were dissappointed at the CNN interview that was cancelled at the last minute. We remember the accounts of Clark backstage. And we remember Clark had the first CNN interview after the debate, up against Tommy Franks, and that he was the guest on the Daily Show that night.

Make no mistake. Clark was a critical member of the Kerry team on anything having to do with national security.

Post #119 contains no supporting reference, link or citation that backs up the assertion made in post 27.


Clark was a critical member of the Kerry team on anything having to do with national security.

LOL, you are welcome to believe anything you want.

I am still waiting... *whistling patiently*

Wes Clark was clearly on the Kerry team for a reason. It isn't hard for most of us to know what it was. :eyes:

Some People Never Change.

I will prove to you that Kerry did not consult with Clark during the debate right after you prove to me that Kerry did not consult a ouija board during the debates, lol.


Wes Clark was clearly on the Kerry team for a reason. It isn't hard to guess what it was.

What's that even mean "on the Kerry team"? In fact it has no meaning. Clark did endorse and campaign for Kerry after his failed bid for the nomination... is that what you mean by "on the Kerry team"?


It is a common fantasy among Clark supporters that he is some sort of guru that everyone goes to for advice. but in fact, he's just a failed candidate with following of loyal supporters.

Your assertion and your implication that Kerry sought advice from Clark, is not based on any verifiable data, and is not in fact true, (which is why you haven't been able to support your assertion with a reference), but based merely on that Clark-as-guru fantasy so common among Clark supporters.

I guess if no one ever challenges people when they make false statements they start to think they are actually true.

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

Kerry used Clark's TP's during the primaries. The points made were not true. Every point mentioned had been brought up by Kerry previous to Clark even announcing that he would run.

As for my "any minute now" thread, I did post in the thread that another Senator stepped up to sign the letter and so it was delayed. So, so sorry. Yes, I have egg on my face because I thought some people around here would appreciate what Kerry was doing, and yes, it was expected to be announced yesterday. So it's been delayed and I've cried wolf. Happy now? I had nothing but good intentions, contrary to popular belief.

Sorry you have been getting bashed for this. You are very brave. :)

You can furnish us with a link to the thread that you mentioned so those interested can see for ourselves but I would rather not get sidetracked with this subthread you introduced when you mocked FrenchieCat for her correct assessment of Biden's recent TV performances.

Thanks. :)

I don't remember EVER bashing you, KerryGoddess. In fact, I said NOTHING inflammatory about Kerry and you chose to engage me about it. At no time did I imply that Kerry didn't have his own ideas. You are the one that felt I was saying that.

I realize you don't like Clark. Kerry wasn't my favorite either, but I WORKED for him, SPOKE to others about him, PROTESTED Bush carrying signs supporting him, CHEERED at his rallies in my town, and on election day, KNOCKED AND DRAGGED in an effort to get him elected. I'd hardly call that bashing either.

I did those things because Clark ASKED his supporters to stand behind Kerry. And I know I was not the only one who did that. Not only did he support Kerry, he advised him. Kerry showed good judgment in asking for advice from others and that included Clark.

But I supported Clark initially because I heard him saying things Kerry did not say. And those were the points I mentioned in the other thread. There were similarities in what the two candidates said, and after Clark dropped out, Kerry started saying them the way Clark did.

Kerry is certainly smart enough to have his own ideas. But candidates surround themselves with others to hone their messages, among many other things.

... So people will know what he's saying and doing. :shrug:

He has not been silent on this.

I read this thread, Clark and the DSM but I don't see any current quotes.

I *do* see - and won't reply there because I don't want to start trouble in your group - that the DSM is being made light of by some of the posters, as in "oh, this is old news" - just like what the repubs are saying, trying to sweep it under the rug. It looks from some of the posts there that you (they?) are buying into this idea that the intelligence wasn't cooked, it was just bad, not cherry-picked or anything. Huh???

DSMs: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

NOT "but all the memo really shows is that Bush and his boys were using WMD intel as a justification to go into Iraq, that they were building policy around this intelligence" like WesDem says in reply #5 on that thread. - which is the direct opposite of what the DSM says.

So, if I sound confused... I am.... and did I miss the Clark quotes on DSM upthread in this post? If I did, my apologies. I'm just trying to keep it all straight. (See my post below where I point out Reid's statement. I am not trying to bash anyone here!)

I also apologize for the long post, but ....

Clark supporters DO think it's old news, mostly because we knew the content (and the tactics to start the War) the Republicans were using long ago. Clark talked about it during the primaries on multiple occasions. Even during the summer before he became a candidate--that includes before the books, the 9-11 hearings et.al.

Remember (do you?), that Richard Clarke said that it was Wes Clark who encouraged him to write his book exposing the manipulation around 9-11.

July 4, 2004 Vanity Fair

Richard Clarke's article quotes Gen. Clark and a meeting they had over coffee as Clarke was deciding to write his now famous book.


His willingness to speak the truth when other candidates (not Dean and not Kucinich, ok!) seemed unwilling to challenge the Bush administration for what (to us) were somewhat baffling reasons is one of the reasons why we drafted him to run in the first place.

You can parse the 'English English" however you'd like, but 'fixed around' in British English doesn't mean 'invented'. Did they 'fake' intel? I doubt it. They didn't have to. Or didn't you realize that ANYTHING can be called "intel", including outright fabrication--so long as it isn't traceable back to a US source. So Chalabi's sister's half-cousin can provide 'intel' and it gets called 'intel'. Why would they have to fabricate intel themselves when there were so many vested interests willing to do it for them?

Did they use intel (unreliable, half-true, poorly researched, speculative, possibly fabricated) to bolster their own agenda? Absolutely. Clark said it over and over and over. He was labeled something of a conspiracy theorist.... we could have used a few more outraged Democratic voices then.

Dr. Fate, one last note, Clark is not psychic (nor prescient).

He is, however a master strategist, a 'scary smart' guy, and he has great inside contacts. Pay attention.... don't pay attention... it doesn't matter. He's going to continue to speak out, and do what's right because that's who he is.

Make notes ... what he's telling you now will likely become common knowledge in the future.

Do you need additional clarification?

If you'd like, I'll delete the one above and answer line by line.

If it is to spread innuendo based on nothing but your own conjectures about statements made regarding the DSM, it's pretty pointless.

Next time do your research.

Otherwise he probably wouldn't have included Clark's name in his 'challenge' (if that's what it was....)

However, Kerry being the former Democratic Candidate for President makes mention of it and it's all over the news.

Needless to say, while it's still not getting the coverage it should be, when John Kerry speaks, the MSM does still pay attention.

Let's do a comparison search and see what the MSM has available for Kerry and Clark and the DSM:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=wesley+clark+%2B+downing+street+memo&btnG=Search+News

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=john+kerry+%2B+downing+street+memo&btnG=Search+News

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=wesley+clark+%2B+downing+street+memo&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=john+kerry+%2B+downing+street+memo&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

I hate to be a stickler, but here's what the blogosphere is saying:

http://www.technorati.com/search/john%20kerry%20downing%20street%20memo

http://www.technorati.com/search/john%20kerry%20downing%20street%20memo

Enough said?

TexasKat's post was so directly relevant that I had to go back and reread up-thread again, to be sure you weren't just being ironic.

I guess you weren't. Was it humor, then?

I can't believe the poster really couldn't see the relevance of Kat's post. Perhaps they didn't like the fact that Kat brought up the things she did. :shrug:

I agree with you, Kat, on the absence of the outraged voices when Clark was being put through the grinder for bringing this up so long ago...Seemed most were perfectly willing to let him hang out there as the "crazy General" as my right wing "friends" would refer to him.

To cut to the chase: has Wes Clark said ANYTHING publicly where he specifically referenced the Downing Street Minutes and subsequent leaked documents?

It seems from your posts that you dispute the significance of the DSMs and their usefulness in convincing the American people of the deceptions played on them by Bu$hCorp. That is a discussion worth having, but unfortunately I have to go away for a bit right now. But regardless of whether it "matters", the OP's point (I think) was that Clark has said nothing about the DSM itself.

While I applaud Clark's prescience in seeing what Bu$hCorp was up to long before many others did, the point of this post (I think) was a question of what, specifically, has he had to say about the DSM.

BTW, I just saw that reply #52 gives an answer - Clark's reply to a reporter's question about DSM on June 20. Is that all? Seems pretty tame, and he didn't introduce the topic himself, either. But I guess it's a reasonable tack if you don't think the DSM is particularly important.

what is he supposed to say that he hasn't already said. Clark isn't one who engages in hyperbole. Since he's been fighting this fight for over 2 years, what you do expect him to say?

"Look at me, I was right all along'? or "It would have been nice if you believed what I told you 2 years ago"?

Not his style.

BTW, I never said that the DSM documentation wasn't 'important", so please don't misinterpret what I had to say. Whether they were important or not was never addressed in my post. They are important in the same way that the Pentagon Papers released by Daniel Ellsberg were important. They provide some written proof that manipulation was ongoing and intentional.

That being said, the original disagreement with your post was over the use of the word 'fixed'. The interpretation that the 'intel' Bush used to justify the war was invented isn't what's important, IMO, and subject to becoming a red herring. Intel covers a wide range of information from "completely unreliable" to "dead on"'. What IS important is that Bush subverted the process by which this nation makes foreign policy choices (the decision to launch a war) and manipulated the process cold-bloodedly.

Approaching the DSM from this interpretation is a much more damning use it and allows no wiggle room for arguments over 'invented or not invented". Holding Bush's feet to the fire over manipulating the process and prostituting the truth for his own personal agenda is the way to use these memos to our best benefit.

Americans can believe that the 'truth' was manipulated if we don't get sidetracked about the 'source' of the intelligence and concentrate on the fact that most Americans were hoodwinked into supporting the war.

Wes Clark talked before the war, through the war, & has his words in the Congressional Record, revealing much of what has been documented in the Downing St Memos.

And he not only discussed these issues; he debated them with Richard Perle, one of the architects of the war.

It was the same bad intelligence the Clinton administration had, the Europeans had, the Congress had in the 1990s. The Bush administration took that intelligence, which nobody else believed was accurate or significant, and used it to build a case for war on Iraq. To me, that is building policy around intelligence and not the other way around, which has been my problem with the DSM as an independently viable trigger point, but a problem only if it is used on its own, without the backup of the Clark, Clarke, Graham, McNeill information.

The important thing about DSM is not about the intelligence, IMO, but about them deciding on this war and misleading the American public on what their intentions were, manipulating 9/11 fervor to go through a defensive war in Afghanistan to an elective war on Iraq.

If you can point me to some indication that the intelligence was ever "cooked," ever "fixed," ever altered, I am willing to look at it and change my thinking. I've seen that the DSM says so, but I don't see where in the intelligence itself it was done.

"Cherry-picked" is exactly what I believe they did with the intelligence. The intelligence is a bit of a red herring as far as I have been able to see, except insofar as they used it to justify their elective war policy. That they used bad intelligence, when everybody knew it was bad, is damning. But the important thing is the war planning against Iraq that took place in the hours and days and weeks after 9/11 when Afghanistan was being presented as the target.

My judgment has absolutely nothing to do with anything Republicans say and everything to do with what I already knew before DSM ever showed up. I am in full support of Conyers and any Dem who is going after DSM, because I think it does provide a starting point that can bring out the truth and bring Bush down. I also think in itself it can be too easily explained away, provided they can show the intelligence was not altered, which may be the case, unless it is reinforced by the earlier information.

Is this any clearer? I don't believe I "make light" of DSM by saying what I believe to be true.

The one I know about:

http://freedomsfire.blogspot.com/2005/06/harry-reid-on-bolton-and-dsm.html

This was during debate on Bolton - he linked in the DSM to why Bolton should not be approved.

I'm actually 'on vacation' this week and haven't been paying attention, so there may be more.

Bunch of hares in these parts I think.

These kind of things do not happen overnight.

If it's as damaging as I think it's going to end up being everyone jumping on it at once could easily backfire.

It took almost two years to bring Nixon down and his offenses were not nearly on the level of these.

Also, frankly I have a feeling that a lot of people in power are actually quite scared of the consequences and not simply because they might lose power.

Think about the debacle that will result if Bush goes down.
This is serious serious stuff. I doubt it would stop with Bush once it gets started. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice are all also implicated. As well as in some sense everyone in both the House and the Senate who gave Bush the blank check to begin with.
Think about what it would mean to have the executive branch so decimated.

I suspect that there are a lot of Senators and Representatives who are thinking about that right now and are scared shitless.

Don't look to tens of thousand of lobbyist or the politicians that entertain them for any relief.

Btw should we care if they are scared shitless,like ever here of "get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat"?

Has the Downing Street memo had any impact on your views about the war?

"You should go back and take a look at the book I wrote in the summer of 2003 <"Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire">. Essentially, the Downing Street memo confirms everything I said."

Do you think the memo will change the way Americans think about the war or the president?

"The Downing Street memo hasn't been given adequate recognition in the press. I think the truth about Iraq is this: It was an elective war; it was a war we didn't have to fight. But this administration chose to fight it. I've said that very consistently, from way before I became a candidate and all through my campaign."

http://knightrider.forclark.com/story/2005/6/20/92658/4319

CLARK 08'!

Kerry said the press wasn't talking about the DSM first! Clark used his line and twisted it.

Lame arguement isn't it. They can all say it in so many words can't they? Same with all the issues? True?

Saying it STRONGLY is even more important. I never ask our leaders to be 100% original in what they say. I ask them to say the things that need to be said when they need to be said. That's why I stay out of the who said what first game. Just aay it damn it, that's all I ask from these folks. Speak truth to power.

That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. The nominee incorporates the good ideas and/or sound bites of other candidates during the general election. I remember that Dean supporters recognized some of his sound bites. If someone says that Clark said this or that first is NOT a swipe at Kerry, it just giving Clark some credit. BIG difference.

but it seems to be a sore point.

The discussion of Clark, the DSM, and manipulated intelligence (so far as I could tell) had no relation whatsoever to John Kerry.

But hey, :shrug: it makes me beg for an answer to the question ....

Nope, on second thought, not gonna ask....

All Dems are welcome to strongly back the notion that we need hearings, with full subpoena power, in order to investigate the implications of the DSM.

Welcome Gen. Clark. Welcome Sen. Reid. Welcome Sen. Kerry. Welcome Sen. Levin (who raised this on the floor a while ago, albeit in passing.) We need all the help we can get.

We should all be on the same page with this. It's important and doesn't deserve to devolve into a pissing contest over who was first or whatever. It is my understanding that Sen. Kerry has a letter circulating around the Senate to get sigs to get a Senate Comm to hold these hearings. Great. Let them all sign. Then let other prominent Dems get in the act and also push for accountability. The more the merrier.

Yet just the other day a Clark supporter accused Kerry of using Clark's TP's in the primaries. Totally ludicrous, since Kerry had been talking about the TP's mentioned before Clark ever announced he'd run.

Instead of working together, we have all this bashing and accusing going on. I think a lot of people are sick and tired of it.

What's the big deal about it?!!!! Of course, Kerry had talked about the same ISSUES before. But it is commonplace to use successful SOUND BITES from primary candidates during the general election. This is what working together MEANS. No need to be so defensive about it.

yet acknowledging this apparently is an extrememly sore spot for some...go figure....

Clark was advising the Senate Democratic Policy Committee only yesterday. Chances are some of these Senators will be saying things Clark advised them to say. I can only hope our Democrats start saying the same things so we can have a sensibly comprehensive policy message to project to the public.

I never put forward who-said-what-first comments, because I don't think it's productive. I think they all have done it or I hope so.

But the argument going on in this thread is childish and NOT productive. Don't we all have more important things to be doing?

On the Senate side of the Capitol, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., cited the memo Thursday in further holding up Bush's nominee for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.

Reid and Senate Democrats have demanded a full accounting of whether Bolton exaggerated assessments of several countries' weapons programs.

"Concerns about this administration hyping intelligence and Great Britain hyping intelligence cannot be dismissed lightly," Reid said, adding that it "is no small matter for us to learn whether Mr. Bolton was a party to other efforts to hype intelligence."

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/messageboards/lofiversion/index.php/t55186.html

As for Dean he's allowing his PAC to take on the memo's with force:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

Americans deserve to know the truth about this war. Every day innocent Iraqi civilians and brave American servicemen and women die. The more people we can reach with this movie, the closer we come to the day when we bring our troops home alive.

If your computer has a hard time handling Flash—or if you want to read the Downing Street Memo in full—you can go right to our petition to "Demand that Congress hold full hearings." Here's the link:

www.democracyforamerica.com/downingmemo



As for Clark, I can't defend his position on the DSM:

Do you accept this notion that the intelligence was manipulated to fit the policy whims of the Bush administration?

PERLE: No, I certainly do not. And it's worth remembering that the intelligence that was presented with respect to what Saddam was believed to have in the way of weapons of mass destruction was the same intelligence that had been presented to the previous administration. There was nothing new about it. It was not produced under pressure. It was woefully inadequate but it was an honest attempt by the intelligence community to say what it thought it knew.

BLITZER: Do you believe it was an honest attempt for the intelligence community to come up with an assessment, or there was political manipulation, General Clark, of the intelligence community?

CLARK: Well, the British memo doesn't say there was any manipulation. I think what Richard said is exactly right. It's the same intelligence that I had when I was running the campaign from Turkey against northern Iraq.

Not sure what Wes thinks "fixing intelligence" is?

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum71/44108.html

I expect we'll hear more soon from all.

as well a being more complete than a blog posting.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/22/le.01.html

so.

Also *I* did not leave out anything. The source I linked did and it was the only statement from Clark I could find.

However, I don't feel that the left out portion is counter to his position that the intelligence wasn't fixed? Using "valid" intelligence is not the issue here. Also, Clark doesn't address the issue in a satisfactory manner as far as I'm personally concerned.

Though, I am not bashing Clark, he's entitled to his opinion ... I feel that he is also open minded enough to continually review the facts surrounding the issues and I expect he'll come around as new evidence comes to light.

and for your thoughtful comments.:hi:

We get back to the definition of 'fixed' again. Clark is absolutely convinced that Bush highlighted/used/emphasized/promoted/sold the 'unreliable' intel that was gathered and made what had been found as the 'worst case' in order to push the war.

He is not convinced (and says DSM doesn't indicate) that the intelligence was changed/adjusted/modified/manipulated/created. Mostly because it was the same thing he saw back in 1999. He's said over and over that it wasn't sufficient to start a war then, and it shouldn't have been sufficient in 2003.

Bush was looking for an excuse, and couldn't find anything that any reasonable person (including the Clinton administration) would consider sufficient to go to war.

He (Bush) used what was provided by highly-suspect sources without regard for other opinions and interpretations because he intended all along to pursue his own agenda and used whatever facts were available to fit his agenda.

You're right, though. Clark's one of the few who constantly reflects on new information. One of the reasons I respect his opinion.

I shall take your points into consideration. :hi:

seem to have missed the key word in the question Clark was asked:

BLITZER: Do you believe it was an honest attempt for the intelligence community to come up with an assessment, or there was political manipulation, General Clark, of the intelligence community?

CLARK: Well, the British memo doesn't say there was any manipulation.

*****
Community...the intelligence community, not the intelligence itself. Of course the intelligence itself was fixed or manipulated or whatever, but that's not what Blitzer asked him.

They spent 30 seconds educating the public about this- so I guess all the critics who are saying Top DEMs are not doing enough is unfounded.

They mentioned it- time to move on I guess.

DFA has an ongoing petition.

And, who's to say how often X mentioned this issue when the "Establishment media" refuses to take it seriously.

I think the fact that over 100 Dems in the congress are calling for an investigation merits less whining on our part. The Senate has MANY issues to tend to, and from what I gather they are working on an official Senate action as well.

Nixon wasn't impeached overnight, and then the media was on the right side back then. Impeaching Bush likely won't give a shit if Bush lied.

So Wolf Blitzer wont talk about it?- is he holding a gun to Howard Dean when he goes on TV interview shows and talks about it?

the authority to investigate gather more information before he makes a FIRM statement. He's also allowing his PAC to take an aggressive position.

I think if Dean an "anti-war candidate" embraces the DSM issue, it's not going to be very surprising or garner much attention.

Dean has said that he felt the info in the DSM was a given, and we've known it for sometime. I agree with him, but I think that those who didn't know it was a given are the ones who need to comment LOUDLY now.

When this story dies and no one outside the internet world remembers it, be sure you remeber all the opportunities where Top DEMs with media access could have made it a house-hold issue.

like they did last week.

...and neither did any of the people in my office. So "forgetting" those hearings wont be a problem for most folks!

Why?

They did not see it on the TV.

What did the Top Democrats do to promote awareness of those hearings? Mass emails? TV appearances? Op Eds in local papers? Nope.

The only people they spoke too were CSPAN & internet audiences. That's not enough.

Check Conyers site for official press releases for starters.

Sorry- it's Dean, Kerry, Hillary, etc job to promote Democratic iniciatives- not GOP owned corporations.

Dean, Kerry, Hillary, etc should have been on TV the night before the hearings to promote awareness of it- or at he very least a mass e-mail.

The sooner we realize that WE have to do what the GOP owned medias will not, the better.

Blaming the media is like blaming Rove- it gets you no where.

"My response to Karl Rove Best Of Blogs? · Add to my Hotlist
By Wes Clark
Posted to Wes Clark's weblog on Thu Jun 23rd, 2005 at 06:08:58 PM EST
Democrats everywhere are bemoaning the preposterous and inflammatory remarks Karl Rove is accused of saying in response to the Senator Durbin's remarks on Guantanamo Bay:
"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals...Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." --Karl Rove

I am so saddened by this untrue, unfair, unwise statement made by President Bush's closest advisor. I hope you will express your sadness directly to the highest authority."

Wes Clark


http://wes-clark.forclark.com/story/2005/6/23/18858/3813

Sorry for the duplication...Great minds and all that, I guess. :)

No problemo!!

:toast:

Where's he suggesting we write/call -- the White House? Hmm...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Let's give it to the Bush White House with both barrels...as voters who will not forget Rove's words on Election Day 2006.

:nuke:

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

It does truly appear that this thread has outlived its usefulness.