RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets

WACO "RUMORS"
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/004501.html
Wesley Clark and Waco Rumors are re-surfacing that Ret. General Wesley Clark played a direct or indirect role in the Waco disaster because his army division supplied some military equipment to the siege effort and his deputy attended a high-level meeting five days prior to the fiery end. Response has been swift that the allegations of his playing a role are not true: bq. Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege. Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's,"
>snip
Many are calling on Clark now to make a formal statement about the extent of his knowledge of the Government's plan and any authorization he made for equipment being sent from the First Cavalry. We have no problem with that--we'd like to know too. But we're predicting the answers will be a let-down for the far right

the potential results of the Genocide that might have been (cause i've seen them before), the fact that it was stopped and the undeniable truth that people's lives were saved, albeit, not every single last one of them.

Some only see the bombing and believe that there should have been a better way, although we don't know what that way would have been, as we can only guess, because we also don't have an outcome to discuss that actually occurred.

In the end, I am a realist who looks at the end results of that intervention understanding that not intervening would have been worse, and I am glad that it turned out as it did....understanding that perfect is usually not possible in the case of forced intervention and war.

It is true that some on the left are Idealists who looks at the end results feeling that it could have been done better doing something else, something that one cannot be certain as to the results because it never happened, but still feel compeled to criticize known results.

Wes Clark is a great man, and is a great General, not a perfect man nor a perfect General. that's my opinion based on my research.
Some may have forgotten about the 200,000 dead Bosnians prior to Kosovo, as well as the 800,000 dead Rwandans.....something Clark never did forget...and therefor felt that the Kosovo mission was urgent.

Clark says it better here:

"If we have learned but one thing in the tragic breakup of the old Yugoslavia, it is the need to act early and robustly in a crisis. The United States, as the leading power in NATO, should know this best of all. In 1991 America stood by as the United Nations and many European nations tried unsuccessfully to cope with devastating war in the Balkans. Some 200,000 casualties and 2 million people made homeless, capped with the gruesome massacre of more than 5,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, finally pushed the United States and NATO into action. In 1995, when the United States pledged to commit American troops to enforce peace alongside European allies, we brought the hostilities to an end.

In 1999, as ethnic cleansing grew in Kosovo, NATO backed up unsuccessful diplomacy with Operation Allied Force, which reversed the Serb violence and ultimately led to Slobodan Milosevic's being removed from power and delivered to The Hague in June for prosecution. --

In an article written in October of 2002 which was widely highlighted during the 2004 campaign to "prove" that Wes Clark was for "the" Iraq War Resolution, please take NOTE at what Clark actually said and what the choices were at the time that he stated that he would support "a" resolution....--He did not state that he would support "the" blank check resolution , and considering that amendments were being passed on the final language of the Resolution right up to the time that it was voted on....this leads me to believe that the press played gotcha with Clark one year later.

Read the whole article written in 2002 (as posted in this post), and understand that the context said more about Clark's true feeling on what was happening in America as we were debating the facts. Alongside the fact that when one makes the substitution of "THE" for "A", what the story told is "a" very different story than Clark simply supporting "the" resolution.

Wesley Clark was talking about PNAC years ago and pointing his finger in the direction that only "Left wing Bloggers" would recognize! For those still not familiar with this organization (PNAC), its founding member Bill Krystol just “got” himself a job with the Times (Times-Warner parent of CNN-2006 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/10/12/conservative-columnist-bi_n_8746.html ) as a columnist. PNAC was the guiding light in orchestrating the Iraq War, and was hard at work promoting such since 1998! Here’s what was reported that Wes Clark had to say about PNAC going back to 2003!

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.

In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration,“in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy — promoted by the Project for a New American Century— much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.”

Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan. by Matthew Continetti 12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.

Some would wish to saddle Wes Clark with the total ridiculous credit for being the sole supporter and abater of the SOA based on his one year stint in 1996-97 as CICEUR, then it would be fair and appropos that he then be also given all of the credit for all of the positive changes in Latin America in them being more to the left than even America currently (more leftists have been elected and govern there than ever before!). In fact, 1996 was the year many revelations were made on the SOA and the year that changes were requested and later granted. if we're gonna go way out there, might as well be all emcompassing in everyway imaginable!

Do these same people know that Clark did not institute the SOA (which was established back in the 40s)? Do they know that it is congress that funds it? Do they know that it was while Wes Clark was CIC that reforms were done there? Do they know that the worse abuse in Latin America by those who may have graduated from the SOA occurred in the '60, '70 and '80s way before Clark's time? Do they know that Wes Clark is not responsible for the SOA and has stated that if anyone can point to abuses there, if he were President, he would shut it down? Do all of the "left" anti SOA peeps know that maybe what they should also concentrate on are the human abuses going on in China and in Iraq and many other p, as opposed to this old Red Herring always pulled out and slammed into Wes Clark's face as though he really is more responsible for its existence than all those folks in the senate, the house and the executive branch....while Wes Clark never had a vote? They must not know any of these things, otherwise same folks would be busy writing their senators and congressional representatives telling them to defund the school.

George Bruno will be happy to take you down there," Clark told the woman who questioned him in Concord. "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," he said. But if "you find nothing wrong and you see these officers and noncommissioned officers in there learning about human rights, I'd like you to change your position." link is to a smear page, do not use.... haah http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

Those not giving Clark credit for his performance in 2004 in the Democratic Primaries are not being fair to Clark’s demonstrated campaign skills, and that’s a shame because he could and would do so much better in 2008, till it's not even funny!

The General entered the race in mid September (4 short months before the first primary vote) without a personal fortune....and by January '04 had raised the most money for that important quarter (beating out Dean). This was done while he had to hire left-over campaign strategist (since there were 9 other campaigns going on), had no experience running before, had to develop position papers in record time (was not a life time politician with a ready made senate staff)...and was attacked relentlessly by both parties, as he was everyone's nightmare if he did well.

Simply stated, because he chose not to contest Iowa (due to too short a time and too little resources)....he missed the big media blitz that blew Kerry and Edwards onto the finish line.

Still less than a week prior to Iowa and left out of the whole media blitz, Clark was polling 2nd in New Hampshire, 4 points behind Howard Dean, and 1st in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota and 2nd in South Carolina.

(Attribution:Tom Rinaldo)
The Author of "No Place to Hide", Robert O'Harrow Jr., fully vouches for Clark and the brief work he did on behalf of Axiom regarding screening plane passengers for possible terrorists trying to board immediately after 911 (I assume that's what you are talking about - Clark hasn't worked with them for years)

Here's what O'Harrow had to say about Clark and his involvement with Acxiom at this conference held in 2003:

"“NO PLACE TO HIDE: WHERE THE DATA REVOLUTION MEETS HOMELAND SECURITY”

MODERATOR:
P. J. CROWLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

FEATURING:
GENERAL WESLEY K. CLARK
JAMES X. DEMPSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
NUALA O’CONNOR KELLY, CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ROBERT O’HARROW, JR., REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST; AUTHOR, NO PLACE TO HIDE

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Acxiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

Clark's with the good guys on this one, not the good old boys network.

as far as Clark's progressive bonafides, here's a paragraph:

Clark's '04 tax proposals; his stance on singlepayer health care; his education benefit proposals for lower and higher education ($6,000 for first two years of college to those of families making under $150,000 and universal pre-school system--not tax credits)proposals; his renewal energy stance and work on Global Warming, his '04 primary endorsement by various gay and minority groups, his public calls for the fairness doctrine to be reinstated; his work on fair and secure election via his podcast programs; his fight for Affirmative Action via written support via Supreme Court case; his Aids program proposal touted by Jesse Jackson; his work on Rwanda, Kosovo and Darfur against Genocide; his stance against going into Iraq starting in 2002; his public claim to the word "Liberal" on national teevee, his televised defense of Michael Moore via the right to Free Speech when no one else would; his public discussions and denouncements of PNAC/Neocons in print and electronic media; his tireless work for Democrats in the 2004 and 2006 elections; his making it known that military budgetary items would be "on the table" for cutting if he were to be elected as President; his announcing we should be working to install a counterprevailing institution to the Military Industrial Complex via a similar organization as Kucinich's Peace Department and that we should resign ourselve to "buying" our oil at the going rate as opposed to attempting to manipulate the world markets; his public calls that we talk to Iran not Bomb them (before anyone else did); his supporting fair trade not free trade; his innovative ideas on Labor Unions and how they can return to the power they once were in our economic system; Publicly criticizing the politization of our science--all actions and words that clearly defines General Clark as more liberal than most-- But yes, Gen. Clark is actually a stealth liberal who is perceived as a moderate based on his 37 years of military service; which makes his progressiveness that much more powerful and effective.

Please Read on, cause there is sooo much more!

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION

"I don't think it is in the American public interest to further consolidate the media." Answering this reporter's question, the candidate said media consolidation "is damaging to putting out diverse opinions and fostering public dialogue. ... We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."
http://www.fradical.com/Presidential_candidate_slams_media_violence.htm