Retired General Wesley Clark: Stalking-Horse for Bush Junior and The Grey Men
Get Rid of Bush & What do you Have in Clark?
By Craig B Hulet?
Will the real General Wesley Clark please stand-up?
“General Clark did not discuss what are apparently his reversals on the war.
Last October, he said that he would support the Congressional resolution that authorized the use of military force in Iraq and
then spent months criticizing the execution of the war.
On Thursday, the day after he announced his candidacy, he said,
"I probably would have voted for" the resolution.
On Friday, he backtracked, saying, "I never would have voted for war."
-- Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writer,
Monday, September 29, 2003
During early 2003, March through July, I informed my client base, through press releases, an article and e-mails, then later at our regular quarterly business roundtables that George Bush Junior was building the American-led empire, just as Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan and Carter before him. This was and is seen as bad enough if you understand what this regime means for liberty, jobs and any hopes for a future living standard somewhat above that of a third-world developing country. But that is not the only threat in the future for Americans. I stated it this way on a Los Angeles radio interview during May:
...Craig B Hulet:
“I used to say, ‘you think Clinton’s bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.’
And if you think George Bush is the problem, you have not seen what comes after Bush.
Bush is building the Empire. Wait until you see who comes to run the Empire.
Frank Sontag: Maybe we’ll have a guy in uniform as President.
CBHulet: I did mention that in a press release.
I’m looking for a 4-star general, retired,
that’s looking for a nomination.
And believe me, they’re out there.
Whoever runs this Empire will not be of the same
ilk as those who build it.”
(Source: Tape One, about 20 minutes
left on Side A, May 26, 2003
Frank Sontag interview KLOS/KABC Los Angeles)
Given that retired General Wesley Clark was retired but working over at CNN, his particular name did not come up. But there are reasons why I knew early on right after 9/11, that we would see a four star general, retired, move to center stage to run the American-led Empire. Clark, a life-long bona fide “voting Republican” (most military “lifers” are registered independents, for political and career motives) clearly was approached. If anything his statements are ambivalent, stating at one point “I think I may have voted for Nixon (think? may have?) he categorically voted for Ronald Reagan twice and Bush Senior twice; and later claims to have changed his mind when Clinton ran a second time but still admitting “I voted for the man, not the party.” (Nobody wants to ask him the really important questions: did he vote for George Bush Junior rather than Al Gore? [yes!] ) In other words Wesley Clark is a Republican through and through.
So who then approached this retired general (retired for good reasons) to switch parties for the present Presidential race of 2004? Clark was not initially approached by Bill Clinton, as the media is straining to convince one and all. No, Mr. Clark, as a Republican voting, media guy, had to be convinced of the necessity to fully and visibly “switch” parties. Clark arguably was approached all right, but I suggest by the Grey Men who remain behind the curtains and “really run the show,” as Benjamin Disraeli once described them. An elite. The men who put up millions of dollars to see their agenda fulfilled, not mine, not yours, theirs; and their agenda is the corporate agenda whose ideological makeup is Corporatism. Even if the old haggard Numb Chomsky over at MIT (fourth largest U.S. defense contractor) cannot personalize the problematic, all knowledgeable press prevaricators know these men by name. They are the men who decide how and where the country is taken (both meanings). They are what the general has worked for all these years of obedient preening military service and as I shall demonstrate fully below, he continued to work for in the empire’s behalf after his retirement.
Before I analyze this agenda we need to look at what the media is doing, how they are playing this out on the great stage-play of pretenders this presidential election year hails forth.
“Gen. Wesley K. Clark called today for ‘a new American patriotism’ that would encourage broader public service, respect domestic dissent even in wartime and embrace international organizations like the United Nations. General Clark, a former NATO commander and Army officer who last week announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration of neglecting economic problems and of pursuing a dangerous go-it-alone foreign policy....But he also used the setting of the Citadel, the military college here, to appeal to about 150 cadets and civilians on the parade grounds to help restore something loftier, a sense of national spirit that he suggested that the administration’s campaign against terror had corroded.” (Source: Clark Calls for a ‘New American Patriotism’ By Eric Schmitt, Charleston S.C., Sept. 22, 2003)
“A hint at the future ‘New American patriotism’:
“ Lt. Gen. James Helmly, chief of the 205,000-member Army Reserve,
said Pentagon leaders will be monitoring retention rates closely next year,
when problems could begin to become apparent for
full-time and part-time soldiers coming off long tours of duty in Iraq.
"Retention is what I am most worried about.
It is my No. 1 concern,”
"This is the first extended-duration war the
country has fought with an all-volunteer force.”
(USA Today: Army Reserve fears troop exodus --By Dave Moniz, 09/30/03)
First Clark eludes euphemistically to the coming military draft, “encourage broader public service”? i.e., selective service, which would include Democrats and lefties all (though their ears are stuffed so with pride they cannot hear what he is saying). Then Clark goes on to say what every leftist, moderate conservative and classical liberal wants to hear, “We’ve got to have a new kind of patriotism that recognizes that in times of war or peace democracy requires dialogue, disagreement and the courage to speak out,” [General Clark said]. “And those who do it should not be condemned, but be praised.” Yes the General, who somewhat out of the blue changed parties to become a supposedly victimized Democrat, seemingly had a change of heart about his Republican brotherhood he has supported for so very long. Does this include Dick Cheney who Clark served so well while Cheney was Bush Senior’s Secretary of Defense? But this raises a question. Why didn’t he seek the Republican Party’s nomination in the primary? Take on Bush within his own Party? Why lend the aura of less credibility by suddenly running for the other party he never supported with his vote? One might argue that he understood that to try to unseat a sitting president in a primary is way too difficult. The only one who can really threaten the president’s position must still come from, (first the primaries, then the general election), the “other” party. Only a solid Democrat has any chance. Only Howard Dean (at the time of writing this) seems a possible candidate.
And so the devious Mr. Clark now claims he is disenchanted with this administration’s policies. What policies exactly/ Is this what Clark was thinking when he claimed he’d been pressured, victimized ala-Bill Mahr, and management caved-in at CNN to the White House and fired him because he had criticized Bush’s Iraq war policies? The White House states no such thing happened? In this case I believe the White House (which is very rare for me all my adult days). That Clark claimed it on Fox T.V. too gives his assertion even less an air of truth. Think about it. Clark was not fired by CNN upon the orders of the White House any more than Michael Moore’s last book was banned; both were hoaxes! Clark “needed” to “look” like a democratic victim to make his case for the Democratic nomination! I’ll make my argument here.
In the same article above the reporter noted that “General Clark was invited to speak here (the Citadel) by Philip Lader, a visiting professor of political science who is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. Many former top Clinton aides have roles in his campaign.” Clinton backing will get him the Democrat’s backing in the primaries but Clinton has proven to be a liability for anyone with serious intentions about ultimately winning, not the primary, but the general election. Clinton maybe assures the general’s Democratic primary nomination because Democrats these days are as bereft of intelligence as your local county country white trash. But Clinton also assures the general loses the general election. You see, nothing will rally Republican voters to turn-out like Bill Clinton and Lady Hillary of WalMart being back in our collective faces!
Still, and it is important, this is “meant to look like” Clinton is behind Clark all the way. We should all recall just how little respect Bill Clinton and Lady Hillary of WalMart had for the military; Clinton often refused to return a salute from military personnel and his portrait was not hung in numerous military establishments throughout the nation, Regan and Bush Senior still firmly in place. Mr. Clinton never tried to hide his dislike for the military and specifically the Pentagon’s generals and received criticism from the Joint Chiefs on more than one occasion for his rude manner. So, in my opinion Clark’s opening charge stinks of contrivance when he states “ I’m running for president because I could not stand by and watch everything that we fought for, everything our nation had accomplished and become, unravel before our eyes.” Right then, he says all the right things to sweep the primaries and make sure no other Democrat wins the same primary nomination. Certainly not Howard Dean. But indeed Clinton is behind the general, but not for the reasons one might think. This was reported in a different piece of late:
“Behind Gen. Wesley K. Clark’s candidacy for the White House is a former president fanning the flames....General Clark, in fact, said today that he had had a series of conversations with both the former president, Bill Clinton, and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as well as close aides to them and that all of them had encouraged him to run....The story, though, is not simple....At first glance, it would seem that Mr. Clinton and General Clark would have a longtime bond. They each lost their fathers early. From the same small patch of 1950’s America, they emerged as ambitious, high-achieving golden boys, becoming Rhodes Scholars and attending Oxford University, then soaring to the tops of their respective professions at relatively young ages....In reality, they hardly knew each other. Instead of paths that crossed, theirs were parallel. And when their lives finally intersected - while Mr. Clinton was president and General Clark commanded the allied troops in Europe - it was a complex and tortured time for both....To General Clark’s humiliation, President Clinton’s Pentagon relieved him of his command. And President Clinton had signed off on the plan, according to several published accounts, apparently unaware that he was being deceived by Clark detractors....Now the 58-year-old career Army officer wants to be president. And the 57-year-old former president seems eager to promote his candidacy.” (Source: Late-Arriving Candidate Got Push From Clintons By Katherine Q. Seelye, Sept. 18, 2003)
Some reporters on the left are absolutely cooing over the Clinton connection, as tenuous as it is.
“This week, a flood of former Clintonites flew into Little Rock to teach Clark the ropes of a successful campaign. Among the Clinton and Gore crew are Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani, Gore’s chief of staff Ron Klain, former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor; former Gore field director Donnie Fowler; Washington attorneys Ron Klain and Bill Oldaker; New Hampshire activist and Clinton friend George Bruno; Clinton appointee Vanessa Weaver and Eli Segal, former head of AmeriCorps. ...Powerful advertising man Skip Rutherford, a Clinton fundraiser and president of the Clinton Foundation that oversees the construction of the Clinton Library in Little Rock, also attended the campaign meeting. His attendance signaled to some that Clinton was much more involved in this campaign than appears apparent....This influence became much clearer on Wednesday as the former president’s inner circle organized the artificial hoopla and former White House staffers and interns fanned out to dispense bottles of water, sign up volunteers and handle media. The theme that resonated: ‘Don’t Stop Thinking About Yesterday.’” (Source: Wesley Clark Announces ... Finally, Suzi Parker, AlterNet, September 18, 2003)
Don’t stop thinking about yesterday? You mean Clinton and Gore, and Hillary and Monica? One is always amazed at the Democratic left; they will believe anything in the vain hope of beating a Republican, any Republican, even if “their candidate” is a life-long “voting Republican,” and is an army guy! (And do try to remember, most army guys, if they are lifers, register as “independents” as a career move.) Out of nowhere, if not right-field, Clark decides to change his entire pattern of life, his true party affiliation, if not better said, affection, to run as a Democrat. And all he need say to D’s is, “I’m for abortion rights, gun control,... I don’t think being a homosexual is a sin, and I think Mr. Bush is wrong in Iraq...” and the mental defectives in “the party” like Barb, would follow him to hell. American politics looks like nothing so much as a NFL playoff. It’s about beating a Republican, not the real issues that matter, not reality, not what “is.”
The real problematic? In the end, the so-called “Alternative Media,” “Independent Media,” and even “Pacifica Radio,” are “just Democrats,” and the emphasis is on “just,”--as in only, insufficiently so, meaning sadly. Indeed it all looks terribly contrived, even the above reporter had to note this, “even Clark’s theme song at the end of the speech seemed odd -- Woody Guthrie’s ‘This Land Is Your Land.’ An aide said the song was picked to make Clark ‘look progressive.’” --as in “look,” appear to be, a make-shift contrivance, a con job. “Or perhaps it’s a war call to let [Howard] Dean know he’s coming after his base,” the dreamy-eyed Suzi added.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Of course Clark almost immediately heads for the other Mecca of disingenuousness, Hollywood, to be wooed and courted by the real masters of deceit, movie producers and directors: “Andy Spahn, a political adviser who runs corporate affairs for Dreamworks, attended the Spielberg lunch with General Clark, who is based in Little Rock, Ark., saying “There’s a lot of buzz about General Clark now,” Mr. Spahn said. “He combines in one package the attributes of several other candidates. He’s got the Southern base of John Edwards, the outsider status of Howard Dean and a military record that trumps John Kerry.” Mr. Morton, recently host to a dinner with Jordan Kerner, a producer, for General Clark, said: “Simply put, I was blown away by the man. He’s pro-choice, pro-affirmative action. He’s fiscally responsible. He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which I have no problem with and every affluent person I spoke to has no problem with.... “Besides, Republicans have generally been synonymous with generals. To have a Democratic candidate with his military résumé is a powerful element to add to the whole package.” (Source: NYT, The Latest Star on the Hollywood Circuit: Clark, October 1, 2003 By Bernard Weinraub) Bear in mind the above is somewhat irrelevant as the movie crowd, no matter what that whiney little brat Sean Hannity may say, never puts up more than a nickel towards their politics. But let us go forward with the analysis.
Listen to the language, “the whole package,” “a lot of buzz,” as though he was auditioning to play a part in the remake of Patton! And “fiscally responsible,” which absolutely nobody can claim about this entirely “untested” man. But just how politically ignorant these peculiarly inept movie moguls are...they actually believe what the general says, first, and secondly that the general has the “outsider status of Howard Dean”! Dead wrong! Clark is the consummate insider of the American-led empire’s globalization process, and its devastation to the U.S. economy and jobs? Indeed Clark has complained of late that the loss of American jobs overseas is one of things he will address as president, as “the Bush administration has done nothing in this area to stem the tide of American’s jobs going overseas.” Remember this line.
One author is not about to be taken-in, and he seems closer to the mark. “Let it never be said the neo-conservatives are not persistent. That’s why they must be rounded up by the FBI and charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. But let’s save that issue for another time. The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a ‘New Democrat.’ The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman’s candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a ‘go-to’ candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year....The ‘New Democrats’ (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark’s presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of ‘Mecca’ for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes.” (Source: Wesley Clark for President? Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons, By Wayne Madsen)
Now we are getting somewhere. With the exception of his correct depiction of Clark being a neo-conservative and a stalking horse, Madsen is wrong that it is for the Democratic Party that Clark is stalking at all. Clark is out to secure the Presidency of George W. Bush Junior. Howard Dean and John Kerry must have the Grey Men very nervous indeed.
Col. David Hackworth goes Madsen one further when he wrote regarding the USS Cole attack, “Gen. Wesley Clark of Serbian War shame -- now retired and working for the same Arkansas gang that contributed so generously to Clinton’s taking over the White House in 1992 -- told TV journalist Geraldo Rivera that the U.S. military must take risks; that big guys don’t hide from trouble; and that because we’re a superpower, we had to enter this terrorist hangout to “show the flag.” Showing the flag may have worked when Teddy Roosevelt dispatched the Great White Fleet. But it doesn’t make a lick of sense when a high-tech warship capable of mass destruction can be taken out by two martyrs in a small craft who pulled off a kamikaze attack with a tactic as old as the Trojan Horse.” Col. Hackworth was even closer to a future truth than he knew. The real Trojan Horse would turn out to be (should he win of course, which is not the plan at all) Wesley Clark himself. (Note: within both analyses above both author’s err in another way; Clinton did not “win” with the Little Rock gang’s backing, Clinton cannot help Clark win, but instead he will assure he loses in the general election. And it was Ross Perot, both times, that hurled Clinton into the White House with fewer than 50 percent of the popular vote both times.) As an aside as well, the economy then did not defeat George Bush Senior; without Perot, Bush Senior would have soundly trounced Clinton or any other Democrat.
I am certainly aware that discussing any member of the elite regarding their personal financial connections is taboo on the progressive left. MIT’s (the fourth largest US defense contractor) professor Numb Chomsky has most of these self-appointed elitists (in their own minds at least) convinced that the boards of directors one sits on, the stocks owned and the circle one runs-in through non-governmental organizations (NGO) does not matter. Yet these same progressives have a fit and connect the dots of anyone, other than progressives, who might run in specific circles, or have been “seen” at a meeting not sanctioned by these self-important leftists. Lawyer Danny Sheehan, formerly of the Christic Institute, was hounded for years by these creepy smarmy types on the Pacifica left. Why? He had committed a kind of adultery when he spoke with or included statements by, say, Col. Bo Gritz (Ret.), when preparing a legal brief. Suddenly Sheehan was suspect because he was “associating with” someone not approved of by these sad sick slobs who call themselves “anti-Racist Watchdogs” on the left. He was even accused (of what we can’t be sure, but it was definitely an accusation), that he had a copy of Fletcher Prouty’s book “JFK” on his book shelf? A book? On a shelf? According to the pathetic Pacifica elitists, only the deluded Leftist watch-dogs are to be privileged enough to read a book not published by South End Press. Their thinking? They are the only ones “that can rise above the language structure and interpret the truth of the text, its hidden subliminal meaning.” -- post-modern claptrap!
Sometimes it does matter who someone might be very close to. Financial dealings matter. Who one sits on a board of directors with matters. Nobody of an opposite thought process of the board members gets appointed to a board of directors! So it matters who you run with. Not about every mundane individual, but certainly it matters when that individual runs for the highest office in the land; certainly more so when he suddenly creates a phony media event saying “the White House got me fired for criticizing the president,” which wasn’t true, but gained him untold media exposure (i.e., name recognition which otherwise would have cost millions of dollars) and sympathy on the Democratic left (even the general was treated badly by Fox T.V.’s rabid right). Certainly it matters when this individual “switches party affiliations” (so as to run against that same president he was critical of) out of right-field; certainly it matters a great deal that he runs in the same neo-conservative circles of elites that not only the Clinton’s did, but the “very same” circles Mr. Bush Junior and Mr. Bush Senior did, and still does. It matters.
While in the Army Clark was General Alexander Haig’s protege. Deep throat? The month the general retired from the military he was on the board of directors of the Stephens Group, merchant bakers, out of Little Rock, Arkansas as their managing director. The firm’s website states the group’s activities this way:
“Stephens Inc. has been putting its own capital into companies and enterprises since 1933, with investments ranging from small positions in public and private companies to outright acquisitions. Primarily through our parent, Stephens Group Inc., we invest in a wide variety of industries. Many of the companies in which we have invested have become leaders in their industries. Our industry investments include: Oil and gas, Publishing and media, Health care, Financial services, Technology, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retailing and others, the Internet and e-commerce.”
Clark joined Stephens Group, Inc., in July 2000, as I stated, the same month he retired from the Army. He served on the boards of directors of Acxiom Corp. of Little Rock; Entrust Inc. of Dallas; Sirva, Inc. of Westmont, Ill.; and privately held Time Domain Inc. of Huntsville, Ala.
It may be irrelevant that Lady Hillary of WalMart was a Rose Law firm associate in Little Rock as well. But let us take note for historical reasons in any case. Rose Law Firm clients include:
Acxiom, Corporation Alcoa, Inc., Arkansas Business Publishing Group, Arkansas Capital Corporation, Arkansas Development Finance Authority, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Arkansas Gas Consumers, Arkansas-Oklahoma Gas Corp. Aromatique, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., Bank of the Ozarks Baxter, Healthcare Corp., Bombardier, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Bunge Corporation, CIGNA Companies, City of Little Rock AR, Residential Housing and Public Facilities Board, Columbia Chemicals Company, Cooper Communities, Inc., Deltic Timber Corporation, Diamond State Ventures, Donrey Media Group, Inc., The Equitable Life Assurance, Society of The United States Fairfield Communities, Inc., Firstar Bank, N.A., General Electric Capital Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Gulf States Toyota, Inc., John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., HEALTHSCOPE Benefits, Inc., International Paper Co., The Kemper Insurance Group, Lyon College, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Morgan, Keegan & Company, Inc., Mountaire Corporation, Murphy Oil Corporation, New York Life Insurance Co. Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, Panhandle Eastern Corp., Peabody Hotel Group, Plum Creek Timber Company, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pulaski Bank and Trust Company, J.A. Riggs Tractor Company, Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust, Pat Salmon and Sons, Inc., Keith Smith Company, Inc., Sol Alman Company, St. Bernards Regional Medical Center, Stephens Inc., Stephens Group, Inc., Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable Trust, Bank of America, Trustee SunCom, Wireless TeleCorp Communications, Inc., Temple-Inland Forest Products, Tyson Foods, Inc., White River Health Systems, Inc., Wingmead, Inc.
Acxiom Corporation, 1 Information Way, Little Rock, AR 72203
· Number 72 on Fortune’s “Best Companies to Work for” list.
· Serves customers in the government, media, retail, financial services, health care, telecom, automotive, and consumer products markets.
Founded in 1969 to help the Democratic Party improve its mailing lists, Acxiom sells its enormous marketing database to direct marketers and other companies that want to more precisely target their customers. The database contains information about 95 percent of all households in America.
One company that Clark sat on the board of Directors and lent his name is SIRVA, Inc.; whose wholly owned company, SIRVA Relocation, has as its main function in over one hundred countries, the relocation of entire firms and industries overseas. In other words, the general, complaining about the deteriorating economic foundations here in America and the attendant job losses (did you remember?) from globalization whereby American workers are abandoned as companies move offshore, was aided and abetted by non-other than general Wesley Clark (retired), who was paid quite well (salary and stock) in seeing that this was done expeditiously, efficiently; or to put it in SIRVA’s own words:
GLOBAL ASSIGNMENT MANAGEMENT
With offices in over 43 countries, Global Certified Partners in over 100 countries and Regional Centers of Excellence in Chicago, London and Hong Kong, SIRVA brings you unprecedented end-to-end control of your global relocation program. "global_locations.asp" for a complete list of countries.... SIRVA Relocation’s comprehensive menu of global services begins with the first visa application and continues through the duration of every assignment. SIRVA’s Global Assignment Management Program recognizes specific needs for handling assignees from any home and host location.
Not to put too fine an edge on my humble presentation but the general may just be the biggest liar to have ever run for public office in American history. Indeed, the general, in this analyst’s humble opinion, is set to protect the American-led Empire from any disruption, any change of course, set out by the present administration of George Bush Junior and his band of elite neo-conservatives.
General Wesley Clark has, for years, circulated in the very same circles as each neo-con holding senior positions in the present Bush administration and has been a board member of the institutions of this American-led empire-building everywhere he could wriggle his skinny bullock’s way in. On the boards along with Clark are not a group of patriotic America-firsters, a pack of Pat Buchanan’s or isolationists. Indeed, we find Clark in the company of nearly every significant Republican office holder who has pressed forward the corporate globalization agenda of the U.S. multinational monopoly corporate structure for decades: i.e., Corporatism. His bio off the web states:
General Wesley K. Clark (U.S. Army, Retired) is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a business services and development firm based in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is senior military analyst for Cable News Network (CNN) and is Chairman of the Board of WaveCrest Laboratories, a technology company that specializes in electric propulsion systems that transform electrical energy into mechanical motion. General Clark is a noted speaker presenting key insights on strategic leadership, foreign and military policy and high technology to corporate leaders and other audiences. He serves pro bono as a distinguished senior advisor for the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), as a Director of the Atlantic Council, and as a member of the board of the International Crisis Group, Messer-Griesheim and SIRVA Corporation.
Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS): CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, formerly deputy secretary of defense, who has been president and CEO since April 2000. It is guided by a board of trustees chaired by former senator Sam Nunn. Brent Scowcroft chairs the board of governors; and Zbigniew Brzezinski are listed under “members” and the whole list with some background is included here:
Betty Stanley Beene: United Way
Reginald K. Brack: Time Inc., Time Warner, Inc.
William Brock: 1985 - 1987: United States Secretary of Labor 1981 - 1985: United States Trade Representative 1977 - 1980: Chairman, The Republican National Committee
Harold Brown: Secretary of Defense 1977-81
Zbigniew Brzezinski: 1977 to 1981, National Security Advisor to the President
William Cohen: Secretary of defense, from January 1997 to January 2001
Ralph Cossa: Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies
Douglas N. Draft: Chairman of the board/CEO of The Coca-Cola Company
Richard Fairbanks: Ambassador-at-large under President Reagan, chief U.S. negotiator for the Middle East peace process, and assistant secretary of state for congressional relations. Also served as associate director of the White House Domestic Council
Michael P. Galvin: Assistant secretary of commerce for export administration in the Bush administration,
John J. Hamre: U.S. deputy secretary of defense (1997-1999) and under secretary of defense (comptroller) (1993-1997)
Ben W. Heinemen:
Carla Hills: U.S. Trade Representative from 1989 to 1993. As a member of President; Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Ford administration Bush’s Cabinet,
Ray L. Hunt: Chairman of the board, president, and chief executive officer of Hunt Consolidated, Inc., and chairman of the board and CEO of Hunt Oil Company. Additionally, he serves as a member of the boards of directors of Halliburton Company, PepsiCo, Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corporation, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Security Capital Group Incorporated.
Henry Kissinger: Henry Alfred Kissinger was sworn in on September 22, 1973, as the 56th secretary of state, a position he held until January 20, 1977. He also served as assistant to the president for National Security Affairs from January 20, 1969, until November 3, 1975. In July 1983, he was appointed by President Reagan to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America until it ceased operation in January 1985, and from 1984 to 1990 he served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Kaenneth G. Langhone: Serves on the boards of Choicepoint, Inc.; General Electric; TRICON Global Restaurants; Unifi, Inc.; and the New York Stock Exchange.
Donald B Marron: Chairman and chief executive officer of Paine Webber Group Inc
E. Stanley O’Neil: President and CEO of Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
Felix G. Rohatyn: U.S. ambassador to France from September 11, 1997, until December 28, 2000. managing director of the investment bank Lazard Freres and Company Board of Governors of the New York Stock Exchange from 1968 to 1972.
Charles A. Sanders: chairman and CEO of Glaxo Inc., spent eight years with Squibb Corp
James Schlesinger: senior adviser to the investment banking firm of Lehman Brothers and as chairman of the Board of Trustees of the MITRE Corporation.Nixon selected him to become chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. He held that post until February 1973 when he was named director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He served in the latter position until July 1973 when he was appointed secretary of defense. He remained at the Defense Department until November 1975.
Brent Scowcroft: Assistant to the president for national security affairs to Presidents Ford and Bush. He also served as military assistant to President Nixon and as deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs to Presidents Ford and Nixon. Prior to joining the Bush administration, General Scowcroft was vice chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc. He serves as director on the boards of Pennzoil-Quaker State and Qualcomm Corporations. He is also on the Board of Advisors of ExpertDriven, Inc.
Murray Weidenbaum:1981 and 1982, Dr. Weidenbaum was President Reagan's first chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. In that capacity, be helped to formulate the economic policy of the Reagan administration and was a key spokesman for the administration on economic and financial issues. From 1983 to 1989, he was a member of the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board.
Dolores D. Wharton: Board of directors of the Capital Bank & Trust Company, Albany, New York. In 1976, Mrs. Wharton was elected the first woman and first black to the board of the Phillips Petroleum Company and served for 18 years until her resignation in 1993. She also pioneered as a former director of the Kellogg Company for 22 years and Gannett Co., Inc. Among her other prior boards are National Public Radio (NPR), COMSAT Corporation, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, the New York Telephone Company, the Michigan National Bank, and Key Bank, Albany.
In the area of the arts, Mrs. Wharton was appointed by President Ford to the National Council on the Arts of the National Endowment for the Arts
Frederick B. Whitmore: Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. Partner in 1967; managing director since 1970, when the firm incorporated; advisory director, January 1989.
director on the following corporate boards: Ecofin Limited, London, England; Partner Reinsurance Company Limited, Bermuda; Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma; Maxcor Financial Group, New York; Sunlife of New York, New York; KOS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Florida; Southern Pacific Petroleum, Australia.
R. James Woolsey: Partner at the law firm of Shea & Gardner in Washington, D.C. He returned to the firm in January 1995 after serving two years as director of the Central Intelligence Agency is presently a member of the boards of directors or boards of managers of: Linsang Partners, LLC; BC International Corporation; Fibersense Technology Corporation; Invicta Networks, Inc.; DIANA, LLC; Agorics, Inc.; and Sun HealthCare Group, Inc. He is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. He has served in the past as a member of the boards of: USF&G; Yurie Systems, Inc.; Martin Marietta; British Aerospace, lnc.; Fairchild Industries; Titan Corporation; and DynCorp. (DynCorp has contracts to train police and military in Iraq)
Amos A. Jordon: Has held the positions of principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, deputy under secretary of state, and acting under secretary of state for security assistance. A former U.S. army brigadier general and a West Point department head, Jordan also served as a member of President Bush's Intelligence Oversight Board.
Leonard Marks: Chairman, U.S. Department of State, International Communications Advisory Committee, 1989-94.
Robert S. Strauss: Corporate lawyer; Chairman of the Board of the U.S.-Russia Business Council January 1993. He is a Partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
In August 1991, Mr. Strauss was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, he in turn became U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation.
It is veritable who’s who from each Republican administration since Nixon. A sprinkling of Democratic administration officials and a gaggle of corporate board members. Officials from the Carter Administration are less numerous as well and those familiar with Carter‘s global elite will need no further introduction here.
Atlantic Council: James A Baker III (and several other notables!) are listed as Honorary Directors -- detailed biographical material is omitted due to a veritable redundancy.
James A. Baker III
Frank C. Carlucci III
Russell E. Dougherty
Gerald R. Ford
Alexander M. Haig, Jr.
Christian A. Herter, Jr.
Robert S. McNamara
Paul H. Nitze
Bernard W. Rogers
Edward L. Rowny
George M. Seignious II
Raymond P. Shafer
George P. Shultz
William H. Webster
John C. Whitehead
Ring any bells?
Note: It should be noted here as just one instance of the politico/commercial nepotism inherent in these ongoing relationships; I am sure some Numb Chomskian “followers” will make the argument that “so what, this proves nothing.” Standing alone this is true. But one has to have had some history tracking “all” the activities of “all the men” who make up the various lists, corporate and defense board rooms, NGOs, Foundations and Trusts, and high level government positions of note. And they are far more numerous than one article about one candidate for president could possibly contain.
Santa Fe International (I know, here he goes again....)
An example might aid the Chomskian numb neophyte: Take Carla Hills, former Trade Representative in the Bush Senior administration; her husband Roderick Hills sat on the board of directors of Santa Fe International along with Brent Scowcroft, Bush Senior’s National Security advisor and partner of Kissinger Associates, along with former president Gerald Ford, who made George Bush Sr., CIA director at the crucial time of the Cointelpro hearings over CIA illegal domestic black-ops. Santa Fe International is, and was at the time of Persian Gulf I, an American corporation wholly owned by the ruling Al Sabah family of Kuwait. Which some might argue caused some personal concerns over our dispatching ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait? Given that Santa Fe International’s main contribution in the oil exploration field was its “slant drilling technology” which was used to steal oil from Iraq by the Al Sabah families’ Kuwaiti operations, one would have hoped it might have gotten a bit more notice than it did at the time.
But let us get back to our, becoming more discreditable now all the time, general Wesley Clark (Retired) and Democratic hopeful.
In the area of non-commercial enterprises the one which stands out is a Republican Administration initiated, neo-conservative institution only a few would recognize. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Here is a bit of background for the uninitiated.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was launched in the early 1980s, premised on the idea that American assistance on behalf of democracy efforts abroad would be good both for the U.S. and for those struggling around the world for freedom and self-government. This is called nation-building, which both Clark and Bush have stated the U.S. military ought not to be doing. Which is what we are presently doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Then President Ronald Reagan proposed an initiative “to foster the infrastructure of democracy--the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities--which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.” He noted that the American Political Foundation would soon begin a study “to determine how the U.S. can best contribute--as a nation--to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force.” Delivered to a packed Parliamentary chamber in Britain’s Westminster Palace, the Reagan speech on the topic would prove to be one of the central contributions to the establishment of a U.S. democracy foundation. ...The American Political Foundation’s study was funded by a $300,000 grant from the Agency for International Development(AID) and it became known as “The Democracy Program.” Its executive board consisted of a broad cross-section of participants in American politics and foreign policy making. The Democracy Program recommended establishment of a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation to be known as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Endowment, though non-governmental, would be funded primarily through annual appropriations and subject to congressional oversight. NED, in turn, would act as a grant-making foundation, distributing funds to private organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy abroad. A much needed investigation would be to look into who received some of these grants and funds over the years. (Ralph Nader’s groups like Public Citizen and right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation would be the place to start.) These private organizations would include those created by the two political parties and the business community, and those in the labor movement already in existence. ...NED’s creation was soon followed by establishment of the "http://www.cipe.org"
; (CIPE), the "http://www.ndi.org"
; (NDI), and the "http://www.iri.org"
; (later renamed the International Republican Institute or “IRI”), which joined the Free Trade Union Institute as the four affiliated institutions of the Endowment. Here is where we find Wesley Clark once again. Here is another group with as many ties to the elite institutions of governance as one could imagine.
NED Executive Board Members:
Vin Weber Chairman, Thomas R. Donahue Vice Chairman, Matthew F. McHugh Secretary, Julie Finley Treasurer, Carl Gershman President,
Board of Directors: Morton Abramowitz Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations Evan Bayh U.S. Senate, Wesley K. Clark U.S. Army Retired The Stephens Group, Inc., Frank Carlucci Chairman of the Carlyle Group, Thomas R. Donahue Senior Fellow Work in America Institute, Esther Dyson Chairman Edventure Holdings, Julie Finley Founder and Board Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, William H. Frist U.S. Senate, Francis Fukuyama Institute of Public Policy George Mason University, Ralph Gerson President & CEO Guardian International Corp., Bob Graham U.S. Senate, Lee Hamilton Director The Woodrow Wilson Center, Antonia Hernandez President Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Richard C. Holbrooke Counselor Council on Foreign Relations, Emmanuel A. Kampouris President and CEO, Retired American Standard, Inc., Jon Kyl U.S. Senate, Leon Lynch Vice President United Steelworkers of America, Matthew F. McHugh Counselor to the President The World Bank, Donald Payne U.S. House of Representatives, Vin Weber Managing Partner Clark & Weinstock, Dante B. Fascell (1917-1998), John Richardson, William E. Brock, Winston Lord, John Brademas Chairmen Emeriti , (Source: NED Annual Report 2000, NED Officers and Directors)
These are names that serious researchers know well. These are names not of liberal progressive thinkers, compassionate do-gooders, but monopoly corporate elite who revolve in and out of each administration, for five decades now, bringing the American-led empire to fruition. bringing the American-led military forces into countries uninvited to “build their nations” along lines more compatible to the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Agency for International Development. Sustainable development is one of their useful euphemisms.
This probably doesn’t matter to a numb Chomskian but Frank Carlucci Chairman of the Carlyle Group, is one name that appears with Wesley Clark often on boards of directors and NGO membership lists. It is, or ought to be at least by now, well-known, Frank Carlucci’s intimate ties to the Bush family for decades.
Circle of Friends they were called in Weimar Germany
And none of this matters to the dewy-eyed Democrats? But we, those of us trying to wrinkle our brain matter that is, begin to see the revolving door yet again. From the military, to defense firms, to the monopoly corporate board rooms to the White House. The Iron Triangle Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of; from the elite institutions and circle of friends as they have been called since the heady days of Weimar Germany. One man often sitting on up to eighty different boards of directors, institutions both non-governmental and commercial, banking and industry. The elite who’s who; where often as few as 5,000 mostly white males can be seen running everything that matters. I stated this during early 1990-91 in lectures and was duly chastised by the silly-Left as an “obscure conspiracy theorist from the right.” It bothered me none at the time as I knew time would bear it out as too true to deny any longer. We all know now who runs both major parties, who runs the important major institutions, who runs, in their enlightened self-interest everything that matters; everything that doesn’t matter, left to us to decide, bicker over.
What may be afoot
What I sense is afoot will certainly not make a Democrat grin. My sense of it is from personal, very personal experience; experiential that is to say. I have worked on more than one candidate’s campaign (both D’s and R’s and one Libertarian’s). I have seen first hand what I am about to describe to the reader.
To begin with, the Grey Men exist; it is no more a conspiracy than it is a conspiracy theory. It is neither one nor the other. They are neither left nor right. But they do care very much indeed where our country is going and it’s been going towards Empire for decades. (See this author’s book “The Hydra of Carnage” 2002; in fact see the fifty books currently in print making the argument in one way or another.) These powerful men operate on the fringe of electoral politics, funding it, manning it, backing it, but never themselves running for any elective office as that would be a significant loss of power and critical exposure. Even the president has nothing like the power the power elite (C. Wright Mills’ term, not mine) maintain by being in the background where they never see a background check.
Are these men going to spend “their” collective billions of dollars “for decades” to build their American-led Empire under the tutelage of every president since FDR, and see it frittered away by Howard Dean, John Kerry or anyone else? They have gotten a man who has long taken orders from above to switch parties and run as a stalking horse for Mr. Bush Junior, to see Bush is reelected with certainty. What kind of a man, then, is this Wesley Clark? Here is just a slight sampling from the recent past. “His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, “the Supreme Being.” “Clark is smart,” concludes one sarcastically who has monitored his career. “[But] his whole life has been spent manipulating appearances (e.g. the doctored OPFOR exercise) in the interests of his career.” (Col. David Hackworth)
“A long time ago, the French, tired of war, turned to a short general named Napoleon to lead them to peace and prosperity. Instead, Napoleon seized imperial power and ensured the French would have more war. After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the "anti-war" candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people.”
-- Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist.
Retired Colonel David Hackworth says about Clark ... “Some have said that Clark is the way the elites in the Democratic party hope to get rid of Dean who has made a mockery of the elite’s acceptable candidates - i.e., Kerry and Lieberman. Another source looked at Clark closely:
“No sooner are we told by Britain’s top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west’s war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO’s supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war....“I’m not going to start the third world war for you,” General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo’s provincial capital.” (Source: The guy who almost started World War III? From The Guardian, Tuesday August 3, 1999)
Certainly some of this may be sour grapes, anger at Clark’s unbelievable hubris; some have called him an “arrogant preener, vain brown-noser of the worst sort towards his superiors; towards his men, he treats them with contempt.”
What matters is, is he a prevaricator, a liar?
Recall above what one reporter reported: “At first glance, it would seem that Mr. Clinton and General Clark would have a longtime bond. They each lost their fathers early. From the same small patch of 1950’s America, they emerged as ambitious, high-achieving golden boys, becoming Rhodes Scholars and attending Oxford University, then soaring to the tops of their respective professions at relatively young ages.”
“In reality, they hardly knew each other. Instead of paths that crossed, theirs were parallel. And when their lives finally intersected - while Mr. Clinton was president and General Clark commanded the allied troops in Europe - it was a complex and tortured time for both. To General Clark’s humiliation, President Clinton’s Pentagon relieved him of his command. Even though they both grew up in Arkansas, General Clark wrote in his book, “Waging Modern War” (Public Affairs, 2001), that he met Mr. Clinton for the first time in 1965 at a student conference at Georgetown University. He met Hillary Clinton in 1983 in France at a conference of French-American Young Leaders. The Clarks and the Clintons had dinner “once” when Mr. Clinton was governor of Arkansas and, as General Clark told it, “I had talked to him once on the phone as I was passing through the state a few years later, but that was about it.” (Source: Late-Arriving Candidate Got Push From Clintons By Katherine Q. Seelye, Washington DC, Sept. 18, 2003)
“That was about it?” Then we are being conned by the Arkansas gang led by the Clinton’s and the grasping-at-straws Democrats, that he is their man of the hour. He doesn’t even know the Clintons, he has always been a Republican, voting for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Senior and I will argue categorically he voted for Bush Junior! I wish I were wrong.
Once retired from the Army, after having been fired by Clinton’s boys at the Pentagon, he promptly enters the sleazy underworld of Corporatism and Banking. The neo-conservatives on both the Democratic side and Republican side adopted the general. He roams the halls of elite power and some ditz calls him an outsider? But it was a Hollywood ditz so no further explanation is needed.
Talk about a Trojan Horse? How do you protect Bush’s Trojan Horse, Wesley Clark from exposure? You tell yet another big lie, this time the ignorant feminist-worshipping Democrats will offer the deed openly. Listen to this reported nonsense, nonsense because it is not only untrue, but the perfect foil for the foolish to fall for:
“The Clintons’ promotion for General Clark’s candidacy has set off speculation about their long-term strategy. Conservative commentators have suggested that the Clintons were encouraging weak candidates to enter the race so that they would lose, leaving the Democratic field open for Senator Clinton in 2008. ... Asked today about some of that speculation, including whether he might be a stalking horse for Senator Clinton and might wind up as her vice presidential candidate, either next year or in 2008, General Clark said he had heard the talk but dismissed it. He also said he had no interest in being vice president.” (Source: Ibid., Katherine Q. Seelye: Emphasis added CBH)
The only ones that can think that way are what? Crack-pot conservatives like Hannity and O‘Reilly? Crack-heads? Democrats with a full frontal lobotomy? Lip-stick lesbians? Stalking horse for Hillary! Lady Hillary of WalMart will never be allowed to run legitimately to win, (run?... sure, she run all she wants, it makes good copy and keeps the elite looking fair-minded) and for president? She will never be aloud to win if the Grey Men have anything to say, and they do, and they will.
Of most recent reportage on this stratagem of the Grey Men, it becomes clear, Clinton is playing a role for a deal he struck with the same Grey Men; Hillary? well everyone knows she will do anything to get ahead...absolutely anything! On the one hand Clark is backed by the Clinton Clowns he doesn’t know at all, but on the other hand, Clark knows the Bush team well; one could conclude he is quite a friend of Bush’s boys one and all given the prolific praise he has offered them. According to a video of a speech he gave provided to Matt Drudge, “Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans -- just two years ago, [the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal!]”
“During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: ‘And I’m very glad we’ve got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.” (Source: A video of Clark making the comments, DRUDGE REPORT.)
Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:
“We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan.” Clark continued: “That’s the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.” (Ibid.)
Clark on President George H.W. Bush:
“President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.” (Ibid.)
Clark on American military involvement overseas:
“Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can’t solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?”... “And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don’t you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That’s them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
“In an April 10, 2003 column for the Times of London,
just after the fall of Baghdad, Clark wrote,
“President Bush and Tony Blair should be
proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”
Does this sound like the “New Democrat” Wesley Clark? or Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz? Well, yes, if you understand that a “New Democrat” means a neo-conservative Empire-building elitist simply calling himself a Democrat today and Republican tomorrow. Neither left nor right. We must not forget that Clark has
administered each administration’s plan in South America, the drug wars fought in Columbia, Peru and Bolivia as the nation’s head of our U.S. Southern Command; he has implemented each administrations use of force too often to ignore, remained a steadfast Republican voter and vocal supporter of the present regime, even as it repudiated 11 international treaties. And under Clinton the use of the military for nation-building all over the world. Would he be prepared to risk it all to deceive the American people; he was an expendable soldier for three decades, serving the Commanders in Chief collectively, R’s and D’s, with no complaints. Yes, suddenly he would do for empire whatever empire asks of him, more so now than when past serving the country, his past oath of office mere historiography. Suddenly Clark, just prior to another presidential election year, conveniently retired (and retired for good reason), he reverses himself and publicly criticizes the present President’s policies? Clark is fast and loose with the truth. I don’t believe any of it. But there is still more.
There is the coincidental release of Clark’s new book: “[T]he Release of the book, titled “Winning Modern Wars” and shipped to stores last week, coincides with Clark’s entrance this month into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination....Publisher Peter Osnos of Public Affairs said the book was not conceived as a campaign manifesto. Osnos, who published another book by Clark two years ago (Waging Modern War) on the retired general’s military experiences, said he suggested in May (exactly one year after his lavish praise of Bush) that Clark pursue a second book that would combine and expand on much of Clark’s commentary as a CNN analyst during the Iraq war. “It certainly wasn’t part of any grand plan,” Osnos said in a phone interview.” (Source: Clark Wants More Foreign Aid, New Department to Handle It -- Book Faults Bush for Pursuing Notion of American 'Empire' By Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A05 )
But while Clark was writing the book, he was considering running for president.! Right! Clark had no idea he was planning to use CNN as a launch pad, coupled with the orchestrated lie that the White House had him fired, for the name recognition needed to run for high office? Just think how stupid the elite must think we the people are; and probably with good reason as it seems to be working quite well.
Now comes the general’s new book, Winning Modern Warfare, written during the exact time frame saying, “After 9/11, during the first months of the war on terror, a critical opportunity to nail Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was missed. Additionally, our allies were neglected and a counter-terrorist strategy was adopted that, despite all the rhetoric, focused the nation on a conventional attack on Iraq rather than a shadowy war against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks: Al Qaeda. I argue that not only did the Bush administration misunderstand the lessons of modern war, it made a policy blunder of significant proportions. . . . Evidence and rhetoric were used selectively to justify the decision to attack Iraq. . . . We had re-energized Al Qaeda by attacking an Islamic state and presenting terrorists with ready access to vulnerable U.S. forces. It was the inevitable result of a flawed strategy.” And on page 135, still another previously unspoken analysis: “And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns. . . and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without the support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations. And just as the Bush administration suggested, [the conflict] could last for years.”
There are further arguments against the present regime he so lavishly praised just month‘s ago. According to the Washington Post, Wesley Clark argues in his new book the following:
“The larger point of the book deals with what Clark considers the damaging consequences of the administration’s pursuit of a ‘quasi-imperial vision’ aimed at liberating people around the world. This strategy, among other things, is imposing a severe strain on the U.S. Army, which, in Clark’s words, ‘isn’t an army of empire -- at least not yet.’ It was built for combat, not occupation, Clark says.... Clark argues that the whole notion of an American empire runs counter to deep historical currents in this country. The ‘American way,’ he says, ‘was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on persuasion and shared vision.’ Borrowing a term from Joseph S. Nye Jr., dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Clark says American power in the 20th century was marked by ‘soft power’ based on diplomacy and persuasion....Soon after taking office, the Bush administration launched the country on a different course, Clark says, reflecting ‘a more unilateralist, balance-of-power stamp.’ He cites the U.S. withdrawal from international efforts to address global warming under the Kyoto treaty and the decision to proceed with a national missile defense system. The administration’s response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks only reinforced these defiant, high-handed tendencies, Clark argues....‘Overnight, U.S. foreign policy became not only unilateralist but moralistic, intensely patriotic and assertive, planning military action against Iraq and perhaps other states in the Middle East, and intimating the New American Empire,’ he writes.” (Ibid., Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A05)
Today Clark claims he has had a problem with the administration “since they took office” but his praise of the same administration during the same time period in another context (May 2001) makes one wonder which is true: the timely praise “at the time,” or the criticism now about the “time past,” and just since he decided to run against “his” Party’s men? Wesley Clark is a political opportunist, and I am sorry for such raw bluntness, a liar. No different than the typical neo-conservatives we’ve witnessed over the past twelve years of both Clinton’s administration and now that of Bush Junior, liars. They call it being Machiavellian. The difference between some typical wrong-doer and a greater level of evil in similar acts is the amount and kind of deception applied. People do wrong things all the time; people make mistakes and change their minds. When an amount of deceit grows, the deception is all the greater because of the “why” it is used, we find ourselves having to admit that we a seeing an intense level of evil, not just immoral or amoral acts. Mr. Clark and his criminal combination are deceiving the public far worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger has the California voter. Clark’s elaborate deception is to specifically corrupt the system of democratic principles