Replies

Post the above article on Kucinich's web site!!! :)

http://www.denniskucinich.us/comment.php?sid=20030813124726994&pid=0&type=article

Email him at this web link:

http://kucinich.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?cid=%7BFB0ABCB2-A3BE-48FC-B8F5-CC31FFF3E4A3%7D&bin_id=%7B7593C204-0B22-4353-9E25-CAC3A70155EC%7D&en=frKQISNvGeILIQMuH6LOIYNGLkLNLYNBJbLTL7NKKgLQJ2PCKmI5H

Leave the story on Dean's website HERE:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_contact

You suggested yesterday we provide the Dean campaign with some Clark dirt - here's a link to do that with specific suggestions.

BUMP!

headlines - NOT

Disgusting looking oscar winner claiming "9-11 passengers scaredy cats" launchs 2004 president campaign for general that claims to have officially tried to launch WWIII

Michael Moore: 9-11 passengers scaredy cats; Author says black men aboard flights could have stopped hijackings http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30367 http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=158

That's basically just braindead incompetence. No shame for a democrat.

I'm more concerned with his leading special forces from Fort Hood to murder American children in their home.

Course that's pretty much ok with dems too.

They will vote the way they're told, no matter what is said about any of their candidates.

Your heart is in the right place, but your suggestion speaks to fear of Clark which is unwarranted.

There will be more than a few Democrats willing to talk about Clark's problems without Republican assistance. Clark's odds of winning are slim enough to not be bothered. Even if you have concerns about Clark, why let the other side know what you are thinking?

From WSWS:
Jerry White
Aug, 4, 1999

"Throughout the war Clark had repeatedly clashed with military and civilian authorities. He pushed for the most aggressive military action, regardless of the number of civilian and NATO causalities or the political consequences they produced, particularly in Europe, where governments in Greece, Italy and Germany might have been toppled if anti-war sentiment grew. Well before the NATO bombing began Clark came into a conflict with US Defense Secretary William Cohen and others, demanding the US use the alleged Serb massacre of ethnic Albanians near the town of Racak last January as the pretext to launch immediate air strikes.

US officials preferred instead to first present Milosevic with an ultimatum (the Rambouillet agreement) so that it would appear every diplomatic effort had been exhausted before NATO warplanes began bombing. On March 24, when the air campaign began, NATO political leaders wanted to limit targets, believing that a first wave of bombing would force Milosevic to capitulate. Clark and his air commanders, on the other hand, wanted to "go downtown" on the first night, hitting power, telephone, and command-and-control sites in Belgrade and other major cities, as well as Milosevic's private residences. Early in the conflict, Clark ordered up a task force of Apache helicopter gunships, after going to the White House over the protests of the US Army chief of staff, General Dennis Reimer. This was part of Clark's push for the Pentagon to allow him to plan a ground invasion of Kosovo and involve the US Army—his own branch of the service—in addition to the Air Force and Navy.

In late May Clark pressed for and received permission to strike the transformer yards of the Yugoslav power grid, taking out power for hospitals, water-pumping stations and lighting. In an article in the August 2 edition of The New Yorker magazine, Michael Ignatieff quotes Clark acknowledging his frustration up until that point over "the only air campaign in history in which lovers strolled down riverbanks in the gathering twilight and ate at outdoor cafes to watch the fireworks." While the general's brutality served US interests well during the war, his reputation of being a loose cannon apparently brought his military career to an end."

While I really hate to quote from the WSWS, I want to know how it is that people like Micheal Moore, ANSWER and Move.on.org can support someone, who even their own bretheren describe, as a "loose cannon?" These people supposedly support Clark because of his criticizm of Iraq...and his multilateral views. They accuse Bush of being a unilateralist, yet the actions of Clark clearly demonstrate a trait of unilateralism when it comes to military force. Clark was one of those who intentionally wanted to avoid the UN because he knew that Kosovo would've gotten a veto. And while NATO may have been a participant in this conflict, it was Clark who was making unilateral decisions, behind the others backs. The hypocrisy from the Left is quite amazing when you think about this. Clark is a proponent of "nation building" in the image of Clinton...and by definition, that is nothing more than another form of imperialism that the Left supposedly hates.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/002zlaay.asp

Wesley Clark and Terry McAuliffe
From the August 25, 2003 issue: The Scrapbook on the general's imaginary friend and the DNC chairman's success.
08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47

Wesley Clark's Imaginary Friend

Does Wesley Clark have an imaginary friend? The retired NATO commander and possible Democratic presidential candidate has been muttering darkly for several months that opportunists in the White House seized September 11 as a pretext to take out Saddam Hussein. Clark maintains that he received a call at home the afternoon of September 11, 2001, urging him to say on CNN that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were connected to Iraq. But Clark has now provided three versions of this story, and they don't add up.

Version One: On "Meet the Press" on June 15 of this year, Clark asserted that intelligence about the Iraqi threat had been hyped. "Hyped by whom?" asked moderator Tim Russert.

CLARK: "I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this, and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection."

That was an astonishing accusation of corruption in the White House, and unsurprisingly it caught the eye of several astute observers. Sean Hannity followed up two weeks later on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes": Referring to the Russert transcript above, Hannity said of the call, "I think you owe it to the American people to tell us who."

Version Two: Clark replied, "It came from many different sources, Sean."

HANNITY: "Who? Who?"

CLARK : "And I personally got a call from a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank who gets inside intelligence information. He called me on 9/11."

HANNITY: "That's not the answer. Who in the White House?"

CLARK: "I'm not going to go into those sources."

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman also understood that Clark was playing with live political ammunition, and he wrote a July 15 column attacking the White House and headlined, "Pattern of Corruption."

"Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from 'people around the White House' urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein," wrote Krugman.

Last week, rather belatedly, the New York Times published a July 18 letter from Clark purporting to "correct" the record.

Version Three: "I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on 'Meet the Press' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about 'people around the White House' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein," Clark wrote to the Times.

"I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.

"In other words, there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."

In other words, and let's have a show of hands here: How many of you believe Gen. Clark really got that call?

If you read version three carefully, you will see that Clark has now exonerated the White House of his most serious accusation. Much as he wants to put a sinister spin on the matter, all Clark is saying is that the White House was more sensitive to the Iraqi threat after 9/11.

That leaves the question of the call. It's true that journalists protect sources all the time. But there are also times when a source deserves to be burned, and this is one of them. We're not talking about a normal journalist-source relationship here. We're talking about someone who urged the former supreme allied commander of NATO to go on national TV on 9/11 and assert a provocative untruth.

What conceivable reason can Clark have for protecting this joker? This is not someone he called for information. This is someone who called him--who wanted to use Clark--to plant a phony story. And why is this grossly irresponsible "fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank" privy to "inside intelligence information"? You would think Clark has a positive duty to expose the man. But that assumes he exists.

BUMP!

Let the fun begin...they are like a bunch of preschoolers...I'm telling on you...let them keep it up..dumbasses!!!!!

They've never cleared up his role in the slaughter of women and children at Mount Carmel in 1993.

I say let this guy run - he's a disaster for the Dims. I hope they nominate him. I guarantee the world will hear about all this stuff and more from the Bush campaign.