Clark: 'Iraq Part of Five-year Plan'

NewsMax.com ^ | 9/22/03 | UPI

[kattracks]

NEW YORK -- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the newest Democratic presidential candidate, said that when he returned to the Pentagon in November 2001 he had a chat about Iraq.

In an exclusive excerpt from Clark's book, "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire," published in Newsweek's Sept. 29 issue, Clark wrote of speaking with senior military staff officers about Iraq.

Clark said Iraq was being discussed as part of a five-year plan involving the countries of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

"I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp.' It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a 'state sponsor,' and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations," Clark wrote.

"This was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. What a mistake!"

Copyright 2003 United Press International

[bluefish]

Seems a bit out of line for him to be talking about military planning in a book Me thinks he needs to be court-martialed. If that can't be done to a retired general, he should be stripped of his stars and tried for treason.

[kattracks]

Clark is a loose cannon. No telling what other remarks he may make in the future that could jeopardize US security.

[concerned about politics]

"I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp.' It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a 'state sponsor,' and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations,"

True. It must have some pretty good financial backing. Saddam had the cash, and made a pact with Al Quata to work together on weapons to be used against the U.S.
Bush is smart. Stop the funding, stop the ability of the terrorists.
Reagan ended the cold war. I suppose if Bush is doing the same, the U.S. will be just as pleased.

[okie01]

"This was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. What a mistake!"

If it is indeed a "mistake", as General Weasly insists, then isn't he obligated to clearly state what he would do differently?

My guess is that he hasn't the foggiest semblance of a plan. Much less anything that would even have a chance to work.

Clark is a natural Democrat. Completely irresponsible...

[Dan Evans]

"Clark said Iraq was being discussed as part of a five-year plan involving the countries of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia and Sudan."

But not Saudia Arabia.

[Timesink]

Mary! Help!

[concerned about politics]

If it is indeed a "mistake", as General Weasly insists, then isn't he obligated to clearly state what he would do differently?

he wuz trien to sownd smart.
he faled.
thay sa he iz verie arogant.

[dighton]

(begin message)

Weasels ripped my flesh.

(end ((aforementioned)) message)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

LOL - thanks. : )

[Dolphy]

In an exclusive excerpt from Clark's book, "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire," published in Newsweek's Sept. 29 issue, Clark wrote of speaking with senior military staff officers about Iraq.

I wonder if this will be like the story where he deliberately worded a statement to insinuate that the White House was pressuring him to connect Iraq to September 11. Maybe the senior military officers were from France or Canada.

"This was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. What a mistake!"

Huh, mistake? Yeah, let's keep chasing the terrorists, one by one, and send our troops off to lands that pose absolutely no threat to the United States. That Clinton doctrine was a sure winner, Wussley.

[concerned about politics]

Huh, mistake? Yeah, let's keep chasing the terrorists, one by one, and send our troops off to lands that pose absolutely no threat to the United States. That Clinton doctrine was a sure winner, Wussley.

He doesn't seem to be the smartest bird in the barnyard, does he?
This guy is going to be hard for the demonic duo to control once he gets a following. He'll get too high on himself. Expect Arkansaside.

[CyberAnt]

Didn't CNN fire Clark because he was so off the wall WRONG about the war in Iraq ..??

[Stopislamnow]

He doesn't seem to be the smartest bird in the barnyard, does he?
This guy is going to be hard for the demonic duo to control once he gets a following. He'll get too high on himself. Expect Arkansaside.


He won't suffer arkancide, the clintoons own him, lock, stock, an barrel.

Weasely is Billarys Bitch. 100%

Sorry for the language, but, there is no accurate way to describe him.

[Justa]

"...it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations," Clark wrote...."This was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. What a mistake!"

If the above quotes are in context then one must conclude he not only supports muslim terrorism but defends it. This would be consistent with his military campaign against Christians and Serbians in the Balkans.

[concerned about politics]

He won't suffer arkancide, the clintoons own him, lock, stock, an barrel.

Yeh, he is the Shrills bitch, but if he loses, he knows to much to keep around. This guy is going to try to write books, or give speaches. He'll love the new limelight. He'll be talking up a storm, and may make slip - a fatal err, that could get him "removed."

[kattracks]

Clark wants to continue the clinton approach to terrorism.

Ignore it and maybe it'll go away.

[Captainpaintball]

Five Year Plans are the work of Communists. Therefore it is no surprise that Clark likes to talk of Five-Year plans.

[malia]

"---like the story where he deliberately worded a statement to insinuate that the White House was pressuring him to connect Iraq to September 11."

My thoughts exactly. After all who in the media will question his statement. It will take the WH again. This is getting old!!!