I'm listening to Wes Clark's testimony to congress on Iraq LIVE right now

[FrenchieCat]

right here:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules /
click on microphone icon to listen

[Sparkly]

1. Wow, thanks Frenchie!!!

:woohoo:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Yuk....now Perle is on

Doing "doublespeak". :puke:

[Sparkly]

3. I only caught the last few words from Clark

What was the gist of what he said?

[FrenchieCat]

4. He was speaking about what's needed now in Iraq....by the time I

tuned in. I also only caught the tail-end.

There will be a Q&A exchange after "1984 Double-Speak" Perle, head cheerleader of the NeoCons, is done reading his whitewash analysis of the Iraq War...so stay tuned.

Wonder how long it took Perle to write the bull-shit he is now spewing?

[Sparkly]

6. He's blaming it ALL on the CIA

What a self-righteous jerk!!

[chomskysright]

61. Sorry Wes: blame it on the SPIN DOCTORS.....50 lying stories here:

http://100777.com/node/576

"......Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of the invasion. Every one of these stories was false.
"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these conclusions lightly," Gardiner (Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.)
admits. "I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't understand even after all the research." But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned officials found how to control the process of governance in ways never before possible."

· The link between terrorism, Iraq and · 9/11
· Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker · Mohammed Atta
· Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.
· Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.
· Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.
· Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons
· The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.
· Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.
· The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
· The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.
· Iraq executing Coalition POWs.
· Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.
· The exact location of WMD facilities
· WMDs moved to Syria.


A Battle between Good and Evil
Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."

The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil. Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.
"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those attacks."

The means for pushing the message involved: (my note: here's the method):

saturating the media with stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle; managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information to attack and punish critics. (and as per below, "If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around." )

Audition in Afghanistan

The techniques that proved so successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom were first tried out during the campaign to build public support for the US attack on Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld hired Rendon Associates, a private PR firm that had been deeply involved in the first Gulf War. Founder John Rendon (who calls himself an "information warrior") proudly boasts that he was the one responsible for providing thousands of US flags for the Kuwaiti people to wave at TV cameras after their "liberation" from Iraqi troops in 1991.
The White House Coalition Information Center was set up by Karen Hughes in November 2001. (In January 2003, the CIC was renamed the Office for Global Communications.) The

CIC hit on a cynical plan to curry favor for its attack on Afghanistan by highlighting "the plight of women in Afghanistan." CIC's Jim Wilkinson later called the Afghan women campaign "the best thing we've done."
Gardiner is quick with a correction. The campaign "was not about something they did. It was about a story they created... It was not a program with specific steps or funding to improve the conditions of women."
The coordination between the propaganda engines of Washington and London even involved the respective First Wives. On November 17, 2001, Laura Bush issued a shocking statement: "Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's fingernails for wearing nail polish." Three days later, a horrified Cherie Blaire told the London media, "In Afghanistan, if you wear nail polish, you could have your nails torn out."
Misleading via Innuendo
Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without question. Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the "anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to attack Iraq.

In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden letters.

It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military installation. The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more prominent White House "announcement." As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax plot continued to persist. Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda campaign. "If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."

In a successful propaganda campaign, Gardiner wrote, "We would have expected to see the creation stories to sell the policy; we would have expected to see the same stories used on both sides of the Atlantic. We saw both. The number of engineered or false stories from US and UK stories is long."

[chomskysright]

63. It was the orchestration of deceit not an intelligence failure

[Totally Committed]

64. Re: "It was the orchestration of deceit not an intelligence failure"

I believe this 1000%.

TC

[Pepperbelly]

136. wrong object of the verb dude or dudette...

The HE was that shitbag Perle.

[x_y_no]

65. Why do you say "sorry Wes"

It was Perle who was trying to blame it all on the CIA.

[ZootSuitGringo]

68. Clark called it "Hyped up intelligence", and said

that it was the failure of those making policies to have sent us into war.

He did say he believed (at the time, although he still called not to invade in 2002)possible that Iraq may have had some WMD--Chemical possibly and a possible Nuclear program (program does not mean weapons), but he maintained in the testimony that this still didn't justify an invasion. He spoke about the fact that Iran, N. Korea and others also have these things, and had them then, and U.S. Didn't invade, so why invade Iraq.

He also mentioned "Alterior motives" for the push to invade Iraq.

Clark also advocated that congress start discussing Syria, since it is clear that the Bush Admin is pushing and working toward its collapse. I agree, might as well discuss what is already happening.

Did you listen to the testimony or what? It almost seems as if you didn't.

[Sparkly]

96. The pronoun "he" referred to Perle, not Clark... n/t

[AllyCat]

5. Missed almost all of it.

Who is the person talking now?

[Sparkly]

7. Perle... n/t

[FrenchieCat]

8. The Neo-Con aka The Prince of Darkness

currently stating that the elections ended the end of the Iraqi occupation.

Sure. Tell that to the 180,000 soldiers serving now.

[AllyCat]

14. He was so horrible that I went to make a cup of coffee...

...and missed the statement about the end of the occupation. These freaks really do live in an alternate universe.

Who is reading these questions? He can't talk.

[FrenchieCat]

9. A Congressional Republican

now praising Iraq for stemming the tide toward Democracy via a question to Clark.

Trying to get Clark to say that Iraq helped foreign policy in the Middle-East.

Clark is not going for it.
"you are attempting to force me into a binary answer". (Smackdown)!

[eek]

62. I love that he uses actual vocabulary words.

When he whipped out "fungible" recently, i 'bout swooned.

How cool it will be to have a smart, brave, tough President.

[ZootSuitGringo]

69. He also said

during the testimony, that the "R" congressman asking him a "gotcha" questions was attempting to "lead the witness". :rofl:

[FourStarDemocrat]

10. It's 10:40, which Sen. is asking th ques 'bout influence i n"the region"?

'Cos Wes is kicking ass on it!!

[FrenchieCat]

11. General Clark is doing away with the Libya changed course

because of Iraq.

Clark said there are long roots to why Libya changed course, and to take credit via Iraq is not accurate.

[ZootSuitGringo]

12. Perle is so full of shit....it's almost sad

and he's not calling Wes, General, as he should. If he had an ounce of integrity in his bones, he would; but he doesn't.

[FourStarDemocrat]

13. Yes, he was excellent...

Perle tried to then discredit him, so I hope Wes comes back on it when he gets a chance.

[Clark2008]

15. Clark smacking Congress about how they're not REALLY

supporting the troops re: leave, equipment, etc.

[Clark2008]

16. Who's this guy from North Carolina calling out Perle

on all his secret squirrel shit from before he was in the administration?

[Dinger]

17. God, How Could We Have Let Him Get Away?? (nt)

[Totally Committed]

94. I wake up every day asking the very same thing... (n/t)

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Clark was excellent on the whole theme of U.S. taking credit for changes

vis a vis spread of Democracy in the Mid East because of U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is the preferred Republican trap to snare Democrats in: "Democrats are whiners who never want to give the U.S. credit for anything."

Republicans try to boil it down to a simple yes and no question, do you deny that positive Democratic changes in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt etc. may have been in some way been furthered by U.S. military intervention in Iraq? It's a "gotcha" question either way in any forum where the person being asked the question does not have full control of the microphone. Clark forced the frame work of discussion open by clearly stating that he was asked to speak to the big picture and any coherent answer required speaking to the big picture. He then went on a full roll pointing out that Syria did not choose to pull out of Lebanon after the U.S. Iraq invasion but instead stayed put and in fact Syria attempted to further consolidate their hold on Lebanon by assassinating a Lebanese opponent of theirs. It was that miscalculation that set off a chain of events in Lebanon that undermined Syria's position there. Clark also pointed out that Arafat's death opened up the Palestine/Israel dialog, not U.S. actions in Iraq. The United Kingdom was working the Libya opening for years etc.

Further Clark deftly pointed out that the U.S. attempting to take credit for positive Democratic changes in the Mid East was actually counter productive to our professed goals in that region.

[Totally Committed]

19. Does anyone think this is unusual?

Having Perle there at the same time is almost making this like a debate, in a way.

It is really making Perle seem disingenuous and highlighting the insidiousness of the PNAC vision for the Middle East. The difference in their views is like night and day. It is making the RW look ridiculous!

Anyone else think this is excellent that they decided to do it this way?

TC

[Avalux]

20. Clark is incredible

just listen to him. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[ZootSuitGringo]

22. I am totally captivated

by these hearings.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Clark is speaking the unspeakable

He is honestly explaining the strategic consequences to the United States of our current policy of pushing for regime changes in Syria and Iran complete with the full scale saber rattling that the Bush Administration is engaged in. Both those nations are now motivated to use their influence in Iraq to pin down American forces there so that they are less likely to threaten their regimes. If we take out the Syrian regime Syria could become a real bog and failed state that would require American troops to help stabilize the situation rather than have it spiral down into chaos. Iran may press ahead to develop Nuclear weapons as a security hedge if the United States seems committed to taking out the Iranian regime. Clark said if we take the American government at its word than the United States will not tolerate an Iranian nuclear capacity and that will result in America going to war with Iran.

[Totally Committed]

23. Did you just hear that exchange?

Anyone who thinks Clark is part of the PNAC pack should be listening to this! OMG, Perle is going for his throat (stpuidly) and Wes is ripping him a new one!

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Amazing Clark quote!

I just heard him say this in regards to his differences with Perle. It may not be word for word but it is damn close. Amazing in it's directness.

"This is the difference between those who say use force as a last resort and those who say use force because it is easier and looks and feels better."

[Totally Committed]

25. I know! Unbelieveable! (n/t)

TC

[Totally Committed]

26. How's this for hysterical?

Perle saying Clark "doesn't understand battlefield"... LMAO!

TC

[x_y_no]

40. OMG did he really?

That's what you call "chutzpah".

I sure hope cspan replays this tonight. I had no opportunity to listen live.

[Sparkly]

32. Yes!

I think he said "because it's more convenient, feels better and looks better."

I wish they'd let that exchange continue. He was smacking Perle down pretty handily!!

[ZootSuitGringo]

27. That's what I like about Clark

I'm noticing that very few "R"s in congress are willing to tangle with him right now, during this testimony. Guess they don't want to be smacked down.

Perle really is a great big liar. Prince of Assholyness is what I shall call him from this point on.

Pompous arrogant twit = Perle

[Dinger]

37. Oh, What The 2004 Prez Debates Would Have Been Like . . .

if it was Clark against the giggling murderer...
What might have been. . . . . .

[Avalux]

28. Clark is honest and forthright -

he talks plainly about PNAC's plan and throws it all out there; completely blows away anyone who tries to debate him. Perle is a lying asshole.

[Clark2008]

34. As he said, he prefers to eat the elephant a bite at a time.

He's talking about their plans to knock off Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. and how that's just wrong.
We should, Clark says, be focusing SOLELY on Iraq if we want to get our troops out.

[Avalux]

39. Clark made it clear the Administration doesn't care if Iraq is successful

otherwise they wouldn't be looking elsewhere.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Actually he backed his comment up to stress Al Quada as the key bite

Prior to Iraq. Clark's point was our military has limits in its capabilities. Al Quada was the threat, not Iraq. Clark pointed out that the U.S. helped bring about Democratic changes in Eastern Europe without invading any nation. His context was clearly that the whole Elephant may be bringing about more Democratic changes in the world leading to self determination for more people since Democracies are more stable and inherently more peaceful, but the means to be used are not always military. Our military should have been focused on Al Quada.

[ZootSuitGringo]

29. Love Loretta Sanchez

I did speak before of a Clark/Sanchez ticket in '08.

She has a question for General Clark (of course).

[mzmolly]

30. Will it be aired again? Is it on CSPAN ?

I'd love to watch

[Crunchy Frog]

118. I don't think you can watch it anywhere,

but you can listen to it right here. http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

[paineinthearse]

31. CSPAN sucks!

While HASC holds hearings, CSPAN1 is showing reruns of Journal and CSPAN2 is showing House of Commons from earlier today.

[Sparkly]

33. VERY disappointing

I wrote to them last night urging them to broadcast this, but noooo... :mad:

[paineinthearse]

35. Copy of my message to CSPAN

You relly blew it today - failure to cover HASC

While HASC holds hearings, with Richard Perle and General Wes Clark giving testimony, CSPAN1 is showing reruns of Journal and CSPAN2 is showing House of Commons from earlier today.

I realize this is "filler", but where are your priorities? Why are you showing reruns and non-American events at the expense of current events?

(me)

p.s. Thank you for having General Clark on Journal.

[Totally Committed]

46. Actually, I see media's failure to cover things like this...

as part of the dumbing-down of America that has lead to voter apathy, and people who do vote, voting for Bush against their own interests.

This should have been televised. It is important that eh American people know what these two men are saying, and the questions their Congresspersons are asking.

Now he's giving Pres. Carter credit for some of the fall of the Soviet Union (said the dialogue that led to it began under his administration), and is saying that giving all the credit to Pres. Reagan is "partisan", and shouldn't be. This should put all the "He's not a Democrat" bs to rest!

TC

[Avalux]

36. Wow - The next aim ofUS policy - Syria's collapse -

what are we going to do when it does collapse? That's what we should be talking about here. I see us going into this again, pushing for a result, without clearly deciding what we're going to do afterwards.

(Clark's statement, paraphrased)

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. More Clark speaking the unspeakable

"May I be so bold as to suggest that the U.S. Congress should be holding hearings NOW about what the American response should be when Syria's government collapses, since that is obviously current U.S. Government policy to bring about the collapse of Syria's government and what will we then be prepared to do to avoid anarchy there as a result?"

Again I don't promise that this is an exact quote, but it is the best I was able to capture.

[Clark2008]

41. Jim Cooper just kicked Perle's ass

Cooper, a Dem from Tennessee, said "By their fruits shall they be known, it says in the Bible... and it's obvious who was right four years ago. General Clark was by a wide margin."

:woohoo:

[Avalux]

42. Evidence! Where's the evidence of a plan, Mr. Perle??

ah...er....uuuh.....

dumbshit.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Perle advocating a tax increase?

You can tell he is at loss for words!

[Clark2008]

45. Now Perle is droning on about something on which he knows nothing

about (excpet from his treasonous Zion-zealot point of view): what Arabs should do.

Of course, he doesn't mention that changing their ways isn't going to happen as long as they're under our thumb.

[Clark2008]

47. Hahaha! Clark is telling the truth that Reagan didn't topple

the Soviet Union, alone.

:P

Gives the credit to Carter, the Pope, Europe, and Gen. Haig.

"Want to give full credit to the United States, but not in a partisan manner. Reagan was a sutle and sophisticated player..."

God, I love Wes Clark.

[Catch22Dem]

108. He wrote a whole paper on it a while back

I'm sure you already knew that though. ;) I'll try to find it, because others should read it too. No one has a better understanding of world history than Wes Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Oh, Oh....

Clark is now reminding Congressional Republicans that Reagan was not the sole reason that the Soviet Union Fell.

They are getting an history lesson.

Reminding Congress that it was the Pope and Prez Carter who started the diplomatic ball rolling.

Clark now stating that Iraq is no Soviet Union (since a Republican Congressman tried to compare the two somehow). We didn't invade the Soviet Union.

Clark is also reminded them that when Lebanon attack against US base there during Reagan, Reagan pulled out.

HAHAHAHA!

[Totally Committed]

49. If he keeps this up...

he's going to need protection, if you know what I mean....

OMG.... he's ripping Warner a new one now for Republicans trying to "take political credit" for what they are talking about.

Like I said... he needs bodyguards if this keeps up.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

50. Shit....

Clark talking "Alterior motives" for invading Iraq....

He is being forceful right now. Said to "R" congressman..."you wouldn't want to give credit to Al Qeada for starting the Middle East on Democracy".....as equating the the "R"'s statement that invading Iraq led to a good thing.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Now Perle is forgetting about 9/11

Stating that Iraq would be "as it was" if we wouldn't have gone in.

Avoiding the fact that what we are now doing in Iraq could have been done in Afghanistan without invading a country that was already contained.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Running log of some comments I am trying to capture:

Obviously I do not have exact quotes here, and I am not a great typist so I fell behind and missed much of this, but here is some recap of some of what has been said in the last few minutes:

Republican (regarding Iraq):

"I think it was the Elections... people embracing freedom and the ballot... I think that process moved the positive ripples in the region. Are you overstating the dangers of freedom for the region?"

Clark "I will let the record speak for itself about my testimony over the lack of urgency of going to war in Iraq... "

Clark: "So we are talking about judgment here...

The pope was a huge factor in bringing down the Soviet Union. So were the Labor unions... Reagan did not attack Eastern Europe..."

Various comments stressing that Reagan deserves some credit but so did actions of Democratic Presidents including Carter then...

"... Reagan talked to Gorbachev. He did not invade Lebanon after our Marines were killed there..."

Clark: "Point number One. The Pres has said we want Democracy in the Mid East for our own security reasons. We do want it because all people deserve self determination but to trumpet it as advancing our own purposes plays poorly in the region..."

"It is irresponsible for the United Sates as the dominant power in the world to be pulling down regimes and then not providing the resources for people to have the Democracies they want. People in the region tell me yes they want Democracy, but not the lawless chaos that happened in Iraq."

Republican: "Reagan did the right thing in standing up to the Soviet Union, and the military forward leaning component of his policy played into the fall of the Soviet Union."

Clark: "My Democratic colleagues know I voted for Reagan, I believed in his advocacy of Freedom, But we did not invade Eastern Europe, we did not shoot people, we did not knock down people's doors and throw people onto the floor. When you talk about the Iraq model you speak about the Elections, but the rest of the world sees America invading another country and killing people and bringing about wide scale lawlessness and chaos. So the Iraq model means different things to different people. I am sure that you do not want to give Al Quada any credit for Democratic changes in the region, but people there sometimes say that Al Quada is saying the corruption must stop or the governments will be overthrown and that is helping the reform movement there. It is complex. Iraq may not be in the front pages now, but people over there are living in terror, there are beheadings, there are robberies, murders, random violence. I am saying that if you bring down a regime you better be prepared to step in and provide peace and security for the people who live there."

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. More Clark paraphrases

"It was told to me by the Generals who were involved in it that this Administration went after Iraq because they did not really know what to do to fight Terrorism so they kind of did it by proxy by going after a nation state and Iraq was viewed as a good target"

"I think we have to fight Terrorism ideologically... We should find Islamists who have been terrorists who have changed their mind for religious reasons and we should be giving them platforms because we can win ideologically, we can change people's minds."

[ZootSuitGringo]

54. Now, Perle is having some pang of regret about IRAQ????

Talking about woulda, coulda, shoulda. That the invasion took us on a detour?

Guess he lost the debate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. To the question of how we should have handled Iraq's occupation

Clark started by saying he wouldn't have invaded:

"I would have tried to disassemble the Iraq government in pieces prior to the decision to invade. We would have been been making demands on Hussein, moving in Human Rights activists, moving in democracy activists while inspections were going on. It would likely have moved slowly, but we could have worked to develop a broad based government in exile during that time... "

After that Clark did speak to many of the mistakes made by Bush's Administration post invasion. Severe lack of translators, the disbanding Iraq's military structure, and much more...

Later:

Clark stresses that "We need diplomatic activity in the region. We need a regional council that not only includes Saudi Arabia and Jordon and Egypt, but also includes Iran and Syria to make them accountable for developments in the region, so that we are no longer pushing them to the outside, and counter purpose."

Perle took the exact opposite stand: "Syria and Iran are part of the problem, we can't transform our opponents into allies."

[ewagner]

56. An observation about General Clark

It was my pleasure to see him speak in Wausau during the closing days of the '04 Campaign. The Wes Clark on the podium for that event is a slightly different man from the one I see at hearings and as a commentator on TV.

Wes was a bit distracted and maybe even a bit hesitant on the campign trail...especially when trying to represent the position(s) of SOMEBODY OTHER THAN HIMSELF. He was nowhere near as confident and self-assured as he is on TV.

What does that mean?

It means that Wes Clark is confident in his own intelligence and his own positions but a bit uncomfortable in representing someone else's positions...

I am still a Wes Clark supporter and probably even stronger in my resolve than I was previously.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. On the question of how quickly Iraq will be ready to go it alone

More Clark paraphrases (not close to actual quotes I am afraid):

There are three things that that Iraqi security forces have to develop. Intelligence capacity takes a long time to develop, they need time there. The actual breaking down of doors in the middle of the night, I am told that the Iraqi's are rehiring some former Military people with experience there, and that is a dangerous thing, because that can pit the Iraq government against it's people, and I would want us to closely supervise that if possible and move carefully in that area to prevent slippage to former practices. Third, it takes the U.S. Military 16 years to train and develop (Battalion?) Commanders, so it will take time for the Iraq military to develop that command expertise to operate effectively at that scale.

[x_y_no]

59. The point about commanders is excellent

because in Saddam's Iraq any really competent commander who wasn't a reliable Saddam partisan was likely to get purged. So at least outside of the Kurdish and Shiite militias, there's a real shortage of trustworthy competent command there.

[Texas_Kat]

60. Yes, he said the US takes 16 years to train battalion commanders

For those of us who are not as familiar with the military command structure, I'm advised that battalion commanders are generally colonels.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. A general observation

Wesley Clark is very grounded in dealing with real world situations and consequences of various course of action or inaction. He has a life time of training in advising civilian leaders. He understands that the military is subordinate to our civilian government. Clark has his own strongly held beliefs about what is wise and what is not, and he presents those clearly, but when he is called upon by our government through Congress to give his honest appraisal of what likely will occur under various scenarios he does exactly that. He does not slant the truth as he sees it in order to undercut positions that he disagrees with. Clark is an honest man.

[ZootSuitGringo]

66. Do you think that congress will realistically start a discussion about

Syria? Or will we just have to wait until June '05 as predicted by some (or worse, Sept 2006) to be caught flat-footed? Since the Bush admin is pushing for the distabilization of Syria, it would seem wise to follow Clark's advise and put it on there on table, for all to see and have a prepared approach that Democrats can advocate.

Although the Republican committee head agreed that it was a good idea, I'm not so sure that he will follow through. Maybe some letters to congressional members of this committee would be a good idea.

Seems to me that Republicans would rather wait and surprise us all with THEIR OWN PLANS for Syria. Gen. Clark recommending pre-discussions appears to be an interception that might help Democrats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Short answer; No. But the odds for it just went up.

Congress prefers to grand stand than tackle complicated matters with few simple answers. Then after the fact they let themselves be stampeded by a President who provides them with convenient political cover through a PR media blitz. But Clark moved the ball forward. He can't do it by himself. The rest depends on us and our pressure on Congress and on a few more brave souls in Congress who are willing to speak out.

[Totally Committed]

72. All I can say is Gen. Clark suffers no fools gladly...

He called people out, told Perle off (several times, but good), called people on, among other things, "grand-standing", "leading the witness", "trying to take the credit". there were more than a few other assertive little exchanges, as well.

This was one feisty hearing. Did anyone else think so?

TC

[sendero]

70. I hate to ...

... sound like a booster, but I like this guy. He is so smart and so articulate and so completely unwilling to let anyone corner him with words.

I'll leave out the obvious number :)

[incapsulated]

71. LINK TO LISTEN TO THE HEARING

http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

Windows Media Player.

Goddamn, I am proud to have supported this man!

[Crunchy Frog]

73. Thank you for the link dear.

:pals:

[FrenchieCat]

74. Listening to the interesting Chit-Chat at the very beginning

has made me learn that Wes Jr. and Astrid may have another baby on the way (at about 8:22); that Gert loves Arkansas (said several times); that Clark is a very busy man (but has time for a swim every morning); that congresspeople seem to like Clark better than Perle....since they were all coming up to Clark and talking before the testimony began.

[incapsulated]

75. It seemed like the mike was open on Clark

It sounded like his mike and Perle in the background.

Yes, it seems like a new Clark is on the way, we got the snoop! :)

Was that Sanchez he was talking to, when they were talking about getting together when he goes to LA?

You really got a sense of how much he is travelling. And what "an incredible pain in the ass" it is to fly from Arkansas to DC, lol.

There is like, 12 minutes of background buzz and chit-chat before the hearing starts on this!

[SpaceBuddy008]

76. get rid of father figure hero worship... Clinton had to fire Clark

Wesley Clark Vigorously Defends the US Army's 'School of Assassins'

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm
mainstream progressive site too , really middle-o-the road

tip-o-the iceberg ...when you get real

Bill Moyers is a leader you can trust

pentagon budget is an A-bomb-I-nation

Ecclesiastes:

For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.


Ecclesiastes 3:1-8





please help the future is crying

[incapsulated]

78. lol

You don't even troll very well.

Clinton did not fire Clark. No one fired Clark.

All the hearings on the SOA had already taken place when Clark took over SouthCom. The whole thing had already blown up. It wasn't even called the SOA anymore.

He has stated, repeatedly, that he saw nothing going on there that was wrong, and if anyone, including Bruno, wanted to send a task force to go down there and find out, he would support it. And shut it down if any of the allegations were true.

This is a man who has vigorously defended the Geneva convention, to the LETTER, and who has stated publically that he would testify against Gonzales nomination as Attorney General.

But what is the point of facts, when all you want to do is derail this thread with two year old retread attacks.

[Avalux]

79. If you're gonna do this, get your facts straight

no one will take you seriously otherwise. :spray:

[SpaceBuddy008]

117. GotcHA ! it's not about me or being taken seriously, Truths in charge here

my cousin,
but admit it was Clinton's underlying Def. Secretary William Cohen who handled the dirty work, so to speak in Clark's regard for the clinton administration

I do not know everything and neither do you, but I do not write or post anything that are lies

some straight facts:
Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV."

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=945

Russia tried to ensure NATO lived up to the bargain by sending troops to Kosovo. When the invading British troops encountered the Russians at the Pristina airport, Clark hysterically ordered British commander General Sir Michael Jackson to dislodge them by force. Jackson refused, reportedly saying, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."

Events have vindicated Jackson's judgment; earlier this year, Russians completely withdrew from Kosovo, having failed to do anything but legitimize the illegitimate occupation of the province. For NATO's – and Clark's – "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo has only ever been a crudely manufactured lie based on most despicable deception.

http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m091803.html

citizen dossier @
The Awful Truth About General Wesley Clark
A Dissident Voice News Service Compilation
www.dissidentvoice.org
September 18, 2003
Updated: October 14, 2003
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

sorry but the 'akashic' record holds sway

LoveStinG ! OPeration proseeds...

BTW ByTheWay internet lingo abbrevs. like lol etc. betray originality, encourage groupthink and cliquism and internet 'policing' my feeeling it is better to take time to write out authentic response that beautifies the incredible diversity and individual contributions to the whole

AS the media personalities get exposed and sink to squalid depths of no credibility NOW...
The Rich go 'hunting' the Truth by paying hacks to 'police' the internet, with the huge salaries paid to 'establishment' appartchiks it is a comparitively cheap investment

who is naive enough to think OpMockBird was/is a thing of the past ?

Homeland security even publicly stated we will fight this 'war' on all fronts.. information control or the lack of or dilution of

wittingly or unwittingly signs of OP's at DU ?

'08 threads?
'support' the troops blowhard ism?
'Hillary' worship threads?
'Clark' worship threads?
'Peak' oil threads?

another 'net lingo that rankles me and alights my 'policing'get ready for bullying- meter
Me Thinks.......GangsterSpeak?

[x_y_no]

119. Straight facts

Every time someone promises this, they wind uf rehashing the same old stuff again. I guess the hope is that eventually Clark supporters will wear their fingers down to the knuckles debunking the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over again and finally just not be able to do it any more.

some straight facts:
Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV."

Cohen (a Republican BTW) and General Shelton did indeed have a resentment against Clark. Specifically, they didn't want military involvement in Kosovo. They claim Clark went around the chain of command, but that ignores the fact that the NATO commander wears two hats - one military, one diplomatic. So because Clark was not confined to answering only to Shelton and Cohen, he could do what was right.

Russia tried to ensure NATO lived up to the bargain by sending troops to Kosovo. When the invading British troops encountered the Russians at the Pristina airport, Clark hysterically ordered British commander General Sir Michael Jackson to dislodge them by force. Jackson refused, reportedly saying, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."

Events have vindicated Jackson's judgment; earlier this year, Russians completely withdrew from Kosovo, having failed to do anything but legitimize the illegitimate occupation of the province. For NATO's – and Clark's – "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo has only ever been a crudely manufactured lie based on most despicable deception.

Events DO NOT vindicate Jackson. The Russians were making a bald power-play, and Clark thwarted them.

---

I have no idea what the incoherent garble at the end of your post as supposed to mean.

[Clark2008]

121. Well, I have facts from legitimate news sources and not

knee-jerk anti-war sites:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html

Albright, in an interview, said "it was very clear to me that the Pentagon did not want to move on this issue. . . . Wes and I thought it was worth doing." A former Albright aide said Clark's credentials lent critical ballast to Albright's advocacy, providing cover for Clinton and White House officials who were loath to stand up to unified military opposition on any issue.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/#ContinueArticle

In fact, however, Clinton may have been distracted somewhat, but Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was not. Albright was a fiery supporter of military intervention in the Balkans (many have written of the famous meeting where she appalled the reticent chiefs by saying, "What good are all these fine troops you keep telling us about if we can't use them?"). Albright was the prime mover; many observers at the time--supporters and critics alike--called it "Madeleine's war." And her prime collaborator, Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's envoy to Bosnia, also enjoyed direct access to the president.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/#ContinueArticle

Thousands of Bosnians were dying in a war that U.S. military power could have ended. Hundreds of thousands of Rwandans had recently been massacred in a civil war to which neither the United States nor the United Nations raised a finger, much less a fighter plane, in protest. Many of those pushing for intervention--and they included not just Clark but some of the most liberal, customarily antiwar politicians and columnists--wanted above all to avert another massacre.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html

Cohen did not speak to him until the seventh day of the war, when several U.S. soldiers at Yugoslavia's border were taken hostage. "The relationship had already soured by then," Clark said. He said that his antagonists in Washington blocked him from speaking with President Bill Clinton once during 11 weeks of combat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East while Clark commanded NATO, said, "There is always a tension between the CINCs and the service chiefs. The CINCs see the need for intervention, engagement, while the services control the resources and see this as a distraction."

http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/3719.htm

They each told me stories having to creep around the Pentagon to meet with State Department and getting their hands slapped when they were discovered. They all felt like they were at the end of a tether line, out on the edges of an empire, and that too often no one at the Pentagon cared about what they were discovering. They each felt disappointed with their chain of command, especially Secretary Cohen, who seemed to them to want to talk only to coordinate the next upcoming news conference. They believed that the Pentagon had become far too reactive to the day's news reports.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6340-2003Dec16_2.html

But Clark's personal style evidently caused the policy dispute to boil over into a personal clash, according to former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John M. Shalikashvili, who appointed Clark to the NATO job over the objections of the Army leadership. Clark "is a guy who by temperament is more likely to operate on the edge of the system," Shalikashvili said. The chiefs "might have felt that Wes pushed them too far."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong - the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.

*****

Wednesday, August 4, 1999
Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately, Official Says
by Dana Priest
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - One mystery solved. Why was Gen. Wesley Clark's early removal from his post as NATO's top commander leaked within an hour after Clark himself was informed of Defense Secretary William Cohen's decision last week? Answer: Because Cohen's staff wanted to prevent Clark, who had led the NATO military campaign against Yugoslavia and was known to like his job, from working behind the scenes to undo the decision, according to a senior Pentagon official.

*****
The Clinton Wars by Sidney Blumenthal, senior advsier to President Clinton:

(page 651): "...At the Pentagon, a graceless note was struck in July, however, when General Clark was summarily retired early as SACEUR. But if it was held against Clark that he was a political general, it was a mistaken impression. Clark had in fact put his strategic concerns above politics and above his career. Clark was called at night and informed of the Pentagon's decision without being given any recourse. He instantly received a call from a Washington Post reporter, who had been tipped off by the Secretary of Defense's office, to confirm the story. When the President learned what had happened, he was furious -- "I'd like to kill somebody," he told me -- but there was nothing to be done. Clark's enforced early retirement from the European post was a fait accompli. Secretary Cohen and General Shelton had considered Clark insubordinate. Clinton awarded Clark the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the British gave him an honorary knighthood. But the Pentagon's treatment of Clark left a sour taste amid the triumph..."

*****
Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO
The general exposed the gap between pretended "combat readiness" and refusal to accept war's risks
By: EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Published in the LA Times August 6, 1999

So why was Clark fired? The official answer is that he wasn't fired at all, but merely asked to accommodate his successor at NATO, Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, by stepping aside a bit early. That is all very plausible except that any four-star general can be parked in a special assignment while awaiting a new command. Because Ralston is especially well-liked, nobody would have objected to the exception.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089014/



So... gotcha back, "cousin."

[SpaceBuddy008]

122. knee-jerk NYTimes & Knee-jerk BBC reports

Published on Friday, September 19, 2003 by the New York Times
Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
by Adam Nagourney

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Thursday, 9 March, 2000, 14:14 GMT
Confrontation over Pristina airport

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

maybe you should be brave enough to check out these knee-jerk sites
most folk's realize mistake of relying on mainstream

truth is everywhere in bits and peaces just trying to help assemble it so we can all have change
think outside the box

we do not need a new 'The Man' we are wanting to replace 'The Man' or eliminate the need for a (Man)

and if you don't understand my incoherent garble a wise 'one' once said, "maybe it was not meant for you"

someone might appreciate brother, please don't try to 'tag' it

Oh Yeah tactics, fallacies used:
appeal to authority
ad hominen
'piling on'

build better arguments with www.fallacyfiles.org

dissident voice compelation is impeccable, you should really print it and consider why someone took the time and felt the need to ASSEMBLE it

[Clark2008]

124. Like I care what the administrator of Bloody Sunday in Ireland

says.
YOU should check out Gen. Mike Jackson before you hold his words in such high regard. Maybe Bono could help you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bloodysunday/article/0,2763,1063824,00.html

And, you're correct... facts are found in bits and pieces.
And, given Jackson's propensity for omitting information under oath, I choose not to believe much of what he says.

[FrenchieCat]

132. Every story has two sides. Why you would choose to believe the worse is

beyond me!

The Pristina Airport incident that you so want to throw in the face of Clark supporters actually only demonstrate what an outstanding leader and commander Clark is; the fact that he took no shit and knew which way was up. THIS OCCURRED 5 YEARS AGO...NOT 40 YEARS AGO, and it was ALL WELL DOCUMENTED.....NEWS STORIES IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ETC...

Gen. Sir Mike was the WHINER on this one. His nicknames are "Macho Jacko" or "Prince of Darkness"!

here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........
Yes, I'm for a full discussion on this incident and I conclude that the British General was the screw-up who gave the Russians back their balls against NATO!

The first from an article by Elizabeth Drew of the highly (more so than NYT Hack Adam Nagourney)respected New York Book Review:
"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."
Read the whole article here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

And here's another take on it:
Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

Think back to Berlin in 1945. General George S. Patton urged Eisenhower to let him drive the Russian army back east across the Russian border. He understood better than the naive Eisenhower and Churchill that Russia had become the biggest threat to the west and was not about to return conquered territory back to the allies or the original governments. He also understood that Russia's army, while victorious over the depleted German army, was in no shape to resist the allies. In a very real sense we missed an opportunity to avoid the cold war entirely. Republicans, conservatives, and hawks generally agree with this hindsight assessment. It highlights the irony of political partisanship that the same people condemn General Clark for essentially the same behavior. Clark very much resembles Patton: aggressive, hard-nosed, a brilliant commander, and despised by his peers and superiors - one would think Republicans would appreciate him for that.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.
http://epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxville/local_editorials.cfm

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip
More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://tinyurl.com/6hgry

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm
Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

Brig Freer was in charge of the Parachute Regiment and Gurkha soldiers who were the first, apart from special forces, to enter Kosovo, on June 12. The report, prepared for the Ministry of Defence's comprehensive "lessons learnt" exercise on the Kosovo war, and copied to Gen Jackson, is unusually strong criticism of the command structures in the operation. Because there was little or no Serb opposition to the arrival of the Nato peacekeepers, the failings identified were not fatal.
....
The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm
German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.
a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.

Macko Jacko Supported the War in Iraq
The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk /news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml
....
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

He was less impressed, just before the war began, when Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be suggesting that the British troops were tagging along for the ride. "I saw the comment about the British forces not being necessary. I don't think he had an idea how many British troops were committed, but the first days of the war straightened him out," says the general. "Our performance was outstanding in the south."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.
==
His role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial

Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
<>"http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183">http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183

Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

Colonel Ted Loden, the major in command of the army unit which fired more than 100 shots on Bloody Sunday, had claimed he made a list of engagements, which was later typed up, after interviewing soldiers in his armoured vehicle.

[incapsulated]

146. What Frenchie posted

Really says it all, I have nothing to add.

:)

[Pepperbelly]

137. you are sooooooo full of it, bud...

The whole story rests on the credibility of the sources. Clark or the Brit. The rest of the evidence goes Clark's way when you actually break the whole report down.

It is baloney.

[Totally Committed]

138. Adam Nagourney is a Malignant Dwarf...

and in the pocket of the RW a little too snugly for my taste! The NYT has one of the most Liberal Editorial Boards in the media, but its newpages are nearly RW at this point. Why are people so ready to believe all this RW claptrap about another Democrat?

And, of course, a Serbian would be anti-Clark. He went in to stop the Serbians from ethnically cleansing the ethnic Albanians. They didn't appreciate it much, and spread all sorts of b-s.

There is now, and always has been a Left Wing of the Democratic Party so Left as to be anti-anyone-military. I know, because I sued to be one in my youth. Time and tide taught me not all is as black and white as it appears when you're young, and I now see shades of gray. I hope you will consider that from my perspective, Clark is the answer to this Party's woes... a strong National Security candidate from a Southern State who is not ashamed of his religious/spiritual side, and whose social policies are extremely Liberal. He can think on his feet, talk straight, shoot from the hip, and take no sh*t from anyone. I know some don't believe this man with a backbone could actually be a Democrat, but you're all too used to seeing the ball-less invertabrates that masquerade as leaders in this Party.

We is the leader for this Party at this time. I truly believe that.

TC

[kevsand]

139. i give up spacebuddy

are you, like, livin' in the beat scene, cat

what is the real deal with your coolier than thou jive rap

is the knee the true source of the jerk, bro, or are there hidden shallows

why is your zeitgeist punctuated with the staccato rhythms of discredited wannabes

and why is it your only punctuation

on edit
almost forgot
welcome to du dood

[Sparkly]

143. Nice one

B-) :thumbsup:

[kevsand]

151. It gets better.

Or worse, depending on your perspective. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1712615

[Totally Committed]

152. Well, it does give a certain perspective...

you have to admit.

Creative, fascinating, but definitely out there... Reminds m eof my college days in the 60's. After an episode like that, we used to get our fellow dorm-mate to the infirmary quickly. LOL!

I know... it was sort of like William Safire on acid.

I enjoyed it.

But, like I said -- the perspective is there.

TC

[ZootSuitGringo]

134. Yikes! You're citing a Serbian as a source for anti-Clark propaganda?

Now, that's low. The Balkan Express website by Nebojsa Malik? Jeeze, when would the Serbian Malosovic apologists be a good source for anti-Clark propaganda? Can we say "all of the time"?

This citing is like citing a SkinHead Website to argue that FDR and Churchill were not great men and did the wrong thing about WWII!

[Sparkly]

142. Precisely.

Exactly. Absolutely. Well said, Zoot.

[incapsulated]

145. Eh, you shoulda been here during the primaries

That sort of "cite" was used all the time. Without apology. In fact, the response was: "so, you won't don't like the source so you won't answer the charges!"

[x_y_no]

80. LOL!

Took a lot longer than usual for an anti-Clark troll to show up.

When are you guys going to get some new material that hasn't been debunked a thousant times already?

[Totally Committed]

81. The "Father- Figure Hero-Worship" line was good, though...

took some thought and a little animosity. Followed up with a passage from the Bible, it sort of touched all bases. I give it a 6 -- it had a good beat, but who the hell would want to dance to it?

TC

[incapsulated]

82. Nah, that's old, too

Heard it a hundred times.

And: "blinded by 4 stars" etc.

Oh, and I was the one (she said proudly) who somehow provoked the "jack-booted Clarkies" comment, during the primaries. I didn't even say anything remotely flame-worthy to get that one, heh. Kinda like the wasted deleted posts, you wish you had gotten your full dollar's worth if it was gonna be deleted, anyway.

;)

[Totally Committed]

83. LOL!

Incapsulated, you are a nut! And, I mean that in the nicest way! :)

TC

[Pepperbelly]

98. drive-by horseshit ...

Peddle it to Nader.

[wicket]

77. I wish I wasn't at work so I could listen!

[Roland99]

84. *** Wes Clark's Opening Statement ***

Opening Statement of General Wesley Clark
House Armed Services Committee Hearing
April 6, 2005

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Skelton, distinguished members of this
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. From moment one, this Committee has been strongly
supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to
commend you for that -- and thank you for the support that so
many of you gave to me during my time in the military. As a
former soldier, I can't stress enough how important these
deliberations are to our armed forces and military families
stationed around the world -- and to the thousands of veterans
I've met with over the past two years. I have also heard from
thousands of people over the internet who wish to express their
gratitude for your efforts and concerns about the situation in
Iraq. On their behalf and on behalf of my own family, I thank
you.

It is a privilege to appear today to present my thoughts on Iraq
and our armed forces, to offer a brief retrospective on the
mission there, to sketch out a successful way ahead, and to
discuss the implications for the U.S. armed forces.

In September 2002, you invited me to testify about the looming
crisis in Iraq. At the time, based on the information provided
by the U.S. intelligence community, we all believed that Iraq
possessed some chemical and biological weapons, and had an
ongoing effort to gain nuclear weapons. It made sense at the
time to go to the United Nations and get strong diplomatic
reinforcement to end Saddam's weapons programs.

But the critical issue then was how to end Saddam's weapons
program without detracting from our focus on Osama bin Laden and
the Al Qaeda network, and our efforts to deal with other
immediate, mid- and long-term security problems. As you may
recall, I counseled at the time that we needed a Congressional
Resolution -- not at that point authorizing the use of force --
but rather expressing the intent to use force if all other
measures were to fail. I testified that we should then use this
Congressional Resolution to press for UN action, that we should
work patiently to forge world-wide legitimacy, and that force
should be used only as a last resort, after all diplomatic means
had been exhausted -- and then only after we had fully prepared
to handle the post-conflict process in Iraq.

After a Congressional Resolution and an aborted U.N. inspection
effort, the U.S. invaded Iraq. We did not use the U.N. process
effectively to enhance our legitimacy or build our coalition.
The Administration did not heed the warnings of General Shinseki
and others who warned of the force strength necessary to win the
war and win the peace. In short, the Administration did not give
our military adequate planning or sufficient resources to handle
the post-conflict situation in Iraq. These errors were
compounded by weak strategic decisions, including dissolving the
Iraqi army and outlawing Baathist participation in new
governmental structures. The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib has
provided our enemies with a propaganda bonanza resulting in a
recruiting windfall in Iraq and throughout the Arab world.

More fundamentally, with its armed occupation of Iraq, the
Administration lost focus, and was substantially distracted from
worldwide efforts against Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and the Al
Qaeda network are still at large, terrorist incidents have
continued to take innocent life, and U.S. military actions in
Iraq have provided a magnet for recruiting and training large
numbers of extremist youth in continuing warfare. If Iraq is
today the center of the war against terrorism, as some in the
Administration have contended, it is not because the terrorists
were there originally, but because they have been recruited
there to the fight against us. Our military action in Iraq is
more a catalyst for terrorists than a cure. Whatever results may
ultimately come from removing Saddam Hussein from power, ending
the terrorist threat against the United States of America is not
likely to be one of them.

Of great concern today and, frankly, in the years ahead is that
the focus on Iraq has deprived the Administration of the time,
diplomatic support, and military resources to act effectively
against other, more dangerous sources of WMD proliferation. The
"red line" established by the Clinton Administration against
North Korea's reprocessing of spent uranium fuel to make
plutonium has now been breached. North Korea has announced that
they have reprocessed and presumably now have the fissile
materials to make at least a half dozen additional nuclear
weapons. Furthermore, this Administration has refused to
participate in the discussions aimed at persuading Iran to
permanently renounce its uranium enrichment capabilities.

>From the outset, the military mission in Iraq has been
complicated by factors other than making the best decisions for
success. Operations to destabilize Iraq were apparently viewed
as the start of a broader campaign to destabilize or overthrow a
number of governments in the Middle East, including Lebanon,
Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. The start of the campaign was
rushed, for reasons that have never been made clear by the
Administration. And once U.S. forces were inside Iraq, U.S.
diplomacy failed to take measures to undercut regional
resistance from countries such as Syria and Iran.

If we are to succeed in Iraq, we must move along three tracks;
first, improve security and at the same time reduce the exposure
and commitment of the U.S. forces; second, strengthen our
ability to facilitate Iraqi political development; third, we
must reduce regional resistance to the emergence of a democratic
Iraq.

On the first track, the U.S. military must shift away from the
battlefields and move into more of a reserve role, relying on a
cadre of U.S. advisors to strengthen the newly-minted Iraqi
forces. This will entail risks, as U.S. forces turn over combat
responsibilities, so it must be paced to improved Iraqi
capabilities and the development of an advisory structure.

On the second track, our Embassy obviously has to play a
behind-the-scenes role. Without usurping Iraqi responsibilities,
we should be able to do more to gain local political
information, shape alternatives and facilitate the emergence of
democratic governance inside Iraq

On the third track, we should to be talking to all of Iraq's
neighbors, including Syria and Iran in a regional framework.
Delaying this until we can change the governments in Damascus
and Tehran, which seems to be the current policy, puts
increasing pressure on our troops and raises the risks inside
Iraq.

The U.S. armed forces are caught up in an over-extended ground
campaign that is rapidly using up our ground combat strength. In
equipment terms, each year in Iraq puts about five years of
normal wear-and-tear on the equipment. The wheeled and tracked
fleets from the first combat rotation into Iraq have not yet
been fully repaired and restored. Reserve component units are
leaving much of their equipment behind in Iraq for follow-on
units, thereby crippling their recovery and retraining at home

Even more importantly, the human costs to the all-volunteer
Army, especially, have been staggering. The Army currently has
17 brigades deployed in Iraq, from an active force of 33
brigades, which should grow to 44 brigades as the result of
internal Army restructuring. Most reserve component brigades
have already been called up and deployed. The result is that
active duty soldiers can expect to be deployed every other year
to Iraq for a year long combat tour, unless either the size of
the American commitment to Iraq is reduced or the size of the
active force is significantly increased.

And even maintaining the force at its current size is likely to
be challenging. While the active force is meeting its retention
objectives, recruiting for the Army and Marine Corps is lagging
behind both for the active and the reserve component.
Ultimately, if the current combat levels in Iraq continue, this
recruiting gap is unlikely to be closed by more financial
incentives. Most married soldiers just can't contemplate
indefinitely deploying for a year, every other year, away from
their families.

Even worse is the treatment that the United States is meting out
to its returning reservists, Guardsmen, and other veterans. Over
the past three years there has been a substantial erosion of
veterans benefits -- hospitals have closed or reduced
treatments, usage fees have risen, returning reservists and
Guardsmen have lost jobs, had their homes foreclosed on, credit
scores ruined, suffered family tragedies, and significant
stresses. The adjustment mechanisms to receive home our soldiers
and then to sustain them and care for them as a grateful nation
should are simply inadequately developed and funded. We owe our
veterans -- and we owe their families as a pragmatic matter, if
we don't do more, we'll never be able to raise the forces we
need to sustain our commitments.

If we are to sustain the all-volunteer force, and restore our
defenses, we will need to augment the size of the active force
substantially, fully fund our materiel requirements, enhance the
benefits and support for our reserve force, and as both a
pragmatic and moral imperative, fully fund the VA and improve
our support structure for our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for your
support of our troops. I will be pleased to take your questions.

[FrenchieCat]

85. Can we say PNAC

with this statement?
Operations to destabilize Iraq were apparently viewed
as the start of a broader campaign to destabilize or overthrow a
number of governments in the Middle East, including Lebanon,
Syria, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. The start of the campaign was
rushed, for reasons that have never been made clear by the
Administration. --Wes Clark to Congressional committee 4/5/05

[Roland99]

86. Sure we can. But does the MSM give a shit? Nope.

:(

[Totally Committed]

88. They are too busy covering Death-a-Palooza...

The Pope, Prince Rainier, Johnny Cochran, Peter Jennings' lung cancer, who gets to go to Terry's burial....... anything, but what really concerns the American people.

TC

[Roland99]

89. I can't wait until Soros buys or creates a news network

[Totally Committed]

90. I'd pay good money...

to see him buy CNN and toss every one of their celebrity anchors out, one at a time, onto the street. Every last one of them has got to go.

TC

[Roland99]

91. Hear! Hear!

[sharonking21]

93. I think I would keep

Aaron Brown. I like his low-key style, so unlike most of them. And I was introduced to Wes Clark on his news program, for which I continue to be grateful. Please note I say news program--a departure from what I call the others (not printable).

[kevsand]

111. I know exactly what you mean.

I have disagreed with Brown a few times. He's one of the few I've ever sent a letter of complaint to, in part because it really disappointed me on those rare occasions when I felt he strayed from his normally very sensible, well grounded approach to things. Also in part because I have the sense that he's one of the few who would ever actually read and consider a well thought out, civilly phrased objection.

But I will always cut him some slack because he had the good sense to introduce me to Gen. Clark on a regular basis. There was obviously a great deal of respect between the two, and I was absolutely delighted to hear someone speaking with real authority and perspective about a war I adamantly opposed.

I quickly learned in those dark days that Gen. Clark was someone who had the chops to tell the truth clearly and succinctly, and who would do so without fail. Aaron Brown made me a Clarkie in the spring of 2003, and I will always have a soft spot in my head for him as a result.

[sharonking21]

112. Yes, when Brown goes astray

I am more keenly disappointed because I contrast whatever folly he commits to my high expectations of him. I have very low, indeed floorboard, expectations of the others.

[Dr Fate]

87. I support Wes Clark for 2008. n/t

n/t

[Roland99]

125. Hear! Hear!

[deadparrot]

92. I love Wes.

Love him. He's fantastic. :)

If the day comes when he announces his candidacy, I will be first in line to volunteer.

[Sparkly]

95. I am so glad to be able to hear the whole thing!!

Thanks for the link, incap!! I'm going to take time to listen to it in segments. I missed the opening statements live, caught some, and had to tear myself away to go out to work. None of the radio stations carried it, although they carried the testimony on life support issues...

Listening live, I noticed how often the chair (who was it, anyway?) and Perle backed off from positions by saying something like, "Nobody's saying that, General." For instance, I think it was the chair who was pressing him for a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether US foreign policy helped the situations in Libya and in Israel/Palestine. He was clearly pushing to equate "Iraq invasion" with "American foreign policy of the past two decades" and didn't want the complex answer. When Clark finally got to a summation of, "So NO, I couldn't say it was the result of the Iraq invasion" (I'm paraphrasing) the guy said, "Nobody's asking you to, General."

Perle did it later when feigning, in his best John Houseman style, an incredulous response to the idea of TALKing to people before just sending troops in. (Nevermind that threatening force and using terms like "axis of evil" is also talking to people, btw.) Clark explained why talking is worthwhile rather than just going to war, why making the battlefield smaller is better than making it bigger (to which Perle said, "You've got to understand the battlefield" -- absolutely hilarious coming from HIM, and said to General Clark!), and he pointed out that we aren't even at a point of being ready to invade Iran and Syria. Perle: "Nobody's suggesting that, General" (or some such phrase).

So if he doesn't think there should be talking, yet he doesn't think we're ready for war, what does Perle think we SHOULD be doing?! What a weasel!!

I had to leave shortly after that, so the rest will be new to me.

[Clark2008]

97. The chair is Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)

He's a real ass from what I was hearing from the California people also listening to this live feed earlier today.

[Totally Committed]

99. Uh-oh... I said Warner this morning...

But, he's the SENATE Chairman...

It sucks to get old!

TC

[Sparkly]

100. Who was the one, I think from North Carolina,

who went after Perle for his opening remarks that Saddam just fooled our intelligence agencies?

[Clark2008]

103. There were two

Jim Cooper, (D-Tenn.): He said, "The Bible says by their fruits we shall know them...I think t if you look at the testimony that both of these gentleman delivered to this Committee prior to the war, there's no question as to who ended up being more correct... I think it's General Clark, by a wide margin."

And, then there was, Walter Jones (R-NC). He was the one who was very concerned with the administration's (mis) treatment of the veterans. I was surprised, given his harsh questioning of Perle, to learn he is a Republican.

[Sparkly]

104. Wow!!

I haven't heard that first one you mentioned, Cooper, yet... Sounds great!

[Sparkly]

106. Yes!! I'm hearing it again: "Mr. Jones" -- at about 1:14, great exchange!!

He really called Perle out. And I think somebody ought to research the denials of involvement with certain others (meetings, statements, etc) from Perle... My hunch is he was lying.

[FourStarDemocrat]

115. I was surprised too, and I'd like to see those quotes attributed to Perle

that Jones read to him, (which Perle disavowed at the hearings). I can't remember them exactly, but there were some pretty wacky quotes supposedly said by Perle, that he denied-- of course he could be lying or perjuring himself. Anyone remember them?

I do wonder how Rep. Jones got a hold of that information though. It is interesting, as well as the question of how the whole thing could be "false" as Perle claimed.

[Sparkly]

144. Cooper starts at about 2:15

Just heard it tonight. Perle had a meltdown!

[Sparkly]

101. Re-listening: The first exchange starts at about 40:00

In case anybody wants to hear it! Tell me that guy (Hunter) didn't have an agenda with that line of questioning, and then didn't back down from it at the end. Slimy weasels.

[Clark2008]

102. One of our favorite Clarkies has pics from today's hearings

Go here: http://community.webshots.com/album/316339703EFlXTq

Here's some samples I snagged:

[FrenchieCat]

105. That 2nd pic is special....with the pointing finger

at the slime trying to give him a lecture.

[Sparkly]

120. Huh...

Didn't the WaPo article say Clark and Perle wore "twin gray suits?" That's not a gray suit. :shrug: Oh well, they got the rest of it right!

[Donna Zen]

141. I can see Wes Clark's back!

Nope

No funny box shape under his suit

[Benno]

107. What can I say?

Wes is, well lets just say awesome. Honesty is something you hear very rarely in any political forum.

[democrank]

109. I wish I could have heard this.

Clark was my candidate in 04. The guy is absolutely brilliant. I did catch him on Washington Journal this morning. I`ll bet anything he runs in 08.

[Sparkly]

110. You can!!

http://hasc3.house.gov/04-06-05FullComm.asf

[Clark2008]

113. Wa-Po weighs in

Sometimes life imitates art. Yesterday, it imitated an episode of "Crossfire." For more than three hours, Clark and Perle reprised their confrontation before the committee in September 2002. The two men entered in twin gray suits and red ties, and took adjacent chairs at the witness table. Clark scribbled in pencil, Perle with a fountain pen. Only Perle's reading material -- he put on the witness table a copy of "Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" -- suggested he was not expecting what was to come.

SNIP

The two belligerents then went after each other, taking the hearing out of the control of the lawmakers. Perle wondered "why in the world" Clark would talk to Syria. Clark said Perle should learn to "eat the elephant one bite at a time." "What are you talking about?" Perle demanded.

SNIP

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.

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

[FourStarDemocrat]

114. Great article, terrific recap by Milbank

One question I have is if anyone knows if the following statement by Milbank is true, or if it's a joke?? It sounds like a joke, or metaphor...

"Only Perle's reading material -- he put on the witness table a copy of "Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" -- suggested he was not expecting what was to come. "

[kevsand]

140. Definitely surreal.

I would have thought that if he was going to bring a cookbook, it would have been something more like "To Serve Man." ;-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

149. LOL Great Twilight Zone Episode. Perle as Alien. Works for me n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. Major media smack down of Perle. A remarkable article.

Perle is actually held accountable for being dead wrong. Clark is actually given ample press lines to allow the contrast between his clarity and Perle's deception to be obvious to any reader.

I loved this part, though I wish we could repost the whole article here which had a number of superb Clark jabs at Perle and the Republicans quoted:

"It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined."

[Dinger]

123. They Have To Air This. Where Do I BUY The Video/DVD???

Yes, I'll pay for it!

[dogman]

126. Ed Schultz said he ran into Perle at the dinner last night.

He said Perle looked in rough shape, maybe from the whuppin' Clark put on him.

[Totally Committed]

127. What dinner was this, please?

I missed Ed today!

TC

[x_y_no]

128. I'm guessing ...

But probably the radio & television correspondents' association dinner.

[Totally Committed]

129. I thought the same thing, but...

why would Perle be there?????

TC

[x_y_no]

130. Hmmmm ...

A guest of one of those liberal MSM people I guess ... ;-)

[Totally Committed]

131. I found out! (I think...)

I just got an e-mail from a friend who said it was the Peabody Awards dinner.

I guess Jon Stewart won second or third year in a row for "Best News Show"... LOL!

That's my guess. It happened last night, but again... what the * was Perle doing there?

I guess it should be solace enoiugh that he looked "rough".

TC

[dogman]

133. It was the Radio & Television Correspondents Association dinner in DC.

Ed was there because he said someone hooked him up with tickets. He said Perle keeps ttrying to tell him they have a lot in common because he(Perle) was a "Scoop" Jackson Democrat.

[ZootSuitGringo]

135. The Prince of Darkness strikes again,

The moist underbelly of this administration shows its face in Perle at a Radio & Television Correspondents Association dinner in DC.

Why Perle even has any juice left, I'll never know.

Also note that the president of this Radio and Television Association is a Republican for next year. Something about having a Republican doing this is a plus for TV and Radio.

The 4th estate is no more!

[Totally Committed]

148. Good Lord... Perle was a "Scoop" Jackson DEMOCRAT?

I remember them, and I can't picture Richard Perle as one... it just really proves what I always say: The days of our youth don't necessarily give an indication of how we end up after time and tide have their way with us. Yikes! I was never a "Scooper", but, even I will tell you that the author of the PNAC plan for World Domination must have been a very different person at that time to have been one.

Thanks also for the information about what exactly the function was that they attended. Did Ed ever say WHY Richard Perle was there at all? It's really odd.

TC

[dogman]

150. Scoop was a bit of a Hawk, representing Boeing area.

No, Ed did not say he just said it seems like he's run into him a few times lately. Maybe Perle is looking for a place to leak and trying to soften the PNAC image. My understanding is some of the PNACers were left leaning Dems but have adopted what they think is the Israeli stance of hard line and no compromise. He said the last time he ran into Perle was when he was on a pundit panel. Maybe Perle hangs out to scout the left arguements to be able to head them off and spin them.

[Leilani]

147. Thanks everybody for your running commentaries!!!

I haven't had a chance to listen to Wes's testimony yet, but from your descriptions, it sounds like he completely whooped Perle's ass.

I saw Wes on Wash Journal & he was great...also loved the article in the Wash Post.

All in all, it was a good day!