Visiting the Pentagon only a week after 9/11 Clark was called into the office of another high ranking General;

"So, the General calls me after I'd seen Rumsfeld. He said, "Sir, come in here." He said, "Sir, we're going to invade Iraq." I said, "We're going to invade Iraq!?! Why?" And he said, "Because," he says, "I don't know why. Really," he said, "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but," he said, "I guess they don't know what to do about the problem of terrorism, and if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail." He said, "We don't know what to do about terrorists, but we can take down governments. So, I guess they're looking for a government to take down. Meanwhile we started bombing in Afghanistan. So well, I came back to see the same General in early November. I said, "Are we still going to invade Iraq?" He said, "Yes, Sir," he said, "but it's worse than that." I said, "How do you mean?" He held up this piece of paper. He said, "I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It's a, it's a five-year plan. We're going to take down seven countries in five years. We're going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we're going to come back and get Iran in five years. I said, "Is that classified, that paper?" He said, "Yes Sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me, because I want to be able to talk about it." And I begin to see what wasn't being explained to the American people, which was the overall drift of where the policy was. We still didn't have a strategy, but we were driven to take action.

From a speech at the University of Alabama on October 13th 2006

link: http://securingamerica.com/printready/Univ_Alabama_061013.htm

i voted for him in 2004 and, should he run again, i will likely vote for him again

i voted for him in 2004


I should have [though Kerry already had the nomnation by the time my primary came around].


and, should he run again, i will likely vote for him again


I will do whatever I can to help General Clark.

General Clark has what it takes to clean up the messes that were are in domesticly and overseas.

He is a good man ,a smart man and I think he has what it takes to unpolarize our society.

My mom worked on his last campaign.

His statement does not suprise or startle me in the least.

I've read lots of Clarks speeches and articles . He seems honest enough ,but don't know much about his politics other than opinion on war . And I'll never vote for the lessor of two evils again, so I don't have a representative .

This is no longer national politics, it is now world politics . It was hard enough to try and keep up with nation, much less world .

I have witnessed changes over past 50 years that have made this nation un-reconizable to what it was . None possitive . Equal rights that me and others fought for centuries were turned into a liberal money market . The way it was handled it has divided us more than ever . What price glory ? We sold our souls for a counterfiet freedom and sold out our childrens future . Freedom has never been free . Liberty will not survive immorality, no matter how much the lie is told .

I wonder . Man say we are tking over the world . I see evidence of islam doing it . Muslims are immigrating to every nation on earth, the ones who are defenseless are murdered and torured into subjection, the others are being taken or possibly 'given' politically with oil rich lobbys and org.s . Never in the wildest imagination would anyone had thought 30 years ago a rep of the US would be swearing in on a quran . Or that muslims, latinos would stand in the streets of America flying flags and calling for our death and or surrender .

So maybe we are smart in setting up stratigic bases and taking down nations that celebrate our tradgedys and threaten us and our allies [especially Israel] with death on world news all year ? Or maybe we are the ones seting up these barbareans to be used later for control . I really don't know ,and thanks to the citizens of this once great nation our masters won't tell us .

He's such a ****ing liar.

Wesley Clark is very bad news. I might post something more about this later, but one thing is for sure... the guy is bad, bad news.

Wesley Clark is very bad news. I might post something more about this later, but one thing is for sure... the guy is bad, bad news.

Tell me someone that is ' good news' in past 50 years ! :eek: good leaders can only be lected by good citizens , sheep just pasture and sleep and get fat until the slaughter .:confused:

Wesley Clark is very bad news. I might post something more about this later, but one thing is for sure... the guy is bad, bad news.
^No higher recommendation possible.:cool:

Look at it this way:All Clark has to do is win all the states that Gore and Kerry won plus one more and he has the White House.

Clark is well-respected in many of those states that Gore and Kerry didn't get [inlcuding his native Arkaksas,that state alone could give Clark the presidency ],he has no sex scandals and he can't be swift-boated.

His experience is immense and he could ease the divisons we have in the U.S and make the U.S. respected in the world again.

In other words:Wesley Clark could clean up George W. Bush's major mess better than anyone else can.

I wanted Clark back in '04. I liked his positions, his explanations, and he seemed to have a very good record.

I don't believe that we're planning on taking down 7 governments in 5 years at all. We've been in iraq for over three years now withg no end in sight, and we don't even have the manpower to begin an operation of that magnitude.

I would have to thoroughly investigate his source before even beginning to take it seriously. It sounds like just another one of those stories that circulate from time to time, yet never happen.

If Clark actually believes this, I would also wonder about him. IMO he would he's either extremely gullible to believe that this is a real plan, or lying .

My guess is that we underestimated the opposition.

I don't believe that we're planning on taking down 7 governments in 5 years at all. We've been in iraq for over three years now withg no end in sight, and we don't even have the manpower to begin an operation of that magnitude.

I would have to thoroughly investigate his source before even beginning to take it seriously. It sounds like just another one of those stories that circulate from time to time, yet never happen.

If Clark actually believes this, I would also wonder about him. IMO he would he's either extremely gullible to believe that this is a real plan, or lying .


Seems that way .

I said, "Is that classified, that paper?" He said, "Yes Sir." Let me get this straight. Clark feels that he has authority to talk publically about information he knows is classified? That's treason.

Let me get this straight. Clark feels that he has authority to talk publically about information he knows is classified? That's treason.

That alone makes me wonder how reliable this information is. It's really not treason, but it's certainly not acceptable. Noone gets to be a general by flapping his mouth.

Only if he sees the paper. If he doesn't see the paper, it's not.
True story. Unless the conversation is held behind closed doors or the information is eyes only, it's not considered treason.
Or so say the folks I know who used to work at the NSA. Maybe security procedures are really different in other places.

It was definitively proven that Clark's book was filled with misstatements, direct lies, and exaggerations.

Anyone who think she is great is an idiot.

Only if he sees the paper. If he doesn't see the paper, it's not.
True story. Unless the conversation is held behind closed doors or the information is eyes only, it's not considered treason.
Or so say the folks I know who used to work at the NSA. Maybe security procedures are really different in other places.That's complete bullcrap. Regardless of whether he saw the paper, he knew it was classified. It would be a completely different story if he wasn't told it was classified.

Even if that's the policy, I wouldn't trust someone who would use legalisms like that to protect himself when he knows he's harming the country by releasing the information publically.

It's just like when Clinton tried to explain that he never technically had sex with Monica.

That's complete bullcrap. Regardless of whether he saw the paper, he knew it was classified. It would be a completely different story if he wasn't told it was classified.

Even if that's the policy, I wouldn't trust someone who would use legalisms like that to protect himself when he knows he's harming the country by releasing the information publically.

Yes, it's a terrible harm to the country that a failed five year plan to take over the Middle East might have been exposed. Right.
And reading your fortune cookie aloud will stop it from coming true, too.

Yes, it's a terrible harm to the country that a failed five year plan to take over the Middle East might have been exposed. Right.
And reading your fortune cookie aloud will stop it from coming true, too.
That isn't the point. Where did I say I thought the US should execute that plan?

The point is that the people who have access to classified information and know it is classified have some obligation to keep it secret. That being said, the general who shared the information with Clark is culpable as well. He shouldn't be sharing secret information with anyone unless that person has a "need to know".

I'd feel the same way regardless of what information is being disclosed or who the president is (or whether I agree with him or not).

Depends on the classification.

It was definitively proven that Clark's book was filled with misstatements, direct lies, and exaggerations.



As usual a blow hard statement not followed by any facts.

That isn't the point. Where did I say I thought the US should execute that plan?

The point is that the people who have access to classified information and know it is classified have some obligation to keep it secret. That being said, the general who shared the information with Clark is culpable as well. He shouldn't be sharing secret information with anyone unless that person has a "need to know".

I'd feel the same way regardless of what information is being disclosed or who the president is (or whether I agree with him or not).


Except when it's a CIA agent being outed by the BA as revenge for her husband de-bunking their pre-war lies.. Then it A-OK!!

The right has lost all credibility when it comes to leaking classified info..

Trust me on this one people; don't trust any politician from Arkansas, least of all Wesley Clark, or Mike Huckabee. They're complete scum and we don't need another damned presidential library in Little Rock. 3 potential Arkansas politicians running for president, scary, very scary.

Except when it's a CIA agent being outed by the BA as revenge for her husband de-bunking their pre-war lies.. Then it A-OK!!

The right has lost all credibility when it comes to leaking classified info..

Right on.:nice:

Trust me on this one people; don't trust any politician from Arkansas, least of all Wesley Clark, or Mike Huckabee. They're complete scum and we don't need another damned presidential library in Little Rock. 3 potential Arkansas politicians running for president, scary, very scary.

86Dude is from Arkansas, for anyone who doesn't know.

And as for what you just said, from the research I've done, I couldn't agree more... in fact it deserves applause for being truest post of the day.

http://www.geocities.com/incindiaryonline/handclap.txt

Amazing...I report a speech that Clark made and highlighted matters concerning "the plan" that he was made aware of.
I remind you of his words:
"He held up this piece of paper. He said, "I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It's a, it's a five-year plan. We're going to take down seven countries in five years. We're going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we're going to come back and get Iran in five years. I said, "Is that classified, that paper?" He said, "Yes Sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me, because I want to be able to talk about it."

He was shown a document, he did not read it, he was told in general terms what it's contents were.

I should remind folks that this compares closely with the game plan of PNAC written back in 1998.

Instead of any considered remarks on this we get the kneejerk Swiftboating of Clark and attempts to paint an American patriot who served his country for so many years as a traitor.

As for doubting the authenticity of the story, the "7 countries on 5 years" seems entirely plausible, let's remind ourselves that The Decider was strutting around announcing "Mission accomplished" after 3 months, Iraq was supposed to fold and roll over so we could move on.

How I feel about him has nothing to do with anything you posted.

How I feel about him has nothing to do with anything you posted.

Well, give us a little more to go on...

I'll come back to this later, when I can post some info that explains what I believe about that man.

Btw, to me there isn't much difference between the two major parties, so it is not just a Democrat thing... If there was an honest, moderate Democrat who got elected, I wouldn't be opposed to that. What absolutely should not happen is any Clinton or one of their Arkansas buddies to get in power. They are bad news, very very bad news. Trust me on this one, and what 86Dude said.

As usual a blow hard statement not followed by any facts.

Find your own facts. Clarks lies were easily revealed. A little research on your part would do you good. My job is NOT to hold your hand in life.

As for doubting the authenticity of the story, the "7 countries on 5 years" seems entirely plausible, let's remind ourselves that The Decider was strutting around announcing "Mission accomplished" after 3 months, Iraq was supposed to fold and roll over so we could move on.

So Clark walks into a subordinates office and the suborinate divulges all this top secret shit in violation of rules etc. Later, Clark in a paid speech recants the sequece of events to an audience of highly impressionable youth. Next, we're supposed to simply believe Clark. Come on.

Clark may not be perfect, but he's the best option we have right now in my opinion. Provided, as 86 said, if he didn't bring Clinton's people back into power.
Most of his career has NOT been in politics, thus why I think he might actually make some competent decisions given a chance.

... if you think being a general isn't "politics" you really ARE naive!

I don't think Clark is gullible as Betrade stated.I don't think he would have been so well respected nor so high ranking were he a fool.
He may very well be a liar.He did run after all for the nomination to become the dem.candidate for the presidency.
I voted for him in 2004.I don't know if I would again.Maybe if he ran as an independent.
I do however believe that there is a secret and hidden agenda that isn't shared with the American people.It wouldn't be shocking that someone like Clark had/has some knowledge of it.What he did say was rather incomplete to say the least.We cant really say that it is true or false based on what has happened for things are still happening.Plans change, time lines change.The complete truth has yet to reveal itself.

Except when it's a CIA agent being outed by the BA as revenge for her husband de-bunking their pre-war lies.. Then it A-OK!!

The right has lost all credibility when it comes to leaking classified info..
I didn't know this was a Right vs. Left discussion. I thought it was about one of America's most trusted persons releasing information to the public that he has no right to release.

Okay, I see...so because you think somoene you don't like leaked information, that makes it okay for someone you do like to do the same? Nice logic.

I never said any leaks were okay. Did you see me say that?

I do however believe that there is a secret and hidden agenda that isn't shared with the American people.

Conspiracy nonsense.

Conspiracy nonsense.

But don't you ever wonder about all of those things that they don't tell you?
Or do you just trust the government?

But don't you ever wonder about all of those things that they don't tell you?Who doesn't? The fact is, the people don't have the right to know everything. There are, and should be, some secrets. That's why it is important to elect people who will make the right decisions with secret information.

You think they're really holding alien spacecraft at Groom Lake? You think that's why they get all aggitated if you go out there? Nope. They're developing and testing new weapons that they don't want anyone to see. The government has all kinds of stuff we don't need to see.


Or do you just trust the government?Nope. I don't.

Who doesn't? The fact is, the people don't have the right to know everything. There are, and should be, some secrets. That's why it is important to elect people who will make the right decisions with secret information.

You think they're really holding alien spacecraft at Groom Lake? You think that's why they get all aggitated if you go out there? Nope. They're developing and testing new weapons that they don't want anyone to see. The government has all kinds of stuff we don't need to see.

Nope. I don't.

No, I don't think that they have any little green men at Groom Lake. But I hate secrets, they drive me insane. Maybe that's what is wrong with me. :scratch:

So Clark walks into a subordinates office and the suborinate divulges all this top secret shit in violation of rules etc. Later, Clark in a paid speech recants the sequece of events to an audience of highly impressionable youth. Next, we're supposed to simply believe Clark. Come on.

There is obviously some kind of comprehension block in place here. The other guy told him about the memo, he did not let him read it, which is why Clark was able to discuss it since he was only reporting a conversation, NOT revealing actual classified information.

Surely the facts he reports are what should be discussed here? If, in fact Rumsfeld had issued a memo with a game plan to overthrow 7 countries we should be outraged at the crass stupidity of such a plan.

But don't you ever wonder about all of those things that they don't tell you?
Or do you just trust the government?

I "worry" to a very small extent. Our system cannot allow secrets to stay secret for very long. Over arching conspiracy theories are foolish. There's NO such thing as an intelligent alien, there are no secret treasury programs, no secret agencies that are "really" running the government.... etc.

Over arching conspiracy theories are foolish. There's NO such thing as an intelligent alien, there are no secret treasury programs, no secret agencies that are "really" running the government.... etc.

Yes, but there are the small matters of corrupt government agencies and their officials.

...did I ever say there was no such thing as corruption?

I DO believe there are Democrats, ya know. Where you find a Democrat, you find corruption.

...did I ever say there was no such thing as corruption?

I DO believe there are Democrats, ya know. Where you find a Democrat, you find corruption.

Yes, but what makes you think it is limited only to one side? :hmm:

Yes, but what makes you think it is limited only to one side?

Because Republicans are NEVER wrong.... YEAH, BABY!!!

(OK, sometimes... but hardly ever... well not hardly ever... just not as much as the anti-American left... wellllll)

Because Republicans are NEVER wrong.... YEAH, BABY!!!

(OK, sometimes... but hardly ever... well not hardly ever... just not as much as the anti-American left... wellllll)
And that's precisely why we need somebody as President who is willing to put the needs of the country ahead of party interests. Our system of government is not a sporting event. It shouldn't be about cheering for your team.
Perhaps Clark is a partisan hack, I don't know. But whether it's Clark or somebody else, we desperately need a President that makes decisions based on what's in the best interest of the country, even if that means opposing his/her own party.

No, I don't think that they have any little green men at Groom Lake. But I hate secrets, they drive me insane. Maybe that's what is wrong with me. :scratch:I think it's natural to be curious. But, there are some things we'll never ever know...and probably don't need to.

Because Republicans are NEVER wrong.... YEAH, BABY!!!

(OK, sometimes... but hardly ever... well not hardly ever... just not as much as the anti-American left... wellllll)
Please be serious, man. While I agree that Leftist are whacked out, the Republican Party hasn't done such a great job of things. Bush and the Republicans had a good long time to get their agenda though and they showed their true colors. The only ones we have to blame for out-of-control spending and the massive illegal immigration problem are Bush and Co.

I do support some of what Bush has done...and Democrats offer very few alternatives I can take seriously. I view them as a bunch of heel biters rather than leaders. It will be interesting to see what they can get done in the next two years.

Conspiracy nonsense.
Id rather consider so called conspiracy theories and end up being wrong than go blindly to slaughter like a good sheep.