Michael Moore and Democrats deluded over General Wesley Clark

I'm told:

"michael moore will be on campus on oct. 20th at 7pm in the gym. they will be charging 5 dollars for admission."

(Campus meaning SFSU) I don't know if this is open to the public, but if anyone is a student at SFSU or knows one, this will be a good venue to take him on around his naive support of Clark. I have to imagine he'll be clued in by *then,* but just in case . . .

found this...

monday, oct. 20, 7-9pm

Lecture: An Evening with Michael Moore
Sponsor: A.S. Performing Arts
Location: Main Gym
Cost: $5 students, $10 general
Web Site: aspa-sfsu.org
Contact: A.S. Performing Arts
E-mail: scodav [at] sfsu.edu
Phone: 415-338-2443
Details:
Join us for an evening with best-selling author, and Academy Award-winning director Michael Moore. Tickets now available through aspa-sfsu.org, or call 800-594-8499. Presented in conjunction with Academic Affairs and The Bookstore.

JUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY?

Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who today announced his candidacy for President, joined the field of contenders competing for the Democratic nomination. But as recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office -- as a Republican.

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

Is there an antiwar candidate? I hear so little about Kucinich, but i assume he is, but it seems like even though about half the country was generally against the intervention, all the candidates and most of the congress all are in lockstep on this and other issues and they differentiate themselves only on their position on abortion or gun control.

Guess who is the 2003 recipient of the Gandhi Peace Award? Kucinich. Does the main stream news media even mention his name? It's time to cancel your TV suscription. You're paying the corporate media a hefty monthly fees and they feed you garbage.

September 21 is the International Day of Peace. Join the Kucinich campaign and/or make your donations online.

http://www.kucinich.us/

Man, am I ever glad to see you here again! Missed your intelligence and sense of fun!

What do you think of the "dream candidate", quoting a headline in today's Independent who, in turn, were quoting someone else, with respect to Clarke's announcement that he wants to be Pres?

Angie, protesting alone ain't enough. To make real changes, one way is to support and elect the Real Choice for America.

News media called Dean the anti-war. Do you buy it? He supports the continuation of arms build up. Now, Wesley Clark. The news media give him a lot of free publicity and paint him like the next savior to our national security and survival. Spare me.

[It's time way overdue to cancel your TV subscription. A lot of people are paying on the average of $ 50 /month and what do they get. Garbage mostly.]

One Con Job after another!

My choice is Dennis Kucinich. September 21 is the International Day of Peace. Visit http://www.kucinich.us/

Thanks for including the link to your preferred candidate.

I've read it with interest. I knew nothing about him up until now. He seems to have a level head on his shouldiers, and I am especially impressed with his comments re the UN's involvement in Iraq.

Of course, living in Canada, we are interested in who will be the next President. We want to see our neighbours across the border happy and content, busy and alive. We want you to have a President who will drop by and visit us and vice versa. (That didn't happened with GWB, did it?).

Angie, a lot of people have become Kucinich's supporters after they met him and heard him talk. I am one of them. Full of passion at what he does, knowledgeable, no-nonsense, and people-oriented. He really impressed me. I met him in person this past Monday at one of his rallies in Oakland, CA. He's the right man and the real choice for America and for the world community.

And will he tell the truth, and will he come visit us?

I note he's been around politics for a while. Does he have a view on the Palestine situation?

Or is that there in the site, and I didn't notice?

I wish he'd show up on the Charlie Rose show one of those nights. PBS Detroit I do watch when I have time, and when I remember it, I check out Charlie Rose's guests.

In any event I am sure that once things pick up, our own television news casts will be showing everyone involved.

Your political system is so different than ours I am not sure if I will ever grasp it.

another reason why i'm supporting the anti-war campaign of John Burton in the California recall. I think its a model for the 2004 presidential election. The material on his campaign at wsws.org convinces me that the working class must break with the two party system if we are ever going to move forward. And forget all this opportunist stuff about "then you'll let Bush win by taking votes away from the Democrats". If we don't stand on principle, we will never break out of this downward spiral into the abyss.

Angie, Kucinich speaks for me. I consider myself a centrist Democrat. You can always count on the right-wing to confuse the public by throwing in a lot of non-sense and noises.

He stands firm on many issues that no one else dares to even speak up.

1. He comes right out to say he'll cut the military budget by 15% and will use the money for domestic programs.
2. He supports the U.S. role as a member of the world community and not a unilateral superpower.
3. Universal single health plan
4. Gaurantee quality education from K to college
5. Balance the power structure between corporations and workers.
...

Kucinich's approach is the most color-blind toward other races and cultures. You can draw your conclusion from the above 1 and 2 easily about what he would do about the middle-east situation.

Guess what, even the Buddists support Kucinich. I don't remember when was the last time the Buddists came out and endorsed a Presidential candidate.

One more advice. Don't get clobbered down by extraneous (sp.?) noises and non-issues. Your heart will lead you to the right direction.

General Wesley Clark: Butcher of Belgrade, Perfumed Prince, or Clinton Clone? This Democrat is not fooled. While Gen. Wesley Clark, Ret., states some valid rhetoric about politics being preferred to military intervention and the need to focus on ending both conventional and unconventional weapons proliferation, and reportedly is a Bob Dylan fan, I am convinced he remains a dangerous man. Clark supported the use of uranium coated munitions and cluster bombs in Yugoslavia, both are arguably crimes against humanity. Soldiers under Clark’s command in Fort Hood Texas participated in the Waco debacle, and the names of the military commanders participating in the tactical planning for Waco have never been identified and may have included Clark himself. Clark was chief of operations at the US Navy internment camp at Guantanamo, and responsible for the inhumane treatment of Haitian refugees including the spraying of detainees with toxic chemicals. Now in politics as he did in the military, Clark is widely considered to be a person who will state so-called facts and positions in any manner to achieve his objective. The following excerpts are from the referenced sources regarding Clark. *************** Excerpts: "There are an awful lot of people," a retired four-star general told the Washington Post, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later." [and] Paeans are being sung to Clark, almost all of which point (as part of the positive press he's receiving) to his commanding the NATO forces that spent two and a half months bombing Yugoslavia in 1999. There's absolutely nothing about the Kosovo campaign that is heroic, praiseworthy, or antiwar -- though you'd think, the way it's bandied about, it's the icing on the cake of a dream liberal Democrat presidential candidature. Americans, it seems, even self-described antiwar liberals, are irresistibly drawn to military figures. They're also drawn to military figures who aren't particularly good at being military figures. Clark's Kosovo claim to fame was an unrelieved military flop. After weeks and weeks of bombing, Clark only managed to destroy a handful of Serb tanks. From “The Butcher of Belgrade” By Stephen Gowans – September 17, 2003 http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/butcher.html ********** Excerpts: While I agreed with some of Clark's theories on the relationship of political power and the use of military force, I was struck by the number of contradictions between what he said and what he had actually done in the Balkans and his self-serving spin on almost every issue. [and] The best way for me to describe my impression of General Clark is that he is what Colonel David Hackworth calls a "Perfumed Prince," the kind of general that we saw too many of in Vietnam and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our country. From a review by Colonel George Jatras, USAF (Ret.) of a speech by Clark given at Borders bookstore, Pentagon Center Mall, 17 Jul 2001 http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~sparta13/wesley.htm *********** Clark claims that the postwar NATO occupation brought "peace" to Kosovo, but he was clearly unprepared for the violent "ethnic cleansing" that took place on his watch, largely facilitated by his decisions, under the noses of his troops. From “Was Gen. Clark also "unprepared" for the Postwar?” by Zoltan Grossman http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman09102003.html ************ Ira Kurzban, attorney for the Haitian Refugee Center, managed to pry free government documents via a lawsuit on behalf of the refugees. These contained the startling information that prison officials had ordered the refugees sprayed repeatedly with highly toxic chemicals never designed for such generic use. The officer in charge of the refugee camp? None other than Gen. Wesley Clark, chief of operations at the US Navy internment camp at Guantanamo, and later head of NATO forces bombing Yugoslavia. From “Gen. Wesley Clark -- War Criminal, Don't Be Fooled” by Mitchel Cohen http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COH309A.html ************ Two Excerpts: For those in the audience who did not have a flier, I began to explain the picture which showed General Clark in a congratulatory handshake with Hashim Thaci, leader of the KLA, which under the noses of KFOR had murdered or ethnically cleansed thousands of Kosovo Serbs and had destroyed more Orthodox Christian churches and monasteries than were destroyed in 500 years under the Ottoman Empire. [and] "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. From "Wesley Clark - A War Criminal?" http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html ************ Excerpt: "At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast." From Wesley Clark: The Guy Who Almost Started World War III by Stella Jatras August 23, 2003 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html ************* ************ Excerpt: On October 17, Gen. Wesley Clark will be appearing at Berkeley's Community Theater. It is an outrage that this war criminal is speaking here! Clark resided over NATO's murderous 1999 war against the people of Yugoslavia. US Generals directing NATO admit to specifically targeting civilians. During the war on Yugoslavia, Clark proposed bombing oil pipelines in Hungary, as well as Russian ships in the vicinity. During his stand- off between NATO and the Russian troops, Clark attempted to have British paratroopers storm the Pristina airport. He was ultimately responsible for the use of such outlawed weaponry as cluster bombs. From "Protest NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark! Stop the US-backed War Against the Palestinian People!" Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2000, 6:30 pm http://www.iacenter.org/demo_clark.htm ************ Excerpt: Indelibly marked by his combat experience in Vietnam, where he was wounded, Clark riled Pentagon superiors with his personal conviction that only the readiness to fight and win a full-scale war would deter Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites). Determined to avoid a Vietnam quagmire, he argued persistently for ground attacks and preparations for an invasion if necessary to prove to the Serbs that NATO was determined to go as far as necessary to prevail. Just after the war ended, he ordered Britain's Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson to block the runway at Pristina, the provincial capital, to prevent Moscow from reinforcing a small force of Russian troops which had unexpectedly occupied the airfield. Jackson defied his superior, famously telling Clark: "Sir, I am not starting World War Three for you." From "Clark Was Brilliant NATO General with Thin Skin" Wed Sep 17, 2003, 1:35 PM ET By John Chalmers http://www.belgradenews.com/ with link to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=1276&e=4&u=/nm/20030917/pl_nm/usa_clark_nato_d c ********** Pravda article http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/06/23/8567.html ************ Excerpt: Although this incident may have been the most disturbing, questions had persisted throughout the air campaign against Yugoslavia regarding Clark's handling of the war. Clark's decision to target the television station in Belgrade, killing 20 journalists and other civilians, was condemned by the International Federation of Journalists as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. But Clark remained unapologetic, "We've struck at [Milosevic's] TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces." From "Wesley Clark's Unanswered Questions: Will His War Record Hurt His Chances with Liberals and Progressives?" By Ahmed Nassef - Sept. 11, 2003. http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000202.html ****************** On the question of Clark’s command of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia there is debate that the US itself violated the Genocide Convention or other crimes against humanity with its bombing. **************** "On May 7, a team of lawyers from Canada and Europe submitted a brief to Louise Arbour, the Canadian chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICT), accusing U.S. and other NATO officials of war crimes including "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity, attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings." One of the lawyers, Professor Michael Mandel of Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto, where Ms. Arbour herself once taught, argued that "charging the war's victors, and not only the losers, would be a watershed in international criminal law, showing the world that no one is above the law." " "This and a number of other initiatives by international jurists pointing to the illegality of the NATO action were widely ignored by mainstream media." Reference: http://members.tripod.com/kosovo99/genocide.htm ***************** From "World Court technically rejects but worries on NATO genocide" "HAGUE June 2 (South News) - The World Court Wednesday rejected on a technicality a Yugoslav request to halt NATO air strikes on its territory, but expressed concern about the legal basis for the bombing.. . . Yugoslavia had argued the NATO air strikes that began on March 24 were illegal and tantamount to genocide. It based its case, filed at the end of April, on the U.N. charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention." ""Arguably there is no international legal justification for the bombing," said Olivier Ribbelink of the Asser Institute for International Law, noting that no single U.N. Security Council resolution legitimized the air campaign." Reference: http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/990602-icj.htm ****************** From "Yugoslavia: World Opinion Will Judge Legality Of NATO Air Strikes" By Don Hill "Yugoslavia's claim is that NATO's air strikes breach the UN charter and other international treaties, including the 1948 Genocide Convention." "In various published reactions, a number of legal authorities, including many who deplored the bombing as unjustified, scoffed at Yugoslavia's claim that the bombing amounted to genocide. NATO officials insist the bombs are aimed only at military targets and that civilian casualties are accidental and incidental." "But many authorities also assign little value to a key defense of the NATO nations ----that the attacks are justified under international law because they seek to avert what the Alliance calls a "humanitarian catastrophe." The action by NATO against a sovereign nation is unprecedented and NATO began and is continuing the attacks without the benefit of UN authority." Reference: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/05/F.RU.990513131029.html [My comment: though the bombing itself did not amount to genocide, any claim that the bombing was a prevention against genocide would be a violation of Article 8 of the Genocide Convention by not first getting approval for action under the UN Charter authorizing the preventive attack.] ******************* See also a special report on the Genocide Convention at the website of the Unitde States Institute of Peace http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990107.html The Genocide Convention at Fifty By William Schabas "There would seem to be a significant difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. The former seeks to "cleanse" or "purify" a territory of one ethnic group by use of terror, rape, and murder in order to convince the inhabitants to leave. The latter seeks to destroy the group, closing the borders to ensure that none escape. This observation should not be taken to imply that ethnic cleansing is not a barbaric international crime. It is most certainly punishable as a crime against humanity. In fact, genocide is itself a subcategory of the more general term, crimes against humanity." ********************

There is no evidence that Clark gave tactical advice to anyone at Waco or that if he did such advice was used. The 182-page report produced by the Government Oversight committee after the event makes no mention of anyone at any time meeting with Wesley Clark. It does mention a meeting between Ann Richards and his second in command and also mentions two "senior officers" going to DC to meet with Justice Department officials and the FBI.

But it's mere speculation to assume that one of these officers was Clark. Where is your evidence to make such a claim? I thought credible journalism depended on proof, not unsubstantiated fabricated rumor?

Kucinich and Barbara Lee signed on to Tikkun's proposal for peace between Israel & Palestine. He doesn't seem to be in the pocket of AIPAC, like most others, although I believe he has taken some money in the past, less than most others.

I've heard Tikkun decribed as a soft-core Zionist organization. Rabbi Lerner also turned on the entire local peace movement by going to publications like the WSJournal of all things, to try to slander ANSWER. But still, Tikkun is better than AIPAC, and Tikkun says they are against many of the policies of AIPAC.

So yes, Kucinich has shown he does not support AIPAC by chooseing to side with Tikkun on the Roadmap and Israel Palestine. You just won't hear about it on corporate news because they have a black-out on him overall.

Mike Lerner of Tikkun endorses Kucinich for President. It's not clear to me that Kucinich has "signed on to Tikkun's proposal" for peace between Israel & Palestine. I agree w/ you that Kucinich is definitely NOT in the pocket of AIPAC.

Why would corporate news have a blackout on him? Is it because, perchance, he is speaking the truth? As I told Abraham earlier I haven't seen anything much on any of the US Democratic hopefuls other than Clarke a few days ago.

I doubt that there is any high-ranking figure whom anti-war activists would find palatable; nor could you find one who hadn't participated in some loathsome military action. War is one long series of legitimized crimes.

But I'm willing to take Clark at his word that a general might have a better perspective about when conflict should be avoided; and as a Vietnam vet he has certainly developed a deep understanding about the risks of military failure. I think the fact that Clark as a career officer is willing to come out and state that he is anti-war, whatever ambiguities are in his record, is a mark of bravery and integrity. We could at least consider taking him at his word, at least credit him with some wisdom from his experience. He is certainly as intelligent as any of the Democratic candidates out there; you only need to see him in a few interviews to realize that. No one in their right mind is going to argue that his anti-war credentials match some of the other candidates, but I don't think it's fair to deliberately misunderstand Moore's point. Personally, I give more credibility to a general who comes out and says they are averse to war than someone who hasn't the experience to back up that statement.

I doubt that any hard core peace activists would back him, though, which is a shame, but understandable. It's important to have at least some people who put principle above pragmatism!

But that's the heart of the matter - Clark could beat bush. None of the other candidates can. Heck, I voted for Nader, knowing it was an empty gesture, but Moore is right...we need someone to Get The Job Done and beat Bush before he utterly eviscerates the last remnants of civil society.

Clark is very smart, very polished (leading to the inevitable but malicious claims of always saying what he thinks people want to hear), literally radiates integrity, and most importantly he's got guts. By no stretch of the imagination is he going to get society where it needs to be (nor is he articulating the vision of where it needs to go as Kucinich and Nader are trying to do), but social change almost never happens in great leaps. And a candidate's ideals are less significant if they don't get elected.

Give the guy a chance, look at what he's saying and a get a feel for what he stands for. Don't go looking for reasons to hate him, and calling him a Bush clone is out and out ludicrous. Remember, if Bush wins again, God forbid, we are all to blame.

The man is a war criminal. War criminals don't deserve slack.

I go round and round on this one, but my present thinking is that we'd be better off with Clark, even if it's true that he's a war criminal and an imperialist, than we are with Bush and Cheney. Against Clark is that he may be better at dominating the world than B and C, who don't seem to be doing such a successful job of it, at least in terms of public relations. Thus, if Clark were elected, he might get the UN on the side of the US, strengthen US power around the world, put a kindlier face on imperialism, and so forth, and humanity would suffer for it.

But consider that (1) B and C are fairly nuts, and (2) that their very unsuccess may inspire them to truly desperate acts. And then add their religious nuttiness, whether feigned or actual, their unflagging and unreasoned support for the most regressive elements of Zionist policy, and of course, their domestic terrorism, and Clark seems highly preferrable to them. After all, Clinton was a war monger and a war criminal too, but who of us would not prefer him to what we have now.

So I think it has to come down to picking the Democrat who can win. If Clark seems to not have any dark past that the Republicans can expose, and if, upon investigation of his past, he isn't psychotic or a "conservative" in disguise, I say we should support him. Dean seems soft -- a bit too weasley and open to Republican attack -- and we shouldn't take a chance on losing if we can do better. At least, that's my present feeling -- low on purity, high on pragmatic.

Assuming that Clark & Co. really do amount to a lesser evil, a highly debatable contention, why settle for a lesser evil? Evil is evil, period.

Very good post.
I have an idea. Wesley & Moore in 04. No one would dare an assassination.

seriously, why do we always get these choices? A Gen. who gave any authorization to assist the massacre at Waco deserves to be tried jailed and hung. For treason ( violation of Posse Comatatus ) and murder concerning that little opps.

Angie, your guess is probably as good as mine on why the corporate new media continue with their blackout on Kucinich. It's possible that they see his message as real threats to their power bases and domination. Kucinich has made clear on where he stands - balance between corporations and workers, international workers' rights (cancellation of NAFTA and WTO), single payer health system (eliminating the insurnace and drug corporation middleman), reduction of military spendingsRenewal and clean energy, Restored rural communities and familiy farms.

All these basically take the $$$$ from the old industries - military, insurance, drugs and some of the HUGE international conglomerates.

In the past, I didn't think much of all these until I realize how much control the big corporations over all of us. I wanna remain a self-owned being and I see Bush and the conglomerates have gone TOO FAR with their domination over everyone one else. To me "Balance" is the key to restore the world order. I truly believe Kucinich is right on his stands of issues.

Better Charlie Manson than Wesley Clark, I say. Hey, he's probably an imperialist . . . who knows? And he's no doubt less crazy than the cabal in power now.

Isn' t this how the lesser-of-two-evils works? Every four years we get a worse and worse lesser? Given the present rate, Charlie will easily be an 08 contender.

"Every four years we get a worse and worse lesser?" I kinda agree with you. That's why I'm supporting Kucinich. He seems to have the intelligence and street smart required to survive and thrive in D.C.. My own intuition tells me if we're successful in getting Kucinich in the White House Office, the progressives will get its roots deeply entrenched nationawide if not worldwide. The world will be a much better place.

General Clark sided with the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) which the FBI has documents showing that it linked to OSAMA BIN LADEN! Tell me something people, does Osama Bin Laden and America have common interests? Is OSAMA a good guy sometimes with noble beliefs? Clark sided with the KLA in Kosovo after the US STATE DEPARMENT labled the KLA a terrorist orginization. Do some research on this and you will see.

Also, Clark seems to complain about the missing WMD in Iraq. Yet, he has no problem supporting Clinton about the lies in KOSOVO. Clinton lied that over 100,000 Albanians were killed. The UN and other orginizations have proven the number is actually only 3,000. (Some of those killed by Clark's reckless bombing) So where are the mass graves? Where are the signs of genocide?

Clark used Cluster bombs in a marketplace in Serbia. There was no military reason to drop cluster bombs on a marketplace killing dozens of women, children, and elderly.

Oh and today Kosovo is nearly ethnically pure of any minorities. It is the most ethnically pure part of the balkans. Just a few weeks ago, two Serbian children were gunned down by the KLA terrorists. But in Clark's eyes, this is an honorable thing. Today Kosovo has hardly any minorites and many of them are in fear of their life. Over 150 churches have been blown up, and even graves are dug up and destroyed. But Clark calls this a success.

Clark is a war criminal! Those who support him are blind to his crimes against humanity.

Please visit this website and read an excellent artical on Clark. All the statements made are backed up by stories and facts.

http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html

The US STATE DEPARMENT called the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) a TERRORIST orginization. The FBI have documents clearly stating that the KLA are linked and tied to Osama Bin Laden. Even Milosevic used this FBI document in his trial to show how Clinton and Clark supported an Osama Bin Laden orginization.

So to say this is okay is to say that supporting an orginization funded and supported by Osama Bin Laden is okay. It would be like supporting the Nazi party.

FBI and MSNBC Documents Cited by Pres. Milosevic
[Posted 3 April 2002]
=======================================

When President Milosevic cited FBI and MSNBC documents supporting the charge that The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) works with Al Qaeda, the media responded as if the existence of these documents was in doubt. Actually, all it takes to find them is a computer and access to a good search engine. We used google.com for the MSNBC quote and Lexis for the FBI testimony.

-- ICDSM.

DOCUMENT ONE:

Congressional Testimony December 18, 2001, Tuesday

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, UNITED STATES SENATE

"GLOBAL REACH OF AL-QAEDA "

TESTIMONY-BY: J.T. CARUSO, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

AFFILIATION: COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

[NOTE FROM http://WWW.TENC.NET The following is the portion of Mr. Caruso's testimony that is a) relevant to the issues raised by President Milosevic at The Hague and b) includes what he quoted. This excerpt is unedited - that is, nothing is missing from the text.]

STATEMENT OF J. T. CARUSO ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is J.T. Caruso and I am the Acting Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss Al Qaeda International.

From its inception until approximately 1991, the group was headquartered in Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan. Then in 1991, the group relocated to the Sudan where it was headquartered until approximately 1996, when Bin Laden, Mohammed Atef and other members of Al-Qaeda returned to Afghanistan. During the years Al- Qaeda was headquartered in Sudan the network continued to maintain offices in various parts of the world and established businesses which were operated to provide income and cover to Al- Qaeda operatives.

AL-OAEDA TIES TO OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

Although Al-Qaeda functions independently of other terrorist organizations, it also functions through some of the terrorist organizations that operate under its umbrella or with its support, including: [I';m going to skip over this next bit] the Al-Jihad, the Al-Gamma Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group - led by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and later by Ahmed Refai Taha, a/k/a "Abu Yasser al Masri, "), Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and a number of jihad groups in other countries, including the Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, the Kashmiri region of India, and the Chechen region of Russia. Al-Qaeda also maintained cells and personnel in a number of countries to facilitate its activities, including in Kenya, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. By banding together, Al-Qaeda proposed to work together against the perceived common enemies in the West - particularly the United States which Al-Qaeda regards as an "infidel" state which provides essential support for other "infidel" governments. Al-Qaeda responded to the presence of United States armed forces in the Gulf and the arrest, conviction and imprisonment in the United States of persons belonging to Al-Qaeda by issuing fatwahs indicating that attacks against U.S. interests, domestic and foreign, civilian and military, were both proper and necessary. Those fatwahs resulted in attacks against U.S. nationals in locations around the world including Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, and now in the United States. Since 1993, thousands of people have died in those attacks.

[END EXCERPT - Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.) Reprinted for Fair Use Only]

DOCUMENT TWO:

MSNBC Webpage entitled, WHO IS OSAMA BIN LADEN
Hre is the relevant text:, part of which was quoted by Slobodan Milosevic:

Where does al-Qaida operate?
Al-Qaida is believed to have operations in 60 countries, active cells in 20, including the United States. It is also believed to operate training centers in both Afghanistan and Sudan, the first beginning operations in 1994 with representatives from Egyptian, Algerian, Tunisian and Palestinian extremist groups. Among the countries or regions identified as having active cells of al-Qaida are Pakistan, Afghanistan, KOSOVO, Chechnya, Philippines, Egypt, Tunisia.

-- At present this can be read at http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp?cp1=1#7

As stated by Slobodan Milosevic, at the bottom of the document are the words: "Sources: Congressional Research Service, 'Frontline'"

Abraham's comments piqued my interest with respect to Mr. Kucinich, and I did a wee bit of checking to see what his platform is all about.

It's an impressive one from protecting the environment, to a health care overhaul, repealing the Patriot Act, protecting the workers and so on to his desire to see the United States become what it was before the advent of GWB and his cronies - an admired nation, which believes in diplomacy and friendship with its allies. What is there to not like about this?

There was a quote I liked with respect to war where he stated: "War becomes inevitable whenever someone says it is inevitable and gives up hope of peace".

I also liked his comments re GWB's speech yesterday to the UN on Iraq. "The speech was further proof that the war against Iraq was a complete failure", he declared, adding that it had harmed US standing, depleted funds from domestic priorities, and distracted from the war on terror.

Americans are not the only ones who want to see America "back", Mr. Kucinich. Your friends next door want to see it back as well. We've missed the 'real' America a lot!

Vote Kucinich in the primary, then switch back to Green Party and vote Green in the Presidential.

I noted on our late evening news the statistic that Clark has jumped ahead of all candidates and is tied with Bush. How did this happen so quickly and what does it mean, if anything?

Also there was GWBush before the UN still as arrogant as always, if not more so, still threatening that it's his side or no side, and this from one who is there begging the rest of the world to help "reconstruct" Iraq after he ignored the UN and destroyed Iraq. The gall.

As well I noted he has no intention of "handing over" Iraq to the Iraqi people until he sees fit. Guess that means when "foreign investors" have bought the place, hmm?

Too bad, Abraham, that Bush and Cheney didn't return your calls yesterday!

Another bit of info that captured my interest is that the US officials are to receive a report from David Kay re the hunt for WMD in Iraq. However, don't expect to be told anything soon because "there are no plans to release Kay's report immediately".

And guess who was sitting in the Iraqi seat at the UN General Assembly? None other than Ahmed Chalabi. And still the wonder grew!

It's my view that Dean and Clark are the friendly opponets to the established power base. Among these 2, Clark would be the friendliest foe. He would definitely NOT to turn bakc the tides on military build up, continue w/ the laissez-faire doctrine on the oil and energy tycoons, whatever health care reform will tag the insurance and pharmaceutical giants in plays.... Bottom line would be nothing's changed.

If you can understand why Arnold gets so much support, then Calrk's popularity doesn't come as a surprise.

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.
Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

BIPARTISAN TERESA OF A THIRD INVISIBLE PARTY
DAUGHTER OF A PORTUGUESE DOCTOR IN MOZAMBIQUE? REALLY?
HOW DOES 1200 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH FAMILY FOUNDATION, TAX FREE, EFFECT THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES?
TALK OF CHICKEN FODDER OF CAMPAIGN FUND OF RIVALS.
TERESA KERRY-HEINZ-THIERSTEIN
WHERE THE HELL IS THE TOWN OF THIERSTEIN?
ANY GUESSES?
KERRY IS A DEMOCRAT,
HEINZ WAS A REPUBLICAN,
BUT WHAT THE ILLUMINATI IS THIERSTEIN?
WHAT IS A GIRL FROM MOZAMBIQUE, SCHOOLED IN LICHTENSTEIN,
DOING ON TOP OF A BILLION DOLLAR FAMILY FOUNDATION
AND NOT INFLUENCING THE SYSTEM IN AMERICA?

WESLEY CLARK AGAINST NAZI GENERALS RUMSFELD BOSCH AND SCHOOMAKER
OPERATION TROJAN HORSE WAS START OF NAZI REBOUND.

WACO WAS WORK OF GENERAL SCHOOMAKER. THIS ORC IS MADE ARMY CHIEF OF
STAFF BY RUMSFELD VON BREMER.

GENERAL SCHUMACHER SABOTAGED THE 1980 HOSTAGE OPERATION TO MAKE CARTER
LOSE TO REAGAN-BOSCH.

THE OTHER CHARACTER WHO DID WACO WAS THEN COLONEL WILHELM-WILLIAM
BOYKIN. HE TRAPPED JANET RENO WHO WAS ONLY ONE WEEK IN OFFICE BACK IN
FEBRUARY 1993. YOU SEE, WACO OPERATION TROJAN HORSE WAS PLANNED BEFORE
CLINTON TOOK OFFICE. IT WAS MEANT TO REMOVE WILLIAM SESSIONS FROM TOP
OF FBI. THEREFORE THE TOWN OF WACO WAS CHOSEN FOR SHOWDOWN. YOU SEE,
MR. SESSIONS HAD GROWN UP IN WACO, TEXAS AND TEN YEARS WORKED THERE
WITH LAW FIRM SESSIONS AND CO PRIOR TO JOINING THE FBI.

AFTER MR. SESSIONS WAS OUT OF THE WAY, HERR FREEH HEADED THE FBI FOR
TEN YEARS TILL THREE MONTHS BEFORE 911 AND EMPTIED THE AGENCY. SIXTY
SUPERVISORY POSTS WERE ABOLISHED, SIX HUNDRED TOP AGENTS WERE EXILED
TO ALASKA LIKE PLACES. BY THE TIME HERR FREEH RESIGNED IN SUMMER OF
2001, HE HIMSELF SAID THE BEST EXPERIENCE ANY AGENT IN THE FBI HAS NOW
IS SIX YEARS. THE AGENCY WAS MADE READY FOR 911. FREEH STYLE. AFTER
FREEH ENTER MUELLER.

IN SUMMER 2003 RUMSFELD PROMOTED THESE TWO WACO HEROES.
WILLIAM BOYKIN MADE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENCE.
PETER SCHOOMAKER IS MADE US ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF.
SCHUMACHER HAD BEEN RETIRED SINCE 2000 BEFORE WHICH HE WAS THE CHIEF
OF STAFF OF DELTA FORCE.


CLARK AT KOSOVO

AT KOSOO, BRITISH CROWN GENERAL MADE THE FUSS TO MAINTAIN GENOCIDE.
NEITHER CLARK NOR RUSSIANS WERE DUPED. OTHERWISE, CROWN GENERAL
JACKSON WOULD NOT HESITATE TO START A WORLD WAR RATHER THAN
INTERRUPTING AN EFFICIENT GENOCIDE.

CLARK AND ETHNIC ORIGIN

IF WESLEY CLARK IS JEWISH, WHO CARES!
THIS IS AMERICA, OR HAVE YOU SUDDENLY FORGOTTEN IT?
AND ALL JUST WARS OF AMERICA HAVE BEEN AGAINST GERMAN THINGS,
HESSIANS, REMEMBER?
GUESS WHAT OTHER COUNTRY HAD SPECIAL FORCES AT WACO AS OBSERVERS!


CLARK AGAINST NAZI REBOUND

ONE THING IS CERTAIN.
CLARK IS NOT GERMAN JEW LIKE HEINZ HEINRICH KISSINGER, MARX, ENGELS,
ROTHSCHILD,
GOLDSTEIN, KERRY-HEINZ-THIERSTEIN, LIEBERMANN, DEAN-STEINBERG.
IF CLARK WAS KNIGHTED BY THE ROYAL GERMAN HOUSE IN BRITAIN, THEN ONLY
TO COVER UP FOR THE OPERATION OF DISMISSING THE ONLY NATO COMMANDER
WHO FOUGHT AND WON.

ONLY CLOSET NAZIS FIND FAULT WITH THE KOSOVO OPERATION CONCLUDED BY
CLARK. HE STOPPED CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND GENOCIDE. AND DO NOT THINK
IT WAS SERBS CLARK FOUGHT AGAINST. IT WAS THE COMMON ENEMY OF ALL THE
PEOPLE OF YUGOSLAVIA. THE CAMPS WERE SO OUT OF CHARACTER WITH SERBS IN
PARTICULAR AND SLAVS IN GENERAL AND SO TYPICAL OF GUESS WHO.
FALSE DEMOCRATS WHO DO NOT SUPPORT WES ARE IN FACT GERMAN-AMERICANS
SUPPORTING ORC CLAN BOSCH AND RUMSFELD VON BREMER.

LATINS SUPPORT WESLEY CLARK AGAINST THE GERMAN JUNTA PRESENTLY IN THE
WHITE HOUSE. WE WANT THE CLINTONIAN AMERICA BACK AND CLARK IS THE
ONLY ONE NOW TO DO IT.


TWO CONSPIRACIES: LUSITANIA AND PEARL HARBOR

GERMAN-AMERICANS FLOOD THE FORUMS WITH CONSPIRACY OF LUSITANIA 1915
TO EXPLAIN HOW DARK FORCES MANIPULATED AMERICA INTO THE FIRST WORLD
WAR IN 1917. THEY NEVER SAY WHAT FATE FOR FRANCE THEY EXPECTED HAD
AMERICA NOT INTERVENED. WHAT FATE FOR THE WORLD.

SURE PEARL HARBOR WAS A CONSPIRACY BUT IN THE OTHER WAY. IT DELAYED
AMERICAN HELP FOR FRANCE, IT DIVERTED AMERICAN RESOURCES TO THE
PACIFIC. IT IS SAD THAT A FEW AMERICANS IN HIGH PLACES COULD BE
FOOLED BY A NAZI CRUSADE AGAINST COMMUNISM. THESE DELAYED AMERICAN
HELP FOR PARIS FOR THREE LONG YEARS.

IN FACT GERMAN-AMERICANS HAVE DONE THIS DAMAGE TO AMERICAN CHARACTER
FOUR TIMES BEFORE.

1812 EVEN WHEN ENEMY OF NAPOLEON WAS ALSO BURNING THE WHITE HOUSE,
TROJAN HORSE ADAMS GAVE COMFORT TO THE ENEMY OF FRANCE,
WHICH WAS NONE OTHER THAN THE SAME HOUSE HANOVER AGAINST WHICH
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAD WON.
US NOT ALLIED TO NAPOLEON COST THE PLANET VERY DEARLY.
WHEN NAPOLEON ENTERED RUSSIA TO LIBERATE IT FROM GERMAN CZARS,
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS WAS IN PETERSBURG GIVING COMFORT TO HOUSE HOLSTEIN.

IN 1870 WHEN PARIS WAS UNDER GERMAN CANNON FIRE AND VICTOR HUGO WAS
FORCED TO EAT RATS, AMERICAN OBSERVERS, GENERAL SHERMAN, WERE
OBSERVERS IN THE GERMAN CAMP. AMERICA FAILED FRANCE.

IN 1914-17 SAME THING. PARIS WAITED IN WAIN FOR THE SISTER REPUBLIC
TO COME TO HELP. WHEN IT CAME, IT WAS TOO LATE AND TOO LITTLE OF HELP
AND IT CAME UNDER COMMAND OF GERMAN-AMERICAN PFOERSCHING-PERSHING.
DELAYS AND BICKERINGS.

IN 1939-44 PARIS WAITED IN WAIN FOR AMERICAN HELP. IT CAME, EVEN IF
LATE, ONLY BECAUSE GENERALS MARSHALL, BRADLEY AND EISENHOVER COULD
INTIMIDATE THE GERMAN-AMERICAN PARTY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

NOW SAME THING AGAIN. THE UNJUSTIFIED WARS OF BOSCH-JUNTA ARE USED ON
THE SIDE LINES TO AGITATE AMERICANS AGAINST FRANCE. THIS IS PRELUDE
TO THE NEXT INVASION OF FRANCE. AND CERTAINLY WHEN IT REALLY COMES,
IT COMES NOT FROM THE CAVE MEN IN AFGHANISTAN. YOU KNOW WHO HATES
FRANCE REALLY. IT IS THE SAME WHO HATES ALL HUMANITY.

WHAT IS SEPTEMBER 11 OR THE CALL 911?
SEPTEMBER 11, 1944 IS THE DATE AMERICAN FORCES CROSSED INTO THE HOLY
GERMAN REICH.
SUM OF ALL FEARS, TOM CLANCY, MOVIE VERSION MAKES THE NAZI CONNECTION.
THE MOVIE WAS MADE SHORTLY BEFORE 911.

GENERAL BOSCH OF THE 15TH NAZI ARMY

MAYBE YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT GENERAL CUSTER AT LITTLE BIG HORN WAS A
HESSIAN OF NAME KUESTNER.
MAYBE YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT GENERAL PERSHING AT WOUNDED KNEE WAS A
HESSIAN OF NAME PFOERSCHING.
CANNOT BLAME YOU.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT GENERAL BOSCH WAS COMMANDER OF THE FIFTEENTH ARMY
OF HITLER IN BELGIUM,
WAITING IN AMBUSH FOR AMERICANS WHO LANDED AT NORMANDY.
GENERAL MONTGOMERY WAS TO CRY FOR HELP AND AMERICAN GENERALS WERE TO
WALK INTO THE AMBUSH.
IT FAILED. GOOD FOR FRANCE, GOOD FOR THE WORLD.
BUT GENERAL BOSCH OF HITLER HAD ANOTHER TRICK.
HE HAD A BRANCH OF THE FAMILY IN AMERICA.
MAYBE THERE IS A CASTLE BOSCH SOMEWHERE IN BELGIUM WHERE THEY BREED.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/latinsforclark/

not showing up on the radar is simple. His numbers are incredibly low. I think he is a cool enough guy but when you are speaking for 1% of the population you will get appropriate coverage.