HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » General Wesley Clark's wa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 02:10 AM

General Wesley Clark's warning about the Pentagon's Plan for the Middle East.

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:32 AM - Edit history (1)

This is an excerpt of Gen. Wesley Clark in a Democracy Now interview with Amy Goodman:



GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

AMY GOODMAN: I'm sorry. What did you say his name was?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I'm not going to give you his name.

AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran.

http://warisacrime.org/node/19200




This is his speech on Oct.3 2007
Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco

He discribes the national Coup and the Pentagon's plan to take out countries in the middle east





19 replies, 2045 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply General Wesley Clark's warning about the Pentagon's Plan for the Middle East. (Original post)
Ichingcarpenter Aug 2013 OP
LineReply .
blkmusclmachine Aug 2013 #1
Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #2
Ichingcarpenter Aug 2013 #3
Art_from_Ark Aug 2013 #9
liberal_at_heart Aug 2013 #4
cui bono Aug 2013 #5
liberal_at_heart Aug 2013 #6
cui bono Aug 2013 #8
Ichingcarpenter Aug 2013 #10
Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2013 #18
PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #7
newfie11 Aug 2013 #11
davidpdx Aug 2013 #12
liberal_at_heart Aug 2013 #13
davidpdx Aug 2013 #14
Ichingcarpenter Aug 2013 #15
bluedeathray Aug 2013 #16
DFW Aug 2013 #17
BillyRibs Aug 2013 #19


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 02:41 AM

2. Well that's certainly disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:01 AM

3. My complaint about the General

Why didn't he tell America about this in 2001 and save lives? I guess he didn't want to be a whistle blower.



BTW.. the second video is even more revealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:49 AM

9. I actually think he did try to say something back then,

but the bu$h-Cheney juggernaut was steam-rolling everything and everyone in its way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:06 AM

4. well I guess we know now who is going to be next in our perpetual war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:29 AM

5. Seems like Iraq went badly enough that they gave up on the idea.

In the DN interview Clark said "seven countries in five years" so it seems they missed their mark. Thankfully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:33 AM

6. Just because they missed their timeline doesn't mean they have given up on the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #6)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:46 AM

8. True.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:53 AM

10. Their time scale was off but not the targets


if they had been right then the time scale would have work but they weren't




"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003

"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003


Before we jump into Syria I want independent conformation of the Sarin attack and then let the UN handle it. Who benefits long term by the attack?
The Rebels or the Regime in Syria?


Don't forget Dr. David Kelly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 05:10 AM

18. Remember, Iraq was supposed to be EASY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 03:37 AM

7. We have to stand strong against the MIC's permawar. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:05 AM

11. So Syria is in the list

Wonder how much we are behind what's happening in Syria today.

Remember South America, we are quite good at covert overthrow of countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:12 AM

12. So essentially they were talking about a major portion of the Middle East as well as Northern Africa

Right there it would have been WWIII. Just with Afghanistan and Iraq alone we pretty much depleted our military resources. The idea that we were going to invade half a dozen more countries is nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #12)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:16 AM

13. I don't agree with my father much but he was always curious if we fight two or three wars

simultaneously wouldn't that stretch us so thin that we then would indeed be more vulnerable to attack. I mean who's going to be standing guard on the home front if all of our soldiers are overseas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #13)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:20 AM

14. Logically that makes sense

But not only attacks, but being able to respond to help in case of national disasters (floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc). would be harder. Many of the national guard units got called up which depletes their resources as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #12)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:29 AM

15. This had to do with Cheney's still secret Energy Task Force

And the Pipelines needed in the spring of 2001

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/cheney_energy_task_force.html

http://www.projectcensored.org/8-secrets-of-cheneys-energy-task-force-come-to-light/

Syria’s proven oil reserves, amounting to 2.5 billion barrels, are greater than those of all neighboring countries except Iraq: according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s estimation of its oil reserves. This makes Syria one of the largest producers and exporters of crude oil in the Middle East.

The country also has large reserves of natural gas, hitherto used for domestic consumption, especially for conversion to gas-fired power plants. But there is a problem, the U.S agency reported that since 1964 the license for the exploration and exploitation of mineral deposits has been reserved for Syrian government agencies. Until 201O an annual income of more than $ 4 billion was procured from the export of oil, particularly to Europe. But things are changing with the war.

The ‘”Free Syrian Army” has taken control of important oil fields in Deir Ezzor. Other fields, in the Rumeilan, are controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, who are also hostile to the “rebels” with whom they have repeatedly clashed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-and-pipeline-geopolitics-the-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/5330216

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:35 AM

16. Diminishing resources. Huge idle military.

Does not bode well for the future of humanity. Brought to you by the American government. Terrorists you know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:36 AM

17. This explains something I had been wondering about for years. I hadn't seen his book.

It has been about 7 or 8 years since I last talked with Wes Clark one on one, but at the time he told me he feared that Cheneybush was absolutely going to invade Iran. Although not in the military, I still couldn't see it. Republicans are basically cowards at heart, and they usually don't like to pick hot fights with enemies they know will shoot back. Iraq was already a bad miscalculation (Rumsfeld had said in 2003 that Iraq would take "maybe six days, maybe six weeks, certainly not six months"). Even Cheneybush knew that an invasion of Iran would encounter massive Iranian popular resistance and involve tens of thousands of American casualties along with millions of Iranians. But Wes was still convinced, despite all the common sense that argued against it, they were planning to invade Iran. I couldn't figure out what made him so sure and he wouldn't say. Considering his source, no wonder he was so sure that such plans existed. He wasn't just sure. He knew. How lucky we all are that Cheney never got to implement them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Aug 24, 2013, 05:27 AM

19. Well,Well,Well..

 

NGO's Overturning governments, and False flag ops to get us into endless wars abound! Now, Who's a conspiracy Nut? eah?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread