Reply #143: My god, FC. Look what you posted- Clark lying! I just posted his jobs.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

And you accuse ME of attacking him for just listing his employers?
(I was out all day so I apologize for this belated response.)

Did you see that cio.com website you sourced is for "Information Technology executives"?? They are the one's making money off of data-mining and trying to keep the public from getting nervous about all the ways they are tracked. Their articles on security start in 2000 with 'What's All the Fuss?' and progress through gradual stages of recognizing news reports about Acxiom, DARPA, Matrix, etc. to admitting just what all the fuss is. Yeah, right. Industry rag 'journalism.' Tips for making a buck and not admitting more to clients and employees than you have to. Classic.


FC, you clipped this industry propaganda hype right here:
>snip<

"Clark helped craft a report for the Markle Foundation
titled "Protecting America's Freedom in the Information Age"...
One of the report's recommendations is that information owned by private companies that is relevant to the fight against terrorism should be left in the companies' hands and not consolidated into government databases."
>snip<

THEN WHY WAS CLARK SHOPPING ACXIOM'S DATABASE TO JOHN POINDEXTER'S TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS PROJECT AT DARPA??
Was this "consolidating into government databases"??
Damn straight it was!

This is called....LYING. LYING. Let me repeat that...LYING.

This is transparent PR. Like the Gropenfuhrer going to a menorah-lighting ceremony to cover up the fact that he once said he admired Hitler. Ahnuld really did this. That's called 'bullshit politics.'

FC, your Slate article doesn't even come close to saying what you WISH it said.

Timothy Noah at Slate saying "Clark's involvement in Acxiom is a non-issue" leads you to exonerate him for making a buck off of the most egregious violations of privacy EVER since Hoover's COINTELPRO in the hands of fascist psychopaths like this administration?!?

The very same Slate article says THINGS ARE SO DAMN BAD THAT CLARK IS PART OF A HUGE PROBLEM:GREEDY CAPITALISTS FEEDING UNREGULATED SECRETIVE POTENTIAL CRIMINALS-NOT A 'NON-PROBLEM.'

>snip<

"The problem with efforts like the PATRIOT Act, the TSA lists and the new "Victory Act" bill, which among other things allows prosecutors to obtain records through administrative subpoenas, is that they insulate themselves with secrecy provisions that thwart oversight. Administrative subpoenas would completely remove judicial oversight, allowing prosecutors to subpoena anyone's records for any reason they chose. Without judicial oversight, there would be no way to determine whether administrative subpoena power was being misapplied and no way for someone to find out whether his or her records had been requested.

This is a "dangerous piece of legislation," as presidential candidate Howard Dean said in response to Bush's urged support for the measure. Any program, no matter how well-intentioned, is not acceptable if it allows the government to conduct its actions in secrecy. The power of invisibility invites temptations of the worst kind."



Did you even listen to the interview with the Washington Post investigative reporter, Robert O'Harrow Jr. who wrote 'No Place to Hide'??

I repeat: Even the author of the Patriot Act is alarmed at the state of data-mining combined with DARPA software. THE AUTHOR OF THE FRIKKIN' PATRIOT ACT!! Does this register with you? Or is Slate making you feel good about Big Brother?

Besides 'Winning Modern Wars,' you better read this book. Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke considers it a must-read.

I listened to all 42 minutes of that Clark radio interview. All 42 minutes...

Clark is recruiting HEAVILY and REPEATEDLY in that San Diego radio interview. He gets downright emotional about how wonderful it would be for every American youth to sign up IN THE MILITARY. He says "oh sure, it's a little rough in Iraq now but that won't always be..." HA!

AND when asked about the Democratic message and values, he draws a total blank and says 'well, we'll see what's down the road...' or words to that effect.

Do I have to make a transcript of it so you don't accuse me of stretching his words and "what's in it for you, John?"

What the heck would be in it for me you ask?
How about not having a police-state that targets me for dissent?
How about not having a totally bloodthirsty militarized culture?
How about not having candidates who are totally in bed with the Military Industrial Complex?
How about having a civilian executive branch?
How about not having a 'Dem' candidate who helped author the intelligence document given to Representatives to urge them to 'stay the course' in Iraq for 5 years at the cost of $245,000,000? (Yes, I DO trust Dennis Kucinich for saying this document existed during the 2004 primary debates. If you don't trust Kucinich on this, so be it.)

FC, I realize you really want to have a trustworthy "kick-ass" candidate. While it is easy for both of us to see things that confirm our attitudes, this appears to be a big blind spot for you.

He sure likes to make a buck off of yours and my personal records and advise corporations on how to make money around the world.

Yes, Clark has criticized the neocons and said many great things.
He could be totally sincere about wanting to reign in the neocons.
He could just be getting money the way everybody else does, no different at all. Is this what you want in a president?

I compare his words against his actions.
Do you?