Reply #20: Dishonest to the Core and Probably Nuts (BC Article)

[Tinoire]

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan… I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned." – Wesley Clark, page 130, Winning Modern Wars.

If Wesley Clark is to be believed, he kept this Pentagon conversation – and his deep concerns – to himself for nearly two years, going public only when it suited his purposes as a purveyor of books and newly-hatched Democratic candidate for President. There is something – no, there are many things – very, very wrong, here.

<snip>

Clark’s lips stayed locked shut, for at least a year. Finally, in 2003 Clark got his national podium as a military analyst for CNN. He had the microphone and the cameras, direct access to a swollen, global TV audience anticipating the onset of war. The Big One was about to begin, the rolling conflict that would consume parts of two continents in flame for the next five years. What would the hero of Kosovo do at such a moment?

<snip>

When he had the opportunity and it might have made a difference, Clark failed to sound an alarm about an invasion he now claims to have known to be a prelude to even wider wars. As documented by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), September 16:

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."

<snip>

Clark can be stopped. The Democratic presidential candidate who has the courage to confront Clark with the insane logic of Winning Modern Wars, will do his nation and party a great service. This candidate must be willing to absorb the full wrath of Bill Clinton’s machine – the real power behind Clark’s campaign – and to abandon any hopes of becoming a vice-presidential nominee.

Two names come to mind.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/59/59_cover_clark.html
====

Definitely not mincing words.