General Wesley Clark saying plans to attack Syria were hatched within weeks of 9/11/01

[freshwest]

21. Agreed. PNAC's plans were concieved long before 9/11, and GWB was put in office to carry it out.

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)

PNAC was a think tank formed in 1997 and finally closed down in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

It has nothing to do with the current conflict, and Obama is not doing what PNAC scheme called to be done. First was Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

Some RWNJs thought we would take over Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Note Gary Bauer was part, along with John McCain.

A quick search of Bauer gave the results including the American Christian Zionists, of which Keyes, Haggee, Norris, Beck and Hal Lindsey and Falwell were listed.

Don't forget that Reagan had addressed Falwell's college, Liberty University and held the same views, or so it is said by Wikipedia.

That is not what Obama is made of and he has not followed their plan despite their calls for him to do so.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/gary-bauer

I wish all involved in the PNAC think tank were put in prison for what they did. Not holding my breath, though.

Clark was running against GWB when he said this, most likely. See EDIT below. He was an independent who decided that despite having worked with many Republicans, he was a Democrat. He then supported Obama in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Wesley_Clark#2004_presidential_campaign

NOW, let's read General Wes Clark's words THIS week on Obama and Syria:

Wesley Clark on Syria; he invokes Bill Clinton

by Max Brantley - Sep 2, 2013



http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/09/02/wesley-clark-on-syria

It quotes from this article:

Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo

...As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)...

The Kosovo campaign was also less tidily packaged at the time than it appears in retrospect. When the bombing began, NATO had not yet formulated its political conditions for halting the bombing. NATO nations hardened their views when the Serbs retaliated against the civilian population of Kosovo and neighboring Macedonia. These episodes are always fluid, but so long as your political coalition is well organized - and NATO was - objectives can be modified and clarified during the course of military action. Not every "I" has to be dotted or "t" crossed before initiating a strike...

Finally, Kosovo taught us that diplomacy can smooth over hostilities with nations that oppose your policy. At the outset of the Kosovo campaign, Russia pulled its liaison personnel out of NATO HQ, sent a representative into Belgrade, and belligerently threatened to send out its Black Sea fleet to interfere with NATO operations. Intensive diplomacy, including repeated visits to Moscow by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, eventually brought the Russians into co-leading a diplomatic mission that culminated in Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's acceptance of NATO conditions. Heated protests aren't insurmountable if there is persistent diplomacy before and after hostilities commence...

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/

Brantley goes on to say:

And, because after sleeping on it I'm still stunned by Republican Rep. Tim Griffin's sneering condescension on the issue, I'd like to repeat it in full here:

“It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”

Tim Griffin and other Republicans in Arkansas simply do not accept President Obama's legitimacy regardless of issue. It runs deeper than philosophical differences.

That is what it is, for them. Research shows the OP is incorrect and failed, with all due respect, to make the case that Obama is doing a Bush - Cheney PNAC action here.

EDIT: I found a dated video. This one is not, and is used as a smear by the channel rather than a honest appraisal of Clark's position today. It has been mentioned more than once here at DU, but it does NOT reflect his thinking on Obama or Syria in 2013.

This same video as is in the OP was posted in September of 2011, but the interview posted on the Democracy Now website on March 2, 2007.