Reply #32: Let's be serious here - he's a DC outsider, not a boob [View All]

[NV1962]

When you command the vast array of combined state resources that NATO provide in collectively and mutually protecting the security of nations, you can bet that you'll have not only the highest security clearance, but actually will access the best resources available to make informed decisions.

It's patently ludicrous to suggest that the experience and the result of working with many, many high-level intelligence officers and officials at that time somehow blipped out like an old TV the minute Wes Clark resigned his command.

Wes Clark testified before Congress twice, related to the war in Iraq. I don't think they were particularly interested in his opinion based solely on what he knew during his service as SACEUR at NATO: they wanted the expert assessment of someone with his experience, background and knowledge as high-level commander - which specifically entails executive leadership experience with the fruits and labor of the intelligence community.

He has repeatedly stated (such as broadcast this morning, during his appearance on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition show) that his direct knowledge can't be connected to the current situation, e.g. in the case of Iraq.

He has also repeatedly stated that he received briefings from the WH (e.g., Donald Rumsfeld) and the Pentagon, not to fill him in so as to satisfy his curiosity, but to obtain his judgment, based on the facts (and allegations, as we now know) presented to him.

As happened with the purposeful nudging signals he received from the Pentagon, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to publicly state a connection with the terrorist attacks and Iraq, those later briefings in the wake of the war in Iraq had one clear political objective: to sway Wes Clark's conviction and tack his valuable, high-profile position and credibility onto the war propaganda chariot and parade it around as (yet another) "proof" of validation.

One aspect that unfortunately hasn't been played up in this campaign so far is that, aside from "prestige," this administration has wrought devastating damage to the credibility of the word of the US Government to the international community, by asserting on its say-so that there was an urgent reason to go to war with, invade and occupy another sovereign nation.

Wes Clark is too well-educated, intelligent and trained to not understand the significance of being "subtly" vetted for endorsement of a war - which is why he requested (and received) carefully dosified intelligence on the base of which he shared his conclusions, with the WH first and, at a later point, Congress.

You suggest that somehow, Wes Clark had "inappropriate" access to high-level classified information; what he was fed in reality is nothing short of high-level horse manure, for which he holds the President accountable, as well as for the decision and the consequences of plunging this country into war with another that posed no immediate threat.

The problem isn't with the intelligence community, but in the communal lack of intelligence (including in Congress, which miserably failed its responsibilities of oversight and accountability) that allowed a veritable domino theory of stupidity to waste a current running total of hundreds of lives of American servicemen and women, thousands of critically injured, about $175bn, and an immense amount of human, material and monetary destruction in Iraq. W's orchestrated intelligence blunders have cost this country dearly, and he deserves to be held fully accountable for the sacrifices he ordered to make: I want to see Wes Clark in a position where he can do that, and deny W another free ride, as Reagan had enjoyed before him.

Finally, a matter of terminology: don't make the mistake of confusing a political outsider with a Pentagon outsider. Wes Clark has never claimed to be the latter; his greatest strength and unique qualification for the high office of President of the United States is that he can lay claim to the former, while commanding the highest degree of experience, skills, decency, knowledge, integrity, wisdom, poise and character to lead a government of miserable failures into a beacon of sanity again.

Hope that clarifies your question.