Wesley Clark's new book

[Devlzown]

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." Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

He never disclosed anything like this information in any of his CNN commentaries or in the opinion columns he wrote for print media at the time. If Americans had known such things, and if the information is accurate, would they have supported the White House’s march to war? Would Congress have passed the war resolution the White House asked for?

http://www.villagevoice.com/nlrd.php?url=/issues/0340/schanberg.php

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I intend to get it

but one thing that concerns me is that campaign... that
is dangerous in more ways than one, and yes a push for
a modern day Empire and very straussian

[Devlzown]

2. That plan needs to be derailed.

I still think an "incident" will occur that will make it necessary to go into Iran or Syria or both. If that happens, it will make our current situation look like peacetime.

[catforclark2004]

3. Is this fantasy land or what?... are we rewriting the past a la 1984?

In my humble opinion, the article does not make a good case in questioning why General Clark didn't "speak up" leading to the Iraq war.

First, Clark felt he would be no more effective than Scott Ritter had been. Ritter, we recall, was sent into the land of the banished at the time of the "let's get our Bush war on" fever was going on. General Clark had no real proof....was not even a weapon inspector! His word that some people had told him things was not going to quite do it...for goodness sake!

Since the war resolution had passed, and the Media was singing it's war songs....Wesley Clark would have only gotten fired and retired to the looney bin ASAP (he'd already gone through both of those doors the last time he stood up). If Sydney H. Schanberg think that Clark, singlehandedly could have stopped the war....he is dreaming.

General Clark did testify to congress and he did make a case to the need to take it slow, deal with the problem with via the UN and not rush to war. However, I believe that if he would have said...."some of my sources told me".....they would have said...so you want to discuss some heresay then?

The author of the article then writes....Why didn’t he share these opinions with us then, when an informed public might have raised its voice and demanded more answers from the White House?

Is this fantasy land or what?...I remember marching in two peace marches. The Village voice's Sydney H. Schanberg must have been on a different planet to think that anything that Wesley Clark would have said prior to the war about what he heard or thought would have made one bit of difference.

If one can recall what happened when Clark attempted to talk about the phone call he said he received on 9/11 by a Canadian Middle East think tank.....urging Clark to go on Television and try to pin the the blame on Iraq? he was laughted at, ridiculed, and called crazy.....I remember the reporters saying "there are no middle east think tanks in canada"...hahhahah

I think that General Clark did what he felt was the most effective attack against what he knew...he wrote a book as the war was ocurring (in which one is allowed to ones own opinions and can share heresay) and decided to run for President.....to get the American EVILDOERS out of power, hopefully for good!