Clark at "Secret" Davos Oil Meetings? (World Economic Forum)

[seventhson]

Thanks to Tinoire for the research on this (alluded to in other posts)

The meeting is described in greater detail at the link

It can be found here and is, to say the least, quite disturbing and fits nicely with the revelations by former Treasury Secretary O'Neill about the "plans" for attacking Iraq and divvying up its oil and resources:

http://www.foei.org/media/2003/0126.html

Excerpt:



US Secretary of State Colin Powell is addressing the (World Economic Forum) WEF today amidst evident concern amongst many WEF business leaders and protests across Switzerland. However, many WEF attendees in the oil industry are set to benefit from an Iraq war.

A recent Deutsche Bank report <2> indicated a potential conflict of interest amongst the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council over the commercial implications of war in Iraq. Baghdad Bazaar - Big Oil in Iraq was published last October but only came to light last week. It indicates that a regime change in Iraq would benefit US and UK oil companies while a peaceful resolution would benefit oil companies based in Russia, France and China:

"On the one hand, Saddam might yield on weapons inspectors issues, and therefore retain power. Having conceded on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the UN would then be under pressure to ease sanctions and, in that scenario, Iraq would no doubt award contracts to its current supporters: Russia, France and China. With Saddam still in power, the US and the UK would probably continue to employ delaying tactics on implementation of deals that enhanced Baghdad's revenue flows. On the other hand, if Saddam's government is replaced - as seem to be the priority for the Bush administration - and sanctions eased, then the corporate line up in Iraq may well feature US and UK companies, particularly if there has been a US driven war in the country."

- p. 14, Baghdad Bazaar, Deutsche Bank, 21/10/03.

The report identifies the following companies as potential beneficiaries, who are also participants in this year's WEF meeting:

Vagit Alekperov, President and Chief Executive Officer, Lukoil Joint Stock Oil Company (Russian Federation)
Nick Butler, Group Vice President, Policy Development, British Petroleum - BP (UK)
Thierry Desmarest, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, TotalFinaElf SA, (France).
Sir Phillip Watts, Chairman and Chief Executive, Shell (UK/Netherlands)

Politicians and government officials present at the WEF include:

Colin Powell, Secretary of State, United States of America
Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister of Turkey

Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, United Kingdom

Cheng Siwei, vice Chairman of the Standing Committee. National People's Congress, People's Republic of China

Francis Mer, Minister of Economy, Finance and Industry, France

Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi, Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Saudi-Arabia

General (Wesley) Clark - former supreme Allied Commander for Europe, NATO is also present at the WEF.

[seventhson]

1. Note: This link is from a Friends of the Earth Press release

Friends of the Earth International held a protest outside the WEF at 1pm this afternoon against the "secret oil meeting". Protestors displayed a meeting "agenda" which included two items; 1) "Meet Powell" and 2) Iraq "who gets what?". They were gagged and carrying placards saying "Not invited: Human Rights, Environment, Trust, The Public and Oil War victims".

Clark was, according to the press release, a participant at this meeting.

[Tinoire]

2. Here's the rest of what I found on Davos.

((Thanks Seventhson, I didn't think anyone had seen that post because it was buried in another thread; these things are really concerning me & I recall DU and the world's incensed reaction to the Davos meetings last year))

===

Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo sceptics

Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.
<snip>
From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."

<snip>
Praise for Powell

But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm

====================================

Posted 07/02/2003
Titans of Davos: Cutting the Iraqi Oil Pile- Christopher Bollyln - The American Free Press
DAVOS, Switzerland—For 33 years, for one week every January, government leaders and the moguls of global business have convened here in this small ski town high in the Swiss Alps. While the mainstream media describes the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an event with a social focus, they know well that the real business of the conference is the private meetings of the global elite.

<snip>
On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop.

Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group.

<snip>

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=492

===

Davos still in the surreal world

<snip>

Up in Davos, though, the military-industrial complex was no laughing matter. Alongside leading political figures from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UN security council countries, top executives from BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, and Lukoil were in Davos. So was the architect of the first Gulf war, General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".
While this group gathered in Davos, Friends of the Earth handed out a leaked Deutsche Bank analysts' report, entitled Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq. This frightening document lays out how different oil companies and countries could benefit from the replacement of Saddam's regime, and speculates on how different oil companies might be involved in post-war control of the Iraqi state oil company.

<snip>

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,883944,00.html

====

Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after Saddam
Mark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003

DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.

Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.

He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."
<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

===

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption
27.01.2003
Annual Meeting 2003

This session on resolving conflicts was one of the few at the Annual Meeting in Davos this year not to be dominated by the prospect of US and allied war with Iraq, noted moderator Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. That did not make it any more optimistic than other discussions. The roundtable discussion brought together Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Board, Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Institute of Europe, Russian Federation, Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Sundeep Waslekar, President, Strategic Foresight Group, India - all experts on flashpoints in their regions. And among the prospects being considered is action by the US against North Korea for building up its nuclear weapons programme in secret.

<snip>

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

Doesn’t that tell North Korea that it has won this game of deterrence? "The military option cannot be taken off the table," Clark responded. But he also underlined that the US policy to North Korea is clear: "We don’t want the government to collapse. We don’t want South Koreans to adopt the North Koreans. We won’t want a war."
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202:%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open&event_id=

===

An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion. ((remember Kucinich’s casual mention to Clark during one of the debates that Clark had worked on the plans for the occupation of Iraq))
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:rNgU5fvc1kcJ:www.srcf.ucam.org/camsaw/Resources/2003/Moral_war_myth.doc+%22wesley+Clark%22++Davos+powell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

==

But what he says, and the way he says it, doesn't always endear him to his audience -- especially when he's improvising. Last January, I saw Clark give a 45-minute presentation on how he thought the war in Iraq would unfold. As long as he was up there with his map and light pen, talking about JDAMs and phase lines and whatnot, he was magnificant. But when it came time to answer questions -- to talk with, instead of at, the audience -- Clark bombed.

Part of it was what he said, which was in essence: The U.S. is going to war, the president has made his decision, so you'd better just get used to it. This to a European audience, mind you, one heavily salted with Franco-Germans. Clark actually told them -- I swear I am not making this up -- that they had an obligation to support the war, because "that's the democratic process."

You can imagine how big that went over.
And it wasn't just what he said, it was how he said it. Intentional or not, Clark has that cocky, blunt American attitude that so often grates on the nerves of Europeans (and foreigners in general.) And he made no noticeable effort to tone it down. In fact, it looked to me like Clark irritated the crowd almost as much as Colin Powell, who also spoke at the conference. And that's saying something.

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html

[worldgonekrazy]

9. Thanks for the research Tinoire!

Clark's coziness with the PNACers and the MIC are really coming to light. Its all about his relationship with the Stephens Group and, to a much lesser extent, Acxiom. It is important for everyone to see this information.

[HFishbine]

80. And the founder of the Sephens Group

Is also one of the founders of, and one of the largetst contributors to the Club for Growth -- you know, the group that's running those volvo-driving, sushi-eating anit-Dean ads.

[Eloriel]

10. Managing DIRECTOR of the Stephens Group? Holy Moly.

No way he'd get ThAT position without a nice up-close and personal relationship with The Man. Shoulda put that part in red, Tinoire.

As always, fantastic work. We all owe you a lot.

Eloriel

[Tinoire]

30. Aww shucks Eloriel...

Just for you, I did. Thank YOU for having been the person who first exposed me to PNAC! Good to see you posting again!

[seventhson]

11. This comment regarding Clark is MOST disturbing

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."


CLARK CAME TO DAVOS TO RALLY THE ALLIES IN SUPPORT OF A CAMPAIGN???

Jesus, what kind of fools do Clark and his supporters think we are.

This rally in support of an attack on Iraq CLEARLY blows Clarks assertion that he was against the war out of the water.

Clark was working for Stephens at that time.

How can we EVER trust a word out of that weasle's mouth again.

Jeesh!

I had never really seen this before.

It is no meme.

It is the real deal. Clark is lying through his clenched teeth.

He WANTED this war. So did his corporofascist bsses.

Will the media even TOUCH this?

I sincerely hope the campaigns pick up on it.

[worldgonekrazy]

25. Add this to the fray:

"I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH campus in Manchester. The general assumed--correctly--that the term no longer inspired revulsion in young audiences.

From "Clark's True Colors" by Matt Tiabi of the Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=1&s=taibbi

Anyone who hasn't read the above article ought to do so.

This is scary stuff. He's coming right out and saying it, yet people still support him as a peace candidate. WTF???!!!

[Renew Deal]

41. Don't forget this...

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202%3A%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open

[CivilRightsNow]

91. Yes they have WMD! "Absolutely"

Antiwar candidate? You must be kidding. ;)

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

[KoKo]

20. Once again, thanks Tinoire and Seventh for giving the "other view" on

some of our candidates. The background of Clark still bothers me, and the more I see of his "past ties" worries me about his "future ties."

We have to do alot of "background checks" on Clark because he doesn't have a record as an "Elected Official" in any capacity. He was a GENERAL and that means we need to search through more from a very different angle.

With Tinoire's Military Background and Seventh's "snooper sense" there's always good information to keep up to date about our candidates.

My worry is that so many DU'ers are so happy to have a "General" to confront Bush with on the Military/PNAC issues that they totally forget that "Military Dominance by PNAC" of this Administration is what is a good part of what we don't like about Chimp. To divorce the Military from the Economy with Bush is impossible. The two are "embedded."

I just still can't feel comfortable with Eisenhower's "Beware the Military-Industrial Complex" still ringing in my ears and the words of my history teachers (post WWII but closer than many DU'ers) that we must always be on guard against the Military influences in our Democracy because it's so fragile.

Thanks for the links...

[CivilRightsNow]

90. Tinore, you rock my socks off.

Thank you for being you.

I just started a new job and got to Davos this weekend, came here to post some stuff and bam.. looks like you got it covered.

This place breaks my spirit so much of the time, I feel like it has been infiltrated by people blindly supporting Clark.. hence it feels like everyone is a fool lately. So what's the point?

Im thankful that you have the "stick-to-it-ive-ness" that this place sorely needs.

<3

[slinkerwink]

116. great post!

[worldgonekrazy]

3. Whoa

This scares me. I've had a feeling all along that Wes Clark was running in order to make sure that, even if Bush were to lose the election, the "foreign policy plan" outlined in this document (and by the PNACers) would continue on. There would be no such guarantee if, say, Howard Dean were to win the White House.

Clark supporters, I urge you to consider the possibility that your guy is essentially a wolf in sheep's clothing. He may differ from Bush on some, or even many issues (such as social liberalism), but where it really matters he might be much of the same.

[cthrumatrix]

5. this needs to be explained ....can somebody help?

[slinkerwink]

21. this just affirms my suspicion of clark...

[Rowdyboy]

4. "Freinds of the Earth" he mutters as he dons his

tin-foil hat. Good night, I want to stay on DU and responding to this stuff will get me thrown off. Better I move on.

However, you might check Clark's whereabouts on the day JFK was shot. There really may have been someone on the grassy knoll. Perhaps Clark should agree to an anal probe....

[Tinoire]

7. International Herald Tribune

Does this not concern you?

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."

<snip>

http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

[Rowdyboy]

16. Honest to God

No. I'm sorry if I dissapoint...

[seventhson]

13. Hear Hear, Rowdyboy

good questions and proposal LOL

[worldgonekrazy]

14. Oh sure, brush it aside

Come on. Between this stuff and his dealings with the Stephens Group and Acxiom your guy really has quite a lot of explaining to do. Why can't you see that? Please don't let blind loyalty to your candidate prohibit you from examining this issue.

[TeacherCreature]

82. That is an unsatisfactory response RB

Can you dispute anything presented here? It would be helpful to all of us who might need to decide between Clark and staying home in november.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. "Staying home in November'?

With that kind of attitude, you deserve four more years of Bush.

[bitchkitty]

88. I can just see you now -

fingers in ears, lalalalalalala! lalalalalalala!

[John_H]

6. He couldn't have been there!!!

Those of us in the know have proof he was on a black helicopter on his way to a Trilateral commission meeting on renaming the School for the America's, "America's School."

[Tinoire]

26. Unfortunately he was... Representing Jackson Stephens

He attended the following formal sessions and was representing Jackson Stephens as their Managing Director:

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Negotiating%20Global%20Deals_2003?open">Negotiating Global Deals World Economic Forum 25.01.2003


http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202%3A%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open">Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption World Economic Forum 27.01.2003

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.



http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/The%20Transformation%20in%20Military%20Affairs%3A%20Its%20Impact%20on%20World%20Politics_2003?open">The Transformation in Military Affairs: Its Impact on World Politics World Economic Forum 25.01.2003

The United States spends more on defence than the rest of NATO put together, said Moderator Laurent Joffrin, Editor-in-Chief, Le Nouvel Observateur, France. Could anyone match their military power, and what would the impact of the shift from containment and deterrence to prevention and pre-emption be? The effect of this dominance on US military and geopolitical strategy and the consequences for international humanitarian law were also considered.

"The US is so far ahead that it is not foreseeable that anyone will catch up with their capability for at least 10 years," said Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA. The US has developed precision weapons and communications that take conventional war to a new level. There will be no question of Iraq being able to field troops in conventional defensive positions and hope to win. The enemy will have to go underground, or fight in the cities among civilians, use unconventional weapons or indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction if it takes the US on in battle. If everyone shifted to a policy of unilateral prevention and pre-emption the situation will become chaotic, said Clark. But the security of the American people is the priority for every US president.



http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/What%20If%20a%20Nuclear%20Weapon%20Were%20Launched%3F_2003?open">What If a Nuclear Weapon Were Launched? World Economic Forum 26.01.2003

Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, and former Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, disagreed with the majority view that a non-state belligerent would be most likely to go nuclear. He outlined a scenario in which Pakistan, on the brink of losing a conventional war with India, might resort to a limited nuclear strike. With luck, Clark said, such an attack would be limited to a warning shot fired into a desert region, with the objective of forcing the United States to intervene on Pakistan’s behalf. Turning to another regional flashpoint, Clark said he thought it unlikely North Korea would resort to nuclear attack -- unless its leaders thought their nuclear capabilities were about to be destroyed. But, he warned, if the North were to resort to nuclear arms, the United States would retaliate in kind, while attempting to minimize civilian casualties.

<snip>
For his part, Clark insisted the danger of nuclear attack -- whether by state or non-state actors -- was actually much higher in the early 1990s than it is today. "I just don’t believe terrorist use of nuclear weapons or state use of nuclear weapons is at all inevitable," he said. "It can be prevented."

[Tinoire]

128. Link Correction

Negotiating Global Deals World Economic Forum 25.01.2003
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Negotiating%20Global%20Deals_2003?open

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption World Economic Forum 27.01.2003
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202%3A%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open


The Transformation in Military Affairs: Its Impact on World Politics World Economic Forum 25.01.2003
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/The%20Transformation%20in%20Military%20Affairs%3A%20Its%20Impact%20on%20World%20Politics_2003?open

What If a Nuclear Weapon Were Launched? World Economic Forum 26.01.2003
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/What%20If%20a%20Nuclear%20Weapon%20Were%20Launched%3F_2003?open


If, for any reason those don't work, you can go to Clark's attendee link and you'll see the main conferences, the open ones, that he participated in on the right.

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Clark%20Wesley

[SeveneightyWhoa]

8. The RNC thanks you!

"Thanks, seventhson and Tinoire! You guys have been of great benefit to our campaign!" - Karl Rove

[worldgonekrazy]

17. As if the RNC didn't know this stuff already

Have you considered the possibility that Clark has been put forth as a shill to carry on the guts of the PNAC foreign agenda should George W. Bush get booted out of office? Crazy on its face, you say? Check out Watergate again.

[CivilRightsNow]

96. ding ding ding.. we have a winner

Ever since I picked up the wiff of NED the smell has just gotten worse and worse.

The sad part is that if the above scenario is correct, which I do think it is.. there isnt a shitload we can do to stop it. If Bush is waning in the polls they will put all their might behind Clark. I fear we are getting one of em, like it or not. If Clark wins the primary we are screwed. If that happens: The shadow government is truly mobilized and their agenda will be fullfilled at all costs. We'd be fools to continue to deny it.

PNAC and NED are the same beast. Infact, I honestly feel that NED pulls PNAC's strings. But, Im just a crazy conspiracy theorist. Really, NED is a bipartisan organization created by Reagan to help spread "democracy" and Wes is just helping them do that. Just like he helped em in Haiti.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. NED isn't the beast you imagine.

It gives grants and loans through four affiliate organizations with ties to the AFL-CIO, US Chamber of Commerce, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party.' The NED board members are therefore from each perspective, in order to achieve some balance. It's like the post-war administration of Germany by France, England, Russia, and the US. It's not a monolithic juggernaut at all.

And what are your reasons for thinking NED pulls PNAC's strings?

[Tinoire]

105. NED is a neo-beast - financing the anti-Chavez coup in Venezuela!

The NED? Surely you jest about it not being a beast. Let's just take one of the most recent examples, near and dear to the heart of every Progressive Leftist in the Democratic Party- George Bush's little coup against Venezuela which conveniently just happens to be our number one supplier of oil.

The NED quadrupled its funds to anti-Chavez oil-men ever since 2000 when Chavez started funneling the money back to the people and saying he was going to dump the dollar. At that point the NED pumped almost $1,000,000 of OUR tax dollars into ousting Chavez.

Here is the break-down of what it gave and how:

- 155,377 dollars from the American Centre for International Labour Solidarity (the international arm of the AFL-CIO)

- 210,500 dollars from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (the international arm of the Democratic Party)

- 339,998 dollars from the International Republican Institute (the international arm of the Republican Party),

- 171,125 dollars from the Centre for International Private Enterprise.


====

Chavez told The Washington Post that four foreigners fired high-powered rifles on the crowd from the Hotel Ausonia. They were arrested by the military unit responsible for protecting Chavez, but released the next day by Carmona's junta. They have since disappeared. Venezuelan police say at least five of those killed were shot in the head from above.

The labor group CTV, a main Chavez opponent, is a major beneficiary of funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by the U.S. Congress and which played a role in the 1980s contra campaign against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Blum contends--and some endowment officials have acknowledged--that the endowment was created in 1983 to carry out many of the covert activities of the CIA, which had come under fire in the late 1970s after many of its unsavory activities were exposed. Blum asserts that the endowment remains a CIA conduit, a charge endowment officials deny.

In the last year, the National Endowment for Democracy says it has dispensed $877,000 to Venezuelan and American groups involved in Venezuela including many opposed to Chavez. Beneficiaries include labor groups, journalists and business organizations. The endowment's heavy presence in Venezuela is "a guarantee of U.S. covert involvement," Blum said.

Added Steve Ellner, a political scientist at Venezuela's Universidad de Oriente, in a late April phone interview: "When the U.S. sponsors coups, they don't usually just call in the military to overthrow the government. They work through civil society. That's what happened in Chile ... and that's exactly what happened in Venezuela."

Officials of the National Endowment for Democracy deny they or the groups they fund had anything to do with the coup. They say they assist groups on both sides of the Chavez debate, and that their nonpartisan mission is promoting democracy. Still, the president of one of the four main groups the endowment channels money through, George A. Folsom of the International Republican Institute, which is active in Venezuela, publicly hailed the coup against Chavez.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1141/30_38/87353920/p4/article.jhtml?term=

===

Fleischer readily admitted that Chavez's opponents had been cordially received at the White House and the State Department. Recent accounts of the activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, which happened to sponsor a union demonstration hostile to Chavez, added to the speculation. Spokesman Chris Sabatini says that no endowment funds were "used to support the coup."

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) was frankly skeptical at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He says U.S. officials failed to ask obvious questions: How could anyone believe that Hugo Chavez signed "resignation" papers when his hands were manacled? How come we were so misinformed about popular support for Carmona? When the short-term president proclaimed the shutdown of democracy, the poor people of Caracas -- 80 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty despite its oil riches -- poured into the streets to protest and restore Chavez. When he came back from the Mideast, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a strong statement to the OAS reaffirming our preference for democracy.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-05.htm

===

10. U.S. involvement in attempt to unseat Hugo Chavez. When the coup happened, the New York Times wrote in an editorial, “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator.” Later, the facts that the U.S. government funded the coup (“U.S. Bankrolling Is Under Scrutiny for Ties to Chavez Ouster,” Christopher Marquis, New York Times, April 25, 2002) and that administration officials met with coup plotters (“Bush Officials Met With Venezuelans Who Ousted Leader,” Christopher Marquis, New York Times, April 16, 2002) were reported, but then immediately disappeared down the memory hole. When the second stage of the coup attempt, charmingly referred to as a “general strike,” (it was the opposite, an employer lockout), occurred, this history of U.S. involvement did not resurface.

10 Issues The Media Fell Down On
http://www.empirenotes.org/

Thread: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=728987

Thread: Wesley & The NED: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=817779

Wesley Clark's & The NED:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=460511


There is no way to spin this organization. It is vile.

Who is the National Endowment for Democracy?

http://www.ned.org/about/who.html

Officers

The Honorable Vin Weber
(Chairman)
Clark & Weinstock

Mr. Thomas R. Donahue
(Vice-Chair)
Senior Fellow
Work in America Institute

Mrs. Julie Finley
(Treasurer)
Founder, Board Member
United States Committee on NATO

Mr. Matthew F. McHugh
(Secretary)
Counselor to the President
The World Bank

Carl Gershman
President

Directors

Ambassador Morton Abramowitz
Senior Fellow
Century Foundation

The Honorable Evan Bayh
United States Senate

The Honorable Frank Carlucci
The Carlyle Group

General Wesley K. Clark
Stephens Group, Inc.

The Honorable Christopher Cox
United States House of Representatives

Ms. Ester Dyson
Chairman
Edventure Holdings

Ms. Jean Bethke Elshtain
University of Chicago

The Honorable William H. Frist
United States Senate

Dr. Francis Fukuyama
Johns Hopkins University,
Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies

Ms. Suzanne Garment
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson

Mr. Ralph J. Gerson
President & CEO
Guardian International Corp.

The Honorable Bob Graham
United States Senate

The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton
Director
The Woodrow Wilson Center

Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke
Counselor
Perseus

Mr. Emmanuel A. Kampouris
President and CEO, Retired
American Standard, Inc.

The Honorable Jon Kyl
United States Senate

Mr. Leon Lynch
Vice President
United Steelworkers of America

The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks
United States House of Representatives

Mr. Michael Novak
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Ambassador Terence A. Todman
International Consultant

Ambassador Howard Wolpe
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


====

According to the Venezuelan newsmagazine Sobrian, Wesley Clark directed NED's destabilization campaign against the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez:


http://www.soberania.info/Articulos/articulo_015.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Wesley%2BClark%2522%2B%2522Frank%2BCarlucci%2522%2BNED%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8">Translation Link One

http://www.a-ipi.com/Paises-Mundo/ALatina/Venezuela/Dossier_Vene/Stay2.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3DChavez%2BVenezuela%2B%2522Wesley%2BClark%2522%2B%2522National%2BEndowment%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8">Translation Link Two

Implication of the secret networks of the company to demolish to Chávez
Stay- behind: Failure of the operative one in Venezuela

Network Voltaire / IPI Agency - October/02

(SNIP)

In order to finance the movements, Elliot Abrams and Otto Reich resorted to diverse disguises, mainly the National for Endowment Democracy. Created in 1983 by Ronald Reagan, the NED was administered by Henry Kissinger and by the president of the union Afl-cio Lane Kirkland. Presided over nowadays by Carl Gersham and mainly administered by general Wesley Clark (ex- supreme head commander of NATO during the War of the Kosovo) and by the inevitable Frank Carlucci (old director, present president of the Carlyle Group and administrator of the fortune of the family Bin Laden ).

In order to carry out this operation, the NED spent near two million dollars in Venezuela.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. You display no true understanding of how NED works.

The questionable loans and grants that undermined Chavez's presidency were from the IRI and the ACILS affiliate organizations to NED.

The IRI is a Republican-based group, and the ACILS is based in the AFL-CIO. The ACILS loans and grants are somewhat questionable, but pan out - the money was used as described in the applications. (There are two other affliates - one connected to the Democratic Party, and the other to the US Chamber of Commerce).

The IRI loans are the smoking guns. IRI funding of Venezualan groups sextupled in the year that Chavez was imperiled. A lot of the money is unaccounted for.

Since Clark had just exited a Democratic adminstration, and had voted for Clinton both times and Gore in the past two months of being tapped for the board (he went into the board of directors January 2001), the logical conclusion is that he was an advocate for Democratic causes and worked mainly with the Democratic affliate.

His connection to the Chavez fiasco is barely credible.

[Tinoire]

107. Honestly- Don't you ever get tired of spinning for Clark? n/t

[CivilRightsNow]

109. You believe everything they tell you on Faux news, eh?

Interesting stuff. I mean, I should know the answer to that.. I think I do. But I cant help but ask the question to give ya the benefit of the doubt.

[CivilRightsNow]

110. Oh wait...

That is why he joined the board with:

CARLUCCI, CLARK, FINLEY, FUKUYAMA, HOLBROOKE, WEBER

Bwahahahaha! That group is definately balanced with rethugs and democrats. Or is Wes just such a balance that he was brought in with them to single handedly balanace out all 5 of the others?

What about the work Clark did with NED in Haiti?

Oh wait, he just sponsered a little "democracy" over there. I forget.

[CivilRightsNow]

108. Can I have some of the crack you have been smoking?

This is what NED is, this is who runs NED right now. I know it's a shitload of information, but read some of it. I know I havent finished all the board members on this list, but I didnt want to paste pages of information since you wont even read any of this.

However, one of these days, Im going to finish organizing the rest of this crap and all the information on daddy Heritage and Ill just post the link to the web page. I've got the rest of the board members if anyone really gives a shit about the sheer evilness of pretty much all the folks currently making the decisions at NED. Im currently working on a Visio diagram about how inbred they are with the PNACers. It's great stuff.

Links about NED:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-027.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul134.html - Republican Senator Ron Paul on NED

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Reagan_CIA.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/em461.cfm
http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper115.html
http://www.jpf.go.jp/j/region_j/cgp_j/intel/abe/original/report_04.html

http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-71.htm
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm

NED also helped steal the election in 2000 through its baby thinktank IFES:
"The passage of landmark electoral reform legislation in the United States in 2002 opens the door for IFES to apply its extensive international experience in efforts to improve elections at home. IFES has already taken steps in this direction. We joined the Center for Democracy to conduct assessment and observation missions in Miami-Dade County for the November 2002 general elections, and we delivered long-term recommendations for improving elections in the county. We conducted a similar mission to the City of St. Louis prior to the November 2002 election. We are eager to continue contributing our expertise to make the U.S. electoral system a model of which we can be proud." page 8 http://www.ifes.org//biennial_low_PRINT.pdf

"After being focused almost entirely overseas from the time of our founding, IFES is now rendering a real service in the United States. Following the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, we are eager to help jurisdictions across America with the challenges of adopting new technologies, meeting federal standards, and educating voters and poll workers.
Another new focus for IFES is the Arab world, a region of tremendous human potential that will benefit greatly from releasing the power of its citizenry through more open political systems. IFES has a track record as a trusted advisor in this region." page 12


More: http://www.ifes.org/new_initiatives/US_elections.htm

Paul DeGregorio -
http://www.dailyillini.com/dec00/dec05/news/campus02.shtml
He helps recount the FL votes for Bush.

Guess who else Paul DeGregorio is? Vice President of IFES
Then, guess who gets nominated to to the Election Assistance Commission buy Baby Bush?
http://www.ifes.org/pressroom/Press%20Releases/06_12_03_DeGregorio_EAC.pdf



Here is some of a breakdown of Ned's members:

Wes Clark
"Former general, possible Democratic presidential candidate, and Segway rider Wesley Clark on why the military usually gets the money it needs while foreign aid, for example, usually loses out: "In the Defense Department, we've got the machinery. When we want something done we just make sure the B-2 Bomber is built in 49 states."

http://www.kabissa.org/lists/newsletter-submissions-l/0612.html

He joined Ned in 2001

Some more on Wesley and NED
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/88388.php

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:

“We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan.” Clark continued: “That’s the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.” (Ibid.)

Clark on President George H.W. Bush:

“President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.” (Ibid.)

Wesley Clark also praised Bush and Blair on the Iraq war:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

These are the people he is in bed with at NED:

Francis Fukuyama
This guy scares me. Ill only focus on a few links because there is so much info out there on how scary this guy is you should have no reason finding it on your own if you are interested.

Condi Rice buddy
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/stories/s640487.htm

Member of the President's council on Bioethics
http://www.bioethics.gov/about/fukuyama.html

This is PNAC stuff. It's straight up weird. Scroll down for the article so you dont have to sign up for the NYT
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0204/msg00031.html


Vin Weber
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/vin_weber.htm

He is linked to the CAE (Other board member, Micheal Novak is also linked to CAE)
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/cae.htm

http://www.citypages.com/databank/23/1119/article10388.asp

He is even part of PNAC
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Vin also had links to ChoicePoint, the people who helped steal the election and are now contracted for Ashcroft's Total Information Awareness Project:
http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=203

Thomas Donahue
President of Federated
http://www.federatedinvestors.com/company/history.asp
http://opengov.media.mit.edu/EX/0000/100/124/472/

Federated talks to the SEC alot:
Federated on the Sarbanes -Oxley Act
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s73302/skeen1.htm
On the Investment company act of 1940 amendment
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s72101/neuman1.htm

Federated Is linked to the Galliot Center (Oh, his dad owns Federated, by the way):
In its role as advisor to the JEC, the Center produces "Quarterly International Economics Reports" that are distributed to members of Congress and published by the JEC. Several of the reports have been supported by international news stories and opinion-editorials, authored by Meltzer and/or Lerrick, in London's Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal. Another measure of the Center's impact is the implementation of its research as policy. President George W. Bush has highlighted the Center's grant-based aid proposal as a cornerstone of the Administration's international development strategy.
http://wpweb2k.gsia.cmu.edu/gsia/media/10-23-02NS.asp

He was also involved with the AFL-CIO as treasurer and then President - http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/history/history/donahue.cfm

William H Frist - Senate Republican Majority Leader
http://opengov.media.mit.edu/DBD/CACHE/0000/000/300/045/

He also wrote this book
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0742522458

He is the health industry's man in the govt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14010-2003Nov7¬Found=true
http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2003/1328/t_cover.html - His Daddy owns HCA. Hospital Corporation of America and is worth over 1 billion dollars. The amount of stocks that Bill owns is undisclosed by estimated at 2-12 million dollars worth.

Frist also froze the probe into prewar iraq data


Suzanne Garmet
--formerly of AEI fame
http://www.aei.org/scholars/view.,dateType.,year.,month.,recNo.0,filter.social/scholar_byname.asp

***Micheal Novak and Richard Perle are scholars at AEI.. so is Lynne Cheney.. and Gingrich (this will make sense in the next link)

Defending Gingrich
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/january97/scandal_1-8.html

She is also in bed with Vin Webber in The Council for Excellence in Govt.. Lee Hamilton makes an appearance there too. Look at the Coucil's Corporate partners
http://www.excelgov.org/displayContent.asp?NewsItemID=1315&Keyword=prnwChanging

Last but not least, she is married to Nixon's former special counsel after Watergate broke.
Leonard Garmet wrote:
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0465026141.asp
Some speculate he may just be Deepthroat.

Lee H. Hamilton
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_hamilton.htm
-- He is also on the 9/11 comission.. guess he is Kissinger's stand in

Also on the homeland security advisory council
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Homeland_Security_Advisory_Council

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_cr/h940721-terror-is.htm

The Role of the Congress in US Foreign Policy - http://www.csis.org/html/sp98hamilton.html

Last Words: October Sunrise

Ralph J. Gerson
Sits on the Henry Ford Board of Trustees
http://www.hfmgv.org/about/mission.asp

He LOVES Globalization (check out his article on page 30 of the following link)
http://www.wdi.bus.umich.edu/publications/gp_pdf/gp_issue2_fall2002.pdf

Bio - http://www.consespain-usa.org/intro/biografias/ing/14.html

Matthew McHugh
From 1975 to 1992, McHugh represented the 27th and 28th Congressional Districts of New York. While in Congress, McHugh served on a number of committees and sub-committees, including the Appropriations Committee and the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Committee, which he chaired in the early 1980s.

Then, he became counselor to the president of the World Bank... WTF?
A speech: http://inside.binghamton.edu/September-October/16sept99/mchugh.html
He is also a chair at Bread for the World -"Bread for the World is a nationwide Christian citizens movement seeking justice for the world's hungry people by lobbying our nation's decision makers. BFW Institute seeks justice for hungry people by engaging in research and education on policies related to hunger and development."
Another Bio- http://www.stennis.gov/Congressional%20Bios/matthewmchugh.htm


(***I know he announced he would not seek another term shortly after the House Bank over draft scandal in the early 90s. Anyone that could illuminate what the heck happened there and how much involvement he had, please email me)

Julie Finley

http://www.projecttransitionaldemocracy.org/html/bios/finley.htm

Julie Finley, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Project on Transitional Democracies, is also a Founder and Board member of the U. S. Committee on NATO. Mrs. Finley has been active in Republican politics for many years serving as District of Columbia Republican Party Chairman from 1992-2000. She is presently the Republican National Committeewoman from the District of Columbia and has served and continues to serve in a number of capacities on the Republican National Committee.

In addition to political responsibilities, Mrs. Finley serves as a Trustee of the National Endowment for Democracy and the American Academy in Berlin.(They just made a fellowship in GHWBush's name) She is currently Chairman of the Host Committee for the Prague NATO Summit in November, 2002. Mrs. Finley has been a trustee of many community organizations including the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, the Washington Opera Board and several school boards.

Mrs. Finley has worked for NBC, ABC News and the Washington Post. She was educated at Vassar College and resides in Washington, D. C.

*** She is also on the COMMITTEE FOR THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ board

........

She has donated $259,250 to republican causes.
Finley is co-chair of finance for the Dole presidential campaign, chair of the D.C. Republican Committee, and founder of the Republican Primary PAC. Despite such conservative credentials, Finley is adamantly pro-choice, serving as an advisory board member for the Republican Coalition for Choice and a board member of WISH List, a PAC that has raised more than $600,000 for pro-choice Republican women candidates since its inception in 1992.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/coinop_congress/96mojo_400/bios/15.html



------- If you look at her committe memberships, she travels with these two alot, they are the only ones that sit with her at PTD:
Bruce Jackson- her cohort at Project on Transitional Democracies - He was a PNACer and is Chair for the Committe for the Liberation of Iraq
He was pretty instramental in getting the Coalition of Willing up and running...He likes Nato alot and was formerly vice president in the weapons division of lockheed martin.

Randy Scheunemann - He was Trent Lott's National Security Aide and an advisor to Donald H. Rumsfeld on Iraq. --"Mr. Scheunemann was involved in Senate deliberations concerning the use of American military power in Somalia, the Korean peninsula, Iraq, Haiti and Bosnia. He also served as coordinator for Senate Republican policy on United Nations reform, Congressional-Executive war powers, NATO enlargement, global climate change, economic sanctions, ballistic missile defense and technology transfers to China. He has traveled to over 80 countries to examine U.S. policies and programs.

"From 1986-1993, Mr. Scheunemann served on the staffs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the House Republican Policy Committee. Mr. Scheunemann has authored articles for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy and other national publications. He has served as guest lecturer on foreign policy and security issues for the Foreign Service Institute, the National Defense University, the Defense Trade Advisory Group, the Republican National Committee's Team 100, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, American University and the U.S. Information Agency. Mr. Scheunemann serves on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO, as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Treasurer of The Project on Transitional Democracies."

Links on Finley:
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue11/isue11_part6.htm
These people are the winning hearts and minds.. liberating iraq.. spin doctors.
Julie also sponsered a book signing for Wesley Clark in June 2001. http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring060101.html
She also headed Team 100, a group of Republican 100k+ Dollar donors who gave generously to GWB - Molly Ivin's oped
(another article)




Carl Gershman
Former leader of Social Democrats, USA:

"SD/USA is an important and powerful group because of the jobs and connections of its membership. It numbers among its members a strange combination of intellectual neoconservatives and top union officials. The Reagan administration brought these groups together by allowing them both a considerable amount of influence and power. So, while the SD/USA name may not be familiar to many, its membership gave intellectual credence to the politics and policies of the Reagan administration and provided "cover" for Democrats who supported an agressive anticommunist foreign policy. "

"Carl Gershman is the president of the National Endowment for Democracy. (12) NED serves as a channel for U. S. government funding for "democracy building" projects in third world nations. (12) In keeping with its congressional mandate, the bulk of NED's funding (70 percent in its first two years) has been given to the Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI), an affiliate of the AFL-CIO's International Affairs Department. (4) Gershman was a research director for APRI and a resident scholar at Freedom House. (4) The Carl Gershman Papers, which take up nine linear feet at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, are considered a valuable source on the recent history of socialism in America. However, Gershman represents SD/USA, the rightwing branch of socialism that was formed as the result of a split in the party in 1972. The leftwing is represented by the Democratic Socialists of America, led by Michael Harrington until his death early in 1989."
http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-118.htm

Excerpt on SD and NED from Workers of the World Undermined by Beth Sims
"Like other top leaders of the AFL-CIO, Tom Kahn is affiliated with various organizations that form an anticommunist phalanx with U.S. foreign policy influence. Kahn, who heads the federation's powerful international affairs department, is a principal of Social Democrats USA (SD/USA). A small, self-described social democratic organization, SD/USA's policies and activities dovetail smartly with U.S. interventionism abroad, and its leaders dominate the foreign policy apparatus of the AFL-CIO. Largely composed of ex-Trotskyites, the organization is a right-wing breakaway faction from the U.S. Socialist Party, which split over conceptions of the proper role for the United States to play in Vietnam. Through the strategic placement of members such as Carl Gershman and Tom Kahn, SD/USA has exercised a profound influence in the export of anticommunist ideology and U.S. influence under the guise of promoting democracy. But as one top union staffer explained, the organization is "not only anticommunist, but anti-left," a fact that strictly limits its alliances around the world.

In the 1970s, under the leadership of Carl Gershman, SD/USA became a supporter of Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson and his contingent of hawkish "defenders of democracy." Working with Jackson, SD/USA's members gained political experience but little political power. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, however, key figures in SD/USA achieved positions of power and influence both in the labor movement and in the government. Among the latter were Reagan era appointees such as United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Elliott Abrams, and Geneva arms talks negotiator Max Kampelman. "

Head of the Ned Challenged by Chinese Democrats - http://www.democracy.org.hk/EN/2001/aug/news_08.htm
AFL CIO and anti-Chavez activites (Time article included)- http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mgj-discuss/2003-September/000339.html
Ellen Bork of PNAC and Gershman pushing the need for intervention in north korea -http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2003/dprk-030503-3b195de6.htm

[Tinoire]

112. Great info there- Here's who's behind the NED & the CSIS

Thanks for pulling that together! An hyper-linked org chart of all these people is exactly what we need. The NED is backed by the same people who are behind the CSIS (another board Clark sits on)- 4 of the most right-wing organizations out there.


The CSIS is http://www.csis.org/ a Right-Wing think tank which has been very close to Bush on matters dealing with Iraq & Afghanistan. They're like a who's who of the whatever neo-cons aren't in government and has a Board of trustees who's members proudly sit on boards of Halliburton, Hunt Oil, National Petroleum Council, American Petroleum Council, General Electric, special counsellors to Reagan, and Sam Nunn of the Nunn-Wolfowitz-Task Force fame. Media Transparency has quite a run-down on this organization
http://www.mediatransparency.org/all_in_one_results.php?Message=CSIS

National Endowment for Democracy which Ronald Reagan started in the early 1980s to "promote American values abroad" accomplishes its goals by destabilizing progressive movements/governments, especially those with a socialist or democratic socialist bent. The NED is currently implicated in the Venezuelan Coup Scandal for having financed the oppostition to Hugo Chavez to the tune of a little under $1 million US tax dollars. Also on the board Frank Carlucci (Carlyle fame), Morton Abramowitz, Vin Weber (original PNAC signatory), Evan Bayh of DLC famehttp://www.ned.org/about/who.html


Here are the CSIS & National Endowment for Democracy's major/majority donors:

1.
Sara Scaife Foundatation financed in turn by Mellon Industrial, at one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Richard Scaife is the 38th richest man in America. Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is considered to be one of the top 4 conservative foundations. He's known as the Right's Founding Father.

www.mediatransparency.org/funders/scaife_foundations.htm

2.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation one of the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundations. Its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in areas of welfare "reform" and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers.

The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation is ... laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off. (...) supports right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation, source of policy papers on budget cuts, supply-side economics and the Star Wars military plan for the Reagan administration; the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, which provides funding for right-wing research and a network of conservative student newspapers; and the American Enterprise Institute, literary home of such racist authors as Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) and Dinesh D'Souza (The End of Racism), former conservative officeholders Jeanne kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp and William Bennet, and arch conservative jurists Robert Bjork and Antonin Scalia. <snip / this just goes on and on sending CHILLS up my spine>

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm

3.
The The James Olin Foundation grew out of a family manufacturing business (chemical and munitions), funds right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research and the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution and Peace. It also gives large sums of money to promote conservative programs in the countries most prestigious colleges and universities.

More: http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm


4.
The Smith Richardson Foundation active in supporting conservative causes... one of the countries richest families. Funded the early "supply-side" books of Jude Wanninski and George Gilder. Board of Directors include Ben Wattenberg (right wing, radical Free Market, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute, maker of the right-wing PBS show "Think Tank", Senior Editor of The American Enterprise Magazine.

More: http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/smith_richardson_foundation.htm

[seventhson]

18. Wow - thru the looking glass

everything good is rove/clark and everything bad is kucinich/dean

I guess if Clark is in bed with Rove and Stephens and Halliburton et al, saying he is NOT is what Rove has to do. Tha's okay.

we can read the truth.

Clark was there to rally for the Iraq war campaign and to beat the drum for the oil war.

Revolting.

How any dem can support Clark is beyond my ken. Not if they know this.

[worldgonekrazy]

43. Beyond me as well

I gues some just don't want to know, for whatever reason. Thread after thread on DU exposed Clark's chuminess with the current crowd, yet people just cast it aside and say something about "Dean's 'gaffes'"

[IndianaGreen]

38. I want to know if this stuff is true--remember how Bush was portrayed?

Bush was portrayed as a "compassionate conservative" during Campaign 2000 while in reality he was already plotting to invade Iraq and to sweep away our civil liberties.

How do we know that Wes Clark is not who he portrays himself as? The same can be said about every candidate that is running for President today. The only way to make sure that we are not nominating a Trojan Horse, is by critical analysis of a candidate's entire record.

[worldgonekrazy]

44. Amen

The only way to make sure that we are not nominating a Trojan Horse, is by critical analysis of a candidate's entire record.

Right you are.

[TeacherCreature]

83. I think it is you they thank

They are distroying the democratic party from the inside and you can't see it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[worldgonekrazy]

19. Well of course he was seperate, he is not YET a politician or

"government official." But that doesn't mean he doesn't have just as much of a hand in it as those other guys.

[slinkerwink]

22. it's a real issue to discuss

[Renew Deal]

36. So discuss.

What is important? What should we be concerned with?

[seventhson]

23. Maybe he invited himself. But he was there to rally support for the war

in Iraq in order to stael the oil and get control of it.

Do you deny he said that? That is NOT in the FOTE press release but is on reports by the other media there.

How can you DENY it?

[democratreformed]

34. Maybe that's what Bill Clinton was there for too...

Link to list of people attending the 2003 World Economic Forum:
http://annualmeeting.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Annual+Meeting+2003/Annual+Meeting+2003+Selected+List+of+Participants.html

[IndianaGreen]

40. Clinton gave us NAFTA and Plan Colombia

and he bombed Iraq indiscriminately. Clinton also launched an unprovoked air strike against Sudan. Some hero!

We tolerated Clinton because Newt and Ken Starr were far worse.

[Tinoire]

42. NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, GATT all gifts from the World Economic Forum

Clinton has nothing to be proud of there!! These things have been disastrous for the American worker! Is this where the deal was made to outsource IT jobs to India?

===
About the World Economic Forum:

<snip>

The WEF’s annual meetings provide intimate venues for corporate executives to hobnob with politicians, including presidents, prime ministers and members of royalty. Executives who attend the invitation-only meetings network can arrange face-to-face meetings in quick succession that otherwise would take months to arrange. A series of regionally focused meetings that occur between annual summits are designed to provide a more intimate opportunity for business leaders to meet local government leaders and regulators and challenge local laws and regulatory oversight. Credentialed members of the media seeking to cover the WEF are kept out of many events.
Yet what goes on behind those closed doors can have a profound effect on policy. For instance, the WEF takes credit for launching the Uruguay Round of negotiations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and helping create the World Trade Organization (WTO). This year it will feature discussions about the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement.
This year, summit participants are disproportionately from Europe, the United States and the Middle East. Most delegations from Africa are small, and just four Central American delegations are coming, even though the FTAA NAFTA expansion is prominent on the agenda.
Further, many NGOs are noticeably absent. NGO representatives who participated in the 2000 meeting and were critical of the WEF weren’t invited back in 2001. And many 2001 NGO participants -- key civil society leaders such as Martin Khor of the Third World Network in Malaysia, Vandana Shiva of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in India and Jeremy Rifkin of the Foundation on Economic Trends -- weren’t invited this year. (Public Citizen, which attended in 2001, was not invited.)

<snip>

http://www.publiccitizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1016

[HereSince1628]

15. Nevermind...

[Fleshdancer]

24. Well this sucks.

I hope Clark has an explaination for this.

[arewethereyet]

27. this was from a year ago

why assume that it carries over from year to year.

[CivilRightsNow]

97. OMG... So he did an about face in a year

Just like he did an aboutface in 3 years after fundraising for Bush and praising him.

So, Wes Clark's allegiance lies where the money is from year to year. And that is A-okay for our future president. Is that what you guys are saying? Cause Ive never been able to understand this whole.. that was a year ago! That was two years ago! stuff.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. He didn't even do an about face THEN.

As is being pointed out, the quote is used in a WaPo article titled The General's Doubts. In this article, published January of last year, Clark shares exactly the same concerns with American policy on Iraq that he is hammering today. There's no flip flop.

[Rowdyboy]

28. Did you know Clark voted for Reagan?

He did! He admitted it! He also spoke at a Republican fund raiser!

Pass me the mustard. Nothing tastes quite as good to a Democratic cannibal as a Democrat with a bat's chance of winning a national election. It scares the shit out of them that Democrats might actually WIN an election. God forbid! Lets do our best to see that never happens...

[worldgonekrazy]

46. And Nixon. Whats your point?

Oh yeah, red herring. Distract us from the real issue.

Well I'm not biting.

[CivilRightsNow]

98. They are good at that.

I think they have a macro on their computer that they just press when the going gets tough. It's either

Macro 1: Karl Rove says thanks.
Macro 2: That was x years ago.
Macro 3: Insert Dean flame.
Macro 4: You are a freeper.

We need to look at these things and stop closing our eyes. Let us not get drawn down into the flames. These are valid issues, requiring evaluation. We will all pay for the mistakes of the willingly blind.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Sophistry

Serious discussion with you is impossible.

[CivilRightsNow]

111. Heh..

Serious discussion? Come on now, you cant seriously believe half the stuff you write. I thought we were playing some type of deranged sarcasm game.

You mean, you are serious? Cause Ive never had a conversation before with you. Unless you like to change nicks, is that it? It's mighty perplexing I tell you.


Good lord, have mercy. Do you even know what Sophistry means? It pertains not in the least to my previous post.

But it sure is a high fallutin'- tootin' sounding word, eh? Along with all your knowledge of how impossible it is to have an imaginary serious conversation with me you'd think we'd have talked before this thread.

[burning bush]

124. Bullshit!

What attempts have you made at having a serious discussion on this topic?

You can't answer any of these charges!

You just deny them off hand, or pretend the person making the charges is acting strangely.

Well, now that we KNOW for a fact that Wesley K. Clark is lying about his views on and role in the Iraq war, how do you defend your support of a known liar?

How can you defend your support of Clark?

[formernaderite]

51. NWO alert

Well I'm too new to risk getting in trouble again by calling him a member of another party...but Clark freaks me out in a big way. It's not just his career path... or his slickness....of course these little secret New World Order meetings are part of it.....biting tongue, biting tongue....

[worldgonekrazy]

60. Jump right into the fray

You might be new but from what I can tell you've already got a better understanding of Clark than many on this board.

[TeacherCreature]

84. Why not just out bush on our ticket?

Then we all voted for the winner and can feel good until we see what we actually bought.

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

29. Look on the bright side

If WMD's are found in Iraq, Clark can switch back to having supported war and claim he even lobbied the European community.

Like I have said many times before, Clark is a risk i'm not willing to take. In a few years, after he has shown me is a real Democrat, maybe i'll warm up to him.

[retyred]

31. Never forget:

retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[democratreformed]

32. Not very secret: Press from the time period

NEXT: Clark was scheduled to travel to Switzerland this week to attend the World Economic Forum. He works for a Little Rock, Ark.-based investment firm and travels with a Clinton administration aide as his staff member.
From this link: http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20265841.html

If anyone is interested, see this link to see some of those quotes in context: http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Clark%20Wesley?open

Maybe you can dig around on the WEF site and find some more info. I don't have time right now. I'll look again later.

[Renew Deal]

37. Nice find. Clark Quote:

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202%3A%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open

[democratreformed]

39. Bleachers, Clinton was there too

Link to participants: http://annualmeeting.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Annual+Meeting+2003/Annual+Meeting+2003+Selected+List+of+Participants.html

[Tinoire]

45. The Clinton brush is not working for Lieberman & it won't work for Clark.

Clinton is not some God- he had some disastrous pro-corporate policies that really hurt working Americans.

Jackson Stephens seems to be quite a link between Clinton & Clark- unfortunately it's not a good one. Stephens ties to Bush are absolutely appalling.

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. That MUST be wrong. It had to be "secret"

seventhson and tinoire said so. Everything they post here is true. They are not going out of their way to do research for hours and hours and post something that's BOGUS bullshit. It's all true and I believe every word of it.

NOT

[worldgonekrazy]

63. Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.




Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.




A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html


Try again.

[ClarkGraham2004]

33. More Clark bitching?

YAWN

[worldgonekrazy]

50. You call researching a candidate "bitching"?

Come on.

You know there is something to this. You know that Clark's ties with the Stephens Group and Acxiom are unsettling.

[ClarkGraham2004]

54. Not really

He was in the military making shit salary for 30 years. When he got out he wanted to make some money.

[worldgonekrazy]

55. So he sold out his supposed ideals?

Yeah, he wanted to make some money.

He did so by lobbying for Acxiom to spy on U.S. citizens. Interesting business plan for a man who claims to support Civil Liberties.

He did so by being on the board of directors for the Stephens Group, which has had its hand in a fair share of objectionable foreign policy ventures. Interesting business plan for a man who claims to have been against the Iraq War (yet apparently represented the Stephens Group in support of the war).

If thats okay with you...well then I guess we are not only not on the same page but are actually reading from entirely different books.

On edit: changed phrasing for better effect

[ClarkGraham2004]

57. He did what he had expeirence in

He worked with military industry type businesses. What do you expect? Him to go work for the ACLU? He's been a top military official for decades.

[worldgonekrazy]

59. Exactly. Is this man the answer for a country that has a MIC problem?

MIC=Military Industrial Complex

Do you not think that we have a Military Industrial Complex, as Eisenhower warned us against?

Or do you not think that is a problem?

[ClarkGraham2004]

61. No, I think he just wanted to make some money before he got too old.

After he retired I think he wanted a chance to make some money.

I honestly think there's not a thing sinister about it. Sorry.

[worldgonekrazy]

65. "Nothing sinister"?

You don't think it is "sinister" to use your expertise to profit from the Climate of Fear following 9/11 (as with Acxiom) and then claim that you support Civil Liberties?

You don't think it is "sinister" to use your expertise to profit from a potential war for oil (as with the Stephens Group) and then claim you were against said war all along?

Well I think it is. Near as I can tell Wesley Clark is a liar who will sell out his supposed ideals for a quick buck. Not the man I want in office, though I do grant you that he would be better than Bush.

[Don Claybrook]

78. Nothing sinister in making money from death?

I guess we must have a basic difference of opinion.

[revcarol]

94. What do retired four-star generals get?

Not in dire need of money, that's fer sure.

Maybe he wanted to go where his heart really was/is. With big business, and power.

[ClarkGraham2004]

95. You wont vote for him regardless

To continue this conversation with you is pointless.

[burning bush]

126. Sinister?

The man is a proven liar, asking for your vote to run the Western world, apparently for his own profit.

Soldiers DIED, Wesley LIED

[burning bush]

125. Ah the silent sleeping majority yawns, and goes back to sleep

how boring, another Clark supporter that would rather take a nap than challenge their brain to a think-a-thon.

Noticed that you can't even begin to defend your man.

tsk tsk tsk

[Renew Deal]

35. This is all speculation and FUD.

There might have been a meeting. Some of those people might have participated. They might have talked about Iraq. Some companies might have been involved if the meeting happened which they don't seem to know. Clark might have advised against going to war.

I have an idea. Call the number there for more info.

Edit: Clark spoke out againsdt the war here.

http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202%3A%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open


Contact details for Friends of the Earth International in Davos:
Tony Juniper: [phone]
Miriam Behrens: 0792160206
Craig Bennett: [phone]


Also, ask Clark if you see him.

[worldgonekrazy]

52. Have you READ any of the links provided?

Tinoire has given us some great research from very credible sources. For example, in a BBC artile (which you can link to in Tinoire's top post) has Clark saying that Powell gave a very good rational for U.S. policy. That doesn't sound to me like he was there to speak AGAINST the Admin's foreign policy.

[Tinoire]

53. Here's the speech Clark was praising when he told the Europeans

to get on board:

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Davos, Switzerland
January 26, 2003

I am especially pleased that the theme of this year's gathering is "Building Trust," because trust is a crucial commodity, not only in this but in all eras. I've been here for just over a day, long enough to speak and meet with a number of you, long enough to hear directly and from others much of what has been said about the United States over the last two or three days, about whether America can be trusted to use its enormous political, economic, and above all, military power, wisely and fairly.

<snip>

When we talk about trust, let me use that as a bridge to one of the major issues of the day, Iraq. Let me try to explain why we feel so strongly about Iraq and why we are determined that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue. We are where we are today with Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his regime have repeatedly violated the trust of the United Nations, his people and his neighbors, to such an extent as to pose a grave danger to international peace and security.

<snip>


What happened to nearly 30,000 munitions capable of carrying chemical agents? The inspectors can only account for only 16 of them. Where are they? It's not a matter of ignoring the reality of the situation. Just think, all of these munitions, which perhaps only have a short range if fired out of an artillery weapon in Iraq, but imagine if one of these weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and found its way into the hands of a terrorist organization who could transport it anywhere in the world.

<snip>

Where are the mobile vans that are nothing more than biological weapons laboratories on wheels? Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?

<snip>

The United States believes that time is running out. We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq alone or in a coalition of the willing. As the President has said: "We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. History will judge harshly those who saw a coming danger but failed to act."

<snip>
The United States has already stepped forward with bold and sweeping proposals to liberalize trade in both agriculture and in industrial goods. Now other major players must join us. Governments must resist the temptation to erect new barriers such as those blocking trade in agriculture and biotechnology which have the effect of reducing trade while depriving food assistance, for example, to hungry -- nay, starving -- people.


<snip>

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary of State, I am Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, a global human rights movement. I would like to thank you for coming to speak to us. And I have a question for you which I know is troubling many civil society groups around the world, including many of us who are represented here today.

My question is: Do you believe that the threat which Iraq poses today is so great, so grave and so imminent, that it justifies provoking a massive human rights and humanitarian crisis?

I say this because the humanitarian situation in Iraq is very fragile and military action could easily precipitate, in our view would certainly precipitate, a huge humanitarian disaster. We have seen -- we remember in 1991 -- the millions of refugees who were trapped on the border. There could be a bloodbath inside, a ripple effect as well.

And my question is: How does one balance the human rights and humanitarian concerns with that military action, the threat, the military action both with the humanitarian concern? Thank you.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY POWELL: We do believe the threat is great and the Security Council believes the threat is great, and it's reflected in the 15-0 vote on 1441. Iraq must be disarmed.

We are sensitive to the plight of the Iraqi people, not only in the case of a conflict, but their plight right now. The Iraqi leadership has more than enough money to take care of the needs of the Iraqi people if the money would be spent in the right way, as opposed to being used to punish the Iraqi people by withholding aid.

And perhaps if a conflict were necessary -- and once again, we are hoping it will not be necessary -- but if it is necessary, the contingency planning that we are doing in the United States includes actions directly related to ensuring that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people would be taken care of, and perhaps with a regime that is more responsive to the needs of its people and more interested in using the wealth of the Iraqi people for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and not for weapons of mass destruction and not wasting the money on armies that invaded Kuwait, armies that invaded Iran.

Perhaps not only would the Iraqi people be better off in the aftermath of such a conflict, but so would the whole region.

<snip>

Released on January 26, 2003

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/16869.htm

[democratreformed]

47. Not secret and not an "oil" meeting

Link: http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Annual+Meeting+2003

[Tinoire]

69. The Davos and NY WEC talks are secret and by invitation only / Oil

And sorry but oil dominated the talks last year- oil, war, Iraq, and the Dollar/Euro situation (all related). Just do a little research on Davos. Plenty in the DU archives if you need a starting point. We've been following this stuff quite attentively.

World Economic forum in Davos concentrates on Iraq and oil

Copyright 2003 Agence France Presse
Agence France Presse
January 24, 2003 Friday


SECTION: International News
HEADLINE: World Economic forum in Davos concentrates on Iraq and oil
DATELINE: DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 24

The World Economic Forum meets for a second day in
Davos on Friday, focussing on the impact on the global oil
market of a possible US-led war on Iraq and economic
prospects for the European Union, the Americas, Asia and
Africa.

US Attorney General John Ashcroft is due to attend,
alongside senior ministers from Iraq's neighbour Turkey
and oil-rich Kazakstan, the head of oil cartel OPEC, and
the bosses of Saudi oil giant Aramco and Russian oil firms
Yukos and Tyumen.

<snip>

There will be closed-door discussions in Davos on Friday
on "the correlation between oil and conflict", the effect of
the Iraqi crisis on oil prices and what the west can do to
stabilise relations with the Islamic world.

A debate is planned on relations with the United States,
involving Russian oil giants and Britain's BP. And there are
sessions on prospects for Kazakhstan, which is being
lobbied to ship its crude through a US-backed pipeline
from Azerbaijan to Turkey; and Afghanistan, the planned
transit route for an internationally backed gas transit
pipeline from Central Asia.

Britain's Guardian newspaper on Thursday reported the US
State Department as saying oil was the "number one
issue" and that the US military had drawn up plans to
protect Iraq's oilfields in the event of a war to prevent Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein setting them ablaze.

<snip>

http://listas.rcp.net.pe/pipermail/noticias/2003-January/003030.html


===

Tuesday, 28 January, 2003, 13:00 GMT
Iraqi oil output 'could double'

By Mike Verdin
BBC News Online business reporter in Davos

Investment in Iraqi oil fields could see the country double its crude output following a change of regime, a leading opposition figure has told world leaders.

Adil Abdul Mahdi, president of the Iran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that, with an injection of $30-40bn, production could be raised to 5-6 million barrels per day by 2010.

He added that oil was integral to the function of Iraq which has the second largest proven reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia.

"The history of modern Iraq is also the history of oil," Mr Mahdi told the World Economic Forum's annual summit in Davos, Switzerland.


<snip>

But he urged limits to foreign control.

"We have tremendous human resources, well educated people who could do the job."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2702147.stm

==

Friday, 24 January, 2003, 18:02 GMT
Opec baulks at oil price rise


The head of the oil cartel, Opec, has told delegates at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos that he is powerless to forestall the climb in the oil price.
During the past week, the price of oil has hit a two-year high in response to jitters over the prospect of war in Iraq and a general strike in Venezuela.

"What can we do more? I do not agree there is a lack of oil. The problem of the price is the threat of war," said Alvaro Silva, secretary-general of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.


So far the gathering in the exclusive Swiss resort of Davos has been dominated by talk of war and gloomy forecasts about the global economy.


<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2691539.stm

[RafterMan]

49. Tons of people go to Davos

In 2002, Joe Biden went and came away saying something to the effect of "The degree of anti-Americanism was so overwhelming that I found myself defending things I didn't even believe in".

Yes, the quote if from Charlie Rose and I don't have a link so I must surely be lying. Or Biden (clearley one of "them") is lying. Or maybe you look silly for just assuming that it's a sort of nexis of evil.

[bain_sidhe]

68. True, everybody who's ANYBODY is there

And it's not secret. But it is a high-octane (pun sorta intended) group, and one that his employer might well have sent him to so that he could make "contacts" for the firm.

I'm less than shocked that he was there as a representative of his employer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

72. This is tinoire's life, she was probably there.

anti-war...anti-Clark. They are one and the same to her. Nothing you say will ever change her mind. You are better off never acknowledging these threads. I can't WAIT to see what she posts after Clark wins. That should be good.

Ignore these threads!

[CivilRightsNow]

102. I cant wait to see the posts after Clark wins either..

The posts about the endless war he will further and the corporate interests he will push.. and the downward spiral that we will not be able to stop. The death of a two party system..

We have alot to look forward to.

Can't refute the issues so attack the person. Tinore puts this information out because she has spent the countless hours to actually fully research this and see all the aspects. It's hard to put this into some Clark for Dummies synopsis that the lazy folks can comprehend without some work and time. She has decided not to be blinded by the media's drivel and the surface crap that the hooked on phonicers cant get past. She does this because she refuses to go quietly into this screwed up night.

She does this because alot of people need saving from themselves.

But in the end, you get what you deserve. When you are all bemoaning the press and blaming everyone else after Clark gets his greedy little bloodlusting hands on the presidency.. but yourself and your complacency... We will all know that we did our damnedest to stop this trainwreck.

Close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears. Don't do the research. Don't even read the information that is put straight in front of your face. Whatever you do, dont think about the repercussions of this. It'll give you nightmares.

Like you all like to say, Karl Rove says thank you. So does the Military Industrial complex.

Good day.

[Clark Can WIN]

56. You've got it all wrong.....................................

He was on the grassy knoll.

[worldgonekrazy]

58. Red herring

To sway a red herring in an argument is to try to throw the audience off the right track onto something not relevant to the issue at hand.

http://www.vacadsci.org/JSR/definitions.htm

Try again.

[QC]

64. Yes, but this is the meeting where he impregnated

the Bride of Satan so that they could create an unholy super demonchild that would impose BFEE rule over the entire world, and then there's the whole CMIHOP (Clark Made It Happen on Purpose) issue, which I fear getting into, since I know for a fact that Ashcroft has implanted a listening device in my left asscheek.

:eyes:

[dfong63]

67. i guess the Clark supporters have no substantive defense

Clark's words and deeds are indefensible and show him to be nothing but an opportunist.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. A little context on the "get on the team" remark

Google's HTML of the PDF file

It's a WaPo article about Clark at the Davos WEC Forum. It's entitled A General's Doubts, and dated January 31, 2003:

So when a former NATO commander -- the man who led the 1999 war that rescued Kosovo from Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic -- tells me he's worried about Iraq policy, I pay attention. The other thing that makes Clark's views interesting is that he's increasingly mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate.

Clark, 58 and only two years into retirement from the U.S. Army, clearly feels ambivalent these days -- far more so than last fall, when he first began criticizing the administration's Iraq policy. He doesn't want to second-guess President Bush on the eve of battle.

"I've told all the Europeans, they need to get on the team," he explains. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside." And if war does come, he says, "my heart is with the men and women who will fight. I want them to be successful."

...The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

[worldgonekrazy]

66. Exactly. Clark's issue with Iraq was only strategic

He didn't think that the Bush Administration went about the war the right way. But he was not actually against the war in and of itself. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he was for it until it became clear that the Bush Admin had fucked up majorly AND when he decided to run for President as a Democrat. He knew primary voters wouldn't vote for a war-supporting former General. Hence the lie.

[kovasb]

73. And they wonder why democrats aren't trusted on security

So clark says:
...The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

and you criticise him because he is only concerned with strategy?!
Earth to elitist people who cause republicans to become elected: It is the job of POTUS to act in the strategic interest of the united states! Do you think americans will or even should elect someone who did otherwise??

I've been lurking here on DU and just couldnt take it anymore with these insane attacks on Clark. I read the initial post and certainly thought the issue was worth explaining... and then i read that the most 'damaging' quote is pulled out of an article HEADLINED "A General's Doubts" !!!!!

Look. I think its fine to question a candidate's background, but Clark's critics are failing to communicate here. True or false: you are capable of supporting someone from a military career (and im not talking a kerry-like stint) ? If people debated the core issues that mattered to them rather than skirmishing on tangential things perhaps there would be actual learning and progress.

Its called PREJUIDICE. You are SUPPOSED to be against it. Unless you have a direct line into Clark's heart, get off the 'purity' high horse.

[Renew Deal]

74. Welcome to DU!!!

and what a great start

:hi: :pals:

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. Great post!

If only they would read it and get something out of it. But they won't. Their mission is to destroy the General before he wins the election. Nice Democrats, eh? Won't work, but they don't care. I haven't read one thing they posted here because they say the same thing over and over and over since the original post that started this crap. Anyway. Great first post and welcome to DU! :hi:

[burning bush]

129. Well, Finally! In INFORMED Opinion!

You wrote:
I haven't read one thing they posted here

Yet you let the bullshit fly, both guns blazing, with the nerve to question who is a Democrat?

Start with Clark, if you can open your eyes. Or are your eyes closed on purpose?

Tell me, in your heart, how do you defend a liar and war baron for the Dem nomination?

[TacticalPeek]

93. Welcome to DU, kovasb! Well said.

:toast:


The quote-snipping here is worthy of Lisa Meyers, consummate newswhore.

And the headline, newsmax.

What a waste of time.

[burning bush]

127. No, he's being criticized for being a liar and from profiting from war

does that clear it up a bit?

[Mattforclark]

76. Keep spinnin'

From the article:

"His concern, instead, is about what comesafter -- "the unpredictability ofconsequences," as he puts it. Clark fearsthat the new dangers generated by a warin Iraq might outweigh any gains fromdisarming Saddam Hussein."

This does not mean that he supports the war, it means that he is a rational person.

If the positives offered by a course of action outweigh the negatives, it is wise to choose that course of action. If the negatives outweigh the positives of a course of action, it is wise to choose the negative.

You see, Clark was not automatically, a priori against the war. He thinks. Yes, I want a President who thinks. He looked at the evidence and determined that going to war was stupid, and it was especially stupid the way the Bush administration was doing it. It's amazing where thinking can get you!

And then Clark says that if we are going to war, even though it is a stupid idea in the first place, damage can be somewhat mitigated if we do it with allies. So what does Clark do but try to convince people to come on as allies! Maybe if he had succeeded we would have gotten 15,000 French soldiers to help. Maybe then the French would be pitching in now with money. Maybe those extra troops could have helped to prevent looting in Baghdad. Maybe if we had been able to get an Arab country with us we would have a few more people on the ground in Iraq who can actually speak the langage. Maybe we would not be in as deep a pile of $%^& as we are in today. All in all, I think that doing what he did is vastly preferable to going around telling people from other countries, "No! Don't join us! We want this war to be as bloody and illegitimate as possible, and we want maximum damage to the US. So please do not get on board."

[Mattforclark]

70. But... but... but........

No no no! It's all a front for the vast left-wing conspiracy run by the evil Bill Clinton who is also in bed with BFEE. You see, Clinton wanted to position Clark in such a way that he could cover up Clark's true feelings in favor of the war. The "get on board" comment was a slip, so Clinton had to get a Washington Post article made to explain and provide a smokescreen! And Clinton told Gore to not refer to him so that he would "lose" the election to Bush, with whom Clinton was secretly in cahoots with. Clinton then ordered Gore not to fight in Florida. And it is all to set up Hillary to run as President in (insert favored date here). Oh yeah, and Clark eats babies and supports torture.

:crazy:

[retyred]

71. Bada Bing

January 31, 2003.....Isn't it amazing what you find out when you read the whole context of a quote when it's given instead of just the quote someone wants to try and get you to look at.

To the conspiracy buffs out there: 20 year old voting records, 2 year old speaking engagements, 1 year old meetings that just might have helped garner UN support, all in a desperate attempt to make someone else's candidate look bad.

You folks are really a piece of work, it is sad that your life evolves around google for the mere enjoyment of speculation.

To boloboffin: Thank You!


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[seventhson]

77. It does not diminish the fact that he SUPPORTED the PNAC agenda

and the war. His problem was always the WAY it was done - the WAY that Bush did NOT get European support. He was THERE to get that support and to RALLY them to war for oil and for his lobbying partners the Stephens Group.

No spinning will change THAT!

[Mattforclark]

85. Lol, here ya go

No spinning is needed to change that. All you have to do is read the article and use basic reading comprehension skills.

"His concern, instead, is about what comesafter -- "the unpredictability ofconsequences," as he puts it. Clark fearsthat the new dangers generated by a warin Iraq might outweigh any gains fromdisarming Saddam Hussein."

If someone tells you that they fear the costs of doing something outweigh the benefits of doing something, would you think they wanted to do it? Non.

[mouse7]

79. WEF Davos sucks, but Bill and Hillary usually attend

I don't like the WEF, WTO, NAFTA, World Bank at all. I'm highly against glogal corporate protectionist practices.

That said, Wesley Clark is attending an event here that Bill and Hillary usually attend. It's a pretty "mainstream" thinking event.

[Tinoire]

81. Attending isn't the big problem - Pushing the war with Powell is. n/t

[Mattforclark]

86. He wasn't pushing the war with Powell

He was trying to get a few allies. Would you rather that he went around saying, "No! Please don't join us, we don't want any help and want to fail. We want there to be a gigantic catastrophe" ?

Is that what should he have done, do you think?

[Tinoire]

87. Trying to get the Europeans on board for Bush's war

is obscene. Especially when you're on record as saying something the whole world knows is false, something in total contradiction to what you're saying now- that there was certainly a link between Al-Queda and Iraq, that Iraq certainly had WMDs, that Bush Inc was doing a fantastic job and that you would work again with them in a heartbeat (March 2003).

NYTimes.com > Washington > Campaigns


Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
By EDWARD WYATT

Published: January 12, 2004

ANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.

<snip>

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

At numerous campaign events in the past three months and in a book published last year, General Clark has asserted that there was no evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. He has also accused the Bush administration of executing "a world-class bait-and-switch," by using the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as an excuse to invade Iraq.

<snip>

Similarly, on the first day of his campaign, General Clark said that he probably would have voted for the resolution on Iraq. He later said he "bobbled" the question and has asserted that he made clear well before the start of the war his belief that Iraq was not an imminent danger to the United States and, therefore, that an attack was not justified at that time.

<snip>

In an interview, Ms. Swett, who is a national co-chairwoman of Mr. Lieberman's campaign, said she recalled General Clark as "saying pretty unequivocally" that a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12CLAR.html


Clark can not have it both ways. What I see here in black and white is that in Oct 2003 he stated, contrary to today's campaign rhetoric, that there was indeed a link between Iraq and Al-Queda ((and every 6 year old knows exactly what that means)) and that less than 3 months later, he's off in Europe with Powell, telling the allies that Bush has decided to go to war and that they better get on board.

Do you not see any immorality there? This from a man who walked around with Bush's plans to invade 7 countries in his head and said not a word?

So killing Iraqis and destroying their country is ok as long as you can get some allies on board? Getting the young men and women of your allies killed is ok? The giant catastrophe was going there in the first place, regardless of how or when they went, and Clark was totally on board with going there.

I am really not understanding you.

What I think Clark should have done- if he is the great hero many of his supporters want to make him out to be- is say what he had to say against the Bush administration back then because campaign rhetoric means nothing.

There are too many sudden metamorphoses going on with Clark to entrust him with the Presidency of the US. Some things you simply can not spin no matter how great your personal admiration for the man.

[Mattforclark]

92. "What I see here in black and white"

That is the problem.

"Do you not see any immorality there? This from a man who walked around with Bush's plans to invade 7 countries in his head and said not a word?"

I see NO BLACK AND WHITE MORALITY in the world WHATSOEVER. I do NOT share Bush's worldview that the world consists of the forces of GOOD and EVIL. It VASTLY oversimplifies the EXTREMELY complex situations that we face.

There is a part of the NY Times article that you conveniently snip out, apparently because it does not fit in with your pre-conceived black and white notions of the world. Ignoring information when it does not fit in with your black and white view of the world is POSITIVELY DANGEROUS both when the Bush administration does it about pre-war intelligence and when you do it NOW. :

"At a town hall meeting here on Jan. 4, for example, General Clark said, "There was no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was Iraq connected with Al Qaeda."

"If Iraq had been there as the base of Al Qaeda to organize and train everybody, then maybe we could have justified the attack on Iraq," he added.

In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement."

The facts of the matter are that there was SOME information indicating that there were low level contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The fact that this is taken to mean EITHER "THERE IS NO CONNECTION WITH AL QAEDA WHATSOEVER" or "AL QAEDA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11" is a profoundly DAMNING example of the dumbing down of our politics to the level of BLACK and WHITE. That is the ABSOLUTIST way of thinking that Bush practices, and I reject it.



Back to you,

"So killing Iraqis and destroying their country is ok as long as you can get some allies on board?"

Black and white reasoning - NO, that is NOT it AT ALL. FEWER PEOPLE total will LIKELY BE KILLED (just so you are sure what we are talking about, that means DEAD. D-E-A-D. Death is a very serious thing.). There would have been less damage to our international reputation, and things would have been better overall.

"Getting the young men and women of your allies killed is ok?"

Black and white reasoning - NO, that is NOT it AT ALL. It is OK to get the young men and women of your allies killed if it means that there will be FEWER total deaths OVERALL and less of a CATASTROPHE overall.

"The giant catastrophe was going there in the first place, regardless of how or when they went, and Clark was totally on board with going there."

Black and white reasoning - NO, that is NOT it AT ALL. You are CORRECT in asserting that the giant catastrophe was going there in the first place. You are INCORRECT in asserting that the Catastrophe would NOT have been ANY LESS CATASTROPHIC if we had Allies on board.

For example: Do you honestly believe that it would have been NO BETTER if we had had 15,000 extra French troops in Baghdad? Do you not think that perhaps the looting would not have occured, or at least would have not occured on such a sclae, if it were not? If you honestly think so, it is my equally honest opinion that you are mad.

Let's say that on a sliding damage scale (0 lowest, 100 highest). Not going to war with Iraq and keeping up a policy of containment is about 20. Going to war unilaterally is about 90. Going to war with Allies is about 75. (though you apparently think it is 90?)

General Clark would have preferred to not go to war with Iraq in the first place, which would have put us at 20. But it was quite clear that Bush intended to go to war anyway, so the only realistic options open to Clark were to either leave the damage scale at 90 or do whatever he could to lower it to 75. That is precisely what he tried to do.

"What I think Clark should have done- if he is the great hero many of his supporters want to make him out to be- is say what he had to say against the Bush administration back then because campaign rhetoric means nothing.

There are too many sudden metamorphoses going on with Clark to entrust him with the Presidency of the US. Some things you simply can not spin no matter how great your personal admiration for the man."

HE DID SAY AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BACK THEN WHAT HE IS SAYING NOW. The difference between you and him is that when it was clear to anyone without eyes sewn closed that that we were very likely going to war whether or not we had allies, he wanted to get Allies.

Here is a very simple analogy to help you understand. Imagine you are a train captain and you see a car stopped in front of your train on a road crossing. What do you do? You slam on the breaks of course to hit the car at a lower speed. You don't just throw up your arms in the air and say, "we never should have boarded the train in the first place." Doing that can get people UNNECESSARILY KILLED. NO SHIT SHERLOCK that we would have been better off not boarding the train in the first place.

You seem to say that saying the propostion "WE SHOULD SLAM ON THE BREAKS" (we should try to get allies) is in contradiction with the proposition "WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BOARDED THE TRAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE." That is CERTAINLY TRUE in the sense that if we had never boarded the train we would never have to worry about hitting the breaks. But you know what? If you throw up your hands in the air and say that rather than hitting the breaks, your train is going to collide with the car at (say) 90 MPH rather than 60 MPH. And you know what? More people are going to die because of it.

It is complete rejection of any Utilitarian calculation such as you seem to demand that is positively DANGEROUS and gets people UNNECESSARILY KILLED. It is that kind of REJECTION that BUSH engaged in with his good/evil spiel.

It seems to be only by CHANCE that your ABSOLUTIST AXIOMS led you to be against going to war. If they had told you that going to war was the "moral" thing to do, you would have supported going to war. There is no fundamental difference with your REASONING than with BUSH's, only a difference in AXIOMS.

If this doesn't hammer it into your skull, I am skeptical that anything will. For the sake of humanity, please think about this very frankly, please think about this very seriously. Thank you for reading this message.

[CivilRightsNow]

104. What I find absolutely humorous..

Is that her supposed conjecture and opinion is somehow less valid then all of the pure conjecture and opinion that you just presented to bash her. It's so beautiful to watch people who know how to save humanity tell others how they are screwing it up by trying to "hammer" opinion and conjecture into their heads.

Oh baby, how I love the folks with their candidate's name in their nick. They always make the most chuckle worthy reading. IMHO, of course.

Thanks for my daily dose of smiles.

Ignore the facts, latch on to the emotion that is often not as unbiased because as humans we feel things personally. Divert the real focus.

Attaboy.

[Cheswick2.0]

118. Hey, I've heard that before

B-)

"emotional arguements"

[retyred]

103. Knowing bush was going to war regardless

and trying to put the US in a more favorable light by garnering UN support was not support of the war, it was support of America in the world view while having a pResident that was unconcerned with either.

He had already voiced his opposition to the war and his reasons why but and to make the US look better for whatever reason is not to say the man lied about being against the war.

The man is a patriot and his country and it's people come first, this is not an issue to be used as a political wedge.


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[imhotep]

113. The most frightening part

is that Clark supporters and other DLC types don't care that Clark is a liar. They don't care about his ties to PNAC.
They want liberals/progressives to lose.

[seventhson]

114. With 10% or more of Duers in polls here

supporting Bush, I am not surprised at the number of Clark suppoorters here .

I agree

[Dover]

115. WOW! EXCELLENT JOB TINOIRE!

So why haven't the other Dem candidates been presenting this stuff?
I guess in part because he won't participate in the debates.

For some reason I couldn't get any of you links in post #26 to work...

Thanks so much for your research.

[Cheswick2.0]

119. Tinoire and Seventhson

They are unparalled on this board in matters of research and documentation.

[Dover]

120. I stand corrected. Please forgive the oversight.

Thank you too Seventhson....remarkable body of research.

[Tinoire]

130. Hi Dover- I added a corrected post for you with links

I either butchered those totally (this really is tiring work!) or you can't access from the search links. I tried to correct them for you and added also the bio page with the conference links.

Peace & anytime! We've all suffered enough! I will do whatever I can, along with all my progressive DU brothers and sisters, to stop them from taking us for another ride again.

Namaste :)

[goobergunch]

117. KICK!

:kick:

[slinkerwink]

121. kick

[KaraokeKarlton]

122. After reading through this entire thread, all I can say is this...

If after reading this thread and the threads on Clark's support of School of The Americas you feel the same discomfort and uneasiness in the pit of your stomach that I'm feeling right now, I hope you will do everything in your power to prevent Clark from getting anywhere near the Democratic nomination, even if that means casting your vote for someone you didn't intend to. If Clark gains enough steam to make a real challenge to Dean for the nomination, I hope Democrats will do the right thing for the country, despite how they may feel about Howard Dean. It will be a sad day for the Democratic Party if the nominate Wesley Clark.

[slinkerwink]

123. I concur with you on that.....

[burning bush]

131. Amen KK

A choice between Clark and Bush is no choice at all

[slinkerwink]

132. kick