I thought Clark was an outsider?

[plurality]

You know, not connected to the Washington people and the power structure. But here I just heard him on Wolf Blitzer talking about all the intelligence he was looking at in the run up to war. There evidently must be some serious security problems in our intelligence apparatus. What the fuck is going on when this outsider can look at vital intelligence that could jeopardize our national security!?!

[lcordero]

1. Consultants are still used in order to analyze intelligence

Clark was hired to perform a service. Lots of former military are hired back into the government in some capacity or another.
Clark isn't an outsider but he isn't an insider either.

[plurality]

3. I don't know...

Having access to classified information that only a handful of poeple on Earth can see seems pretty inside to me.

[lcordero]

7. A security clearance usually lasts for 5 to 10 years

depending on the level of the security clearance. It's pretty expensive to just give somebody a security clearance(the cost per investigation is usually $50,000 and up).
Access of information is usually on a need-to-know basis. He had to be performing some sort of a function in order to have recieved access.

[plurality]

10. So what kind of company would that put him in?

I'm just trying to get an idea of how not 'inside' Clark is/was. Would you say somewhere around 1,000 people could see the information he was able to access? More, less?

[lcordero]

16. To see the information, 100 to 150 people

Holding the same security clearance, 75,000 people.

[boxster]

25. What does access to intelligence have to do with...

being a political insider? Nothing. There are plenty of political insiders that have NO access to the types of intelligence that Clark had access to as a military leader and consultant.

There are plenty of political insiders who have no access to the types of information you're talking about. There are plenty of members of Congress who rarely, if ever, have access to high-level intelligence. There are, nevertheless, political insiders.

Access to intelligence and politicial connections are not the same thing.

[plurality]

31. And you think he had no political connections?

This is a man that could pick up the phone and have the President, VP, SecDef, National Security Advisor, Senate Leader, Speaker of the House, ANYBODY on the line in a matter of seconds. How can you get more inside than that?

[boxster]

33. Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

Your assertion was that Clark is a political insider because he had access to military intelligence. Access to intelligence does not equate to political connections.

If you cannot see the difference, I can't help you there.

[plurality]

35. no, you added political to the discussion, not I

Clark is selling himself as a 'Washington outsider' not a 'political outsider' or whatever. The point is, he is very well connected to all branches of the government, as anyone who has spent a lifetime in its service should be, and it's rediculous for him to portray himself as an outsider of any sort.

[boxster]

38. This is an election. Clark is running for political office.

"Clark is selling himself as a 'Washington outsider' not a 'political outsider' or whatever."

Wrong. He quite obviously means outsider in a political sense. In fact, he quite often incorporates "I'm not a politician" into his stump speeches.

Besides, this is a political race. It seems very intuitive that a reference to "outsider" in a political race is meant in a political sense.

Perhaps you should review more of his speeches, as this is a standard stump position of his. It's quite obvious that he means political outsider.

[H2O Man]

2. Clever word play

upon your part, but perhaps it is not the time to play. I think that most everyone would agree that General Clark has not been a member of the Washington establishment making policies that rob from the poor to benefit the wealthy. Further, most sincere people can grasp the concept that general Clark has had a long career that has included high-level military service. Please do not continue divisive tactics if you share the goal of removing bush from office. None of the four major candidates in the democratic party are perfect, but none should be insulted by those on our side .... although democrats will soon recognize those who insult our candidates as being on the other side. And that is serious.

[plurality]

4. I'm all for ridding the world of Bush

But it's also necessary to raise the collective intelligence of this country to ensure someone else of his ilk is never elected again. And seeing people base their votes on some marketing ploy like insider/outsider does not reflect well on the level of political understanding, even with the party of the 'good guys'.

[boxster]

5. A) he was a general. B) he was a military consultant.

Seems to me that A) would certainly require him to be "in the know" about military intelligence, wouldn't you say?

B) came about, in large part, because of A).

[plurality]

9. Well that makes sense...

But once again, I thought he was an outsider. I know I'm a Washington outsider, because I have no access to intelligence materials and there's not a single government official that I can call and have my call taken. Or am I being too kind to myself by saying I'm an outsider, since Clark an outsider obviously is more inside than I. Maybe my classification would be more like non-existant, or maybe Clarks political connection status is short-hand for something. Maybe "Not even close to outsider" doesn't brand so well, so they just shortened it to "outsider", do you think that could have been it?

[boxster]

12. Clark's outsider status refers to his political life, not his military one

Access to intelligence materials really has nothing to do with being a political "insider". Again, Clark has access because he spent more than 30 years in the military and because he's consulted for the government since he retired. I'm not sure how you're equating material access to political status. They would seem to be separate issues. He's certainly an insider from a military experience sense, but not in the political sense.

Outsider in the political sense usually refers to someone who doesn't have a lot of political connections or one who is not a career politician.

Clark certainly isn't a career politician, and while he has had contacts in the White House and elsewhere in his military career and subsequent consulting endeavors, he undoubtedly doesn't have the political connections of John Kerry, John Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, etc., etc.

In fact, it could be argued that he's even more of an outsider than Dean. Dean certainly has political connections from his time as governor, not to mention he's been endorsed by Gore (almost the ultimate insider, except maybe for Clinton) and others.

In the political sense, Clark is certainly an outsider.

[plurality]

15. Wasn't Clark named NATO Commander by Clinton?

And wasn't he named to his other posts by politicians? The thought that you can be involved with this government in any matter and not have to deal with politics or politicians seems ludicrous. Connections are connections, be they to elected officials or other officials, they still give you a leg up on the competition.

Take for instance the comapny that Clark lobbied for, which susequently won a major Homeland Security contract. The whole essence of lobbying is that one uses their inside connections to rub elbows with the decision makers and get favorable results. That's why someone like Clark can be a lobbyist and why I never will be. He's was on the inside and knows people on the inside. I've never seen the inside so my ass is out of luck.

[boxster]

20. You're making this more difficult than it needs to be.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief, the ultimate head of the military. I would certainly hope that he would be involved in naming any NATO Commander.

Do you honestly believe that Clark has as many political connections as someone like John Kerry, who's been in elected public office for decades? Clark is most certainly an outsider when compared to the others in this race.

No one has ever claimed that Clark doesn't have connections in Washington. So does Bill Gates. Does that make Bill Gates a political insider? Nope.

[plurality]

24. Yes, actually I say it would.

Bill Gates and any other member of the elite, like Clark, has enormous influence on the policy of this nation. All he has to do is pick up a phone and he can have any number of important officials on the phone, just like Clark can. Whether one has less connections than the other still does not make one an outsider, because they all have infinitely more connections than I do. So it's real simple, push Clark on the basis of what he's going to do, because he is not an outsider.

[dsc]

6. He was discussing his time in uniform

and I do think he should have been looking at those pics then.

[Democrats unite]

8. What the hell is going on when insiders

Kerry/Edwards, have access to this information & still vote for it! When the majority of the world knew better! I would be more concerned about that!

[plurality]

11. That concern's me as well...

But that still won't keep me distracted about the obvious problems that allowing outsiders access classified materials presents to the 'War on Terror'.

[pocoloco]

13. LOL Well I'm an Washington Outsider

and from all the intelligence I was looking at I have determined that the General was right on with his assement of the situation in Iraq. I hope you don't think I'm a threat to our national security!

[mikehiggins]

14. That is not what the term refers to.

You don't get to see "intelligence" by being an insider. A relative of mine worked in the Labor Department, worked for a Congressperson, worked in the Clinton White House and never saw "intelligence" even though she was certainly what most of us would consider an insider.

After retirement she wound up with a high level position in a non-profit that regularly deals with Congress, etc., for financial support and to advance their agenda. When she calls an official, whether elected or appointed, they take her call. She is an insider.

Clark was in the military most of his life, and on the board of a few corporations afterwards. His access to intelligence afterwards was most likely through former associates in the military, or through the ordinary practices of the government. Additionally, as a consultant to CNN during the lead-up to the Iraq misadventure he was undoubtedly given access to information the administration was disseminating in order to bolster its case for war. Being a former military officer, Clark was much more familiar with the nuances (the buzz word of this campaign) than most, and reports that what he saw did not give rise to the certainty the Bush/Cheney apologists attributed to it.

There is no one in the campaign who is more of an "outsider" than Clark. Even Sharpton has more connections within the Beltway. Even Dean had more dealings with the feds as governor. Kerry, Edwards and Kuchinich, as elected officials, are pro forma insiders particularly in light of the Senator's votes in favor of Bush's initiatives.

Still, you get points for a good attempt at slamming Clark, even though it does fall short of the mark.

[plurality]

17. I'm not slamming Clark, I'm slamming the idiocy of the whole 'outsider'...

phenomenon. They're ALL insiders, saying, "I'm the most outsidest!" Is childish and idiotic. It takes importance away from from it needs to be, which is on who will do the best job for the country, and last I checked that was based on a candidates policies and not how well one can deny the obvious.

[xultar]

18. Hell, I may need security clearance for my job coming up.

I'm a consultant. No big shit.

You can't get anymore outsider than me.

[plurality]

21. There's a difference between a security clearance and access...

to top level intel. As was mentioned before, Clark had access to materials that only about 100-150 other people on Earth could get that's pretty inside.

And once again, this is meant as a slam per se. I'm just tired of have, "he's an outsider!" being used as a major selling point for Clark. He's not an outsider, he's very inside, like every other major candidate, so please don't insult my intelligence by continuing it. Convince me to vote for Clark based on what's he's doing to do for me and the country and not on the basis of some fantasy.

[ConsAreLiars]

19. You misrepresent the interview content completely. Why?

Apart from the hysterical tone of your comments, your allegation that Clark claimed to have access to intelligence info after he ended his service is just plain false. I have no idea what led you to make such a bizarre and unfounded claim. In the interview he said clearly that he did NOT have access to classified info during that period.

[plurality]

27. I know what I heard

He said, and I paraphrase here, When I saw the intelligence it showed inferential evidence of WMD activities, while Bush said there was proof of WMD possesion.

Now I have no problem with him saying this, or with him having access to intelligence. What I do have a problem with is him claim that he's some kind of 'outsider' when he has the kind of access that only about 100 other people on Earth have.

[ConsAreLiars]

34. "When"

Yes, this was after he pointed out that he had not seen stuff after leaving the service. "When" referred to the time when he had access as part of his job. How you use that reference to info he saw 4 years ago to conclude that "he has the kind of access that only about 100 other people on Earth have" is a mystery to me and it should be something you want to ask yourself. Is the distinction between past and present tense so hard to grasp?

[plurality]

36. Well he was talking about the intelligence he saw as it related to...

Bush's decision to go to war. If Clark was basing his opinion on 4 year old intelligence, how did he know that Bush didn't have something fresher? Plus as was stated earlier in the thread, security clearances don't go away immeadiately after leaving the service and it's very likely he did have access to recent classified info.

[ConsAreLiars]

37. No transcript yet, but

When it goes up you can read it carefully and see if it helps you resolve some of your confusion.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2004.02.08.html

[ConsAreLiars]

39. Transcript now up

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2004.02.08.html
-----------------
CLARK: Well, all of the intelligence that I had previously seen on Iraq when I was in uniform, Wolf, it was inferred that there might be some residual chemical weapons and possibly some biological weapons programs. I never saw the kind of hard intelligence that Vice President Dick Cheney was talking about last fall to justify the war in Iraq, and I never saw the kind of certainty that the administration implied in taking us to war.

And even when George Tenet presented his positions yesterday, or two days ago, in front of the national audience there, they were nuanced. They were not black-and-white positions. They were not of an imminent threat.

And to me, the problem is less about the intelligence community and more about how the president made his decision to take us into war in Iraq. We still don't know why we went to war in Iraq.

We still don't know why we went to war in Iraq. And this, to me, is the greatest concern, and it's something that all Americans should really focus on and be concerned about.
------------------

Whatever might have led Plurality to "hear" Clark claim more recent access to classified intel, it was certainly nothing radiating from the TV.

(edit out ambiguous "you")

[plurality]

28. duped

[blm]

22. The "outsider" label is just campaign schtick. It's meant for the general

electorate more than anyone else. Governors are rarely true outsiders, as they work within national governing bodies, too. Yet they claim to be outsiders all the time.

No biggie. Campaigns have been using it forever.

[plurality]

29. I know, it just bugs the hell out of me.

Especially when I hear people on DU say, I like what <Candidate A> says, but I'm going to vote for Clark because he's an outsider. I expect more of the DU community than for it's members to fall for such blatant marketing ploys.

[arewethereyet]

23. there are no outsiders

and Clark is more inside than all but Kerry.

[plurality]

30. Thank you. For stating the obvious...

Unfortunately there's many here that are somewhat reality challenged.

[arewethereyet]

40. sad but true

you do what you can and accept that they are our friends either way.

[jpgpenn]

26. PSSST. He was a high ranking millitary man!!

You just found this out?

[NV1962]

32. Let's be serious here - he's a DC outsider, not a boob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that clarifies your question.