Labels, and especially guilt by association, are a tricky thing/business, but Wesley Clark is a Rhodes Scholar, which, along with his past behavior and role in the military-industrial complex, means, IMHO, he deserves the doubt, not the benefit, of the doubt. (not a thank-you)

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20574 (long)
_______________________________________

what is he actually saying here? Is he saying that they "misused the intelligence" against the US? because that's huge if that's what he ment.

Iraq Is In A Civil War, And The Associated Press Won't Admit It

I wanted to vote for Clark in '04 but didn't get the chance, and ended up voting for a third party to boot. I recognize that he's got a historical role in our military industrial complex, but I also recognize that this country's more likely to stay relatively moderate rather than shift as hard left as I'd like it to. He's one of the best contenders out there as far as I'm concerned, and his being one of the first clear 9/11-Truth statements by a significant politician, shows that very clearly.

I'm not saying he's my ideal leader, but unless we see a violent revolution, we're not looking at a fast or easy change of direction. We need a strong, central leader to get the ball rolling. And, I'd like to see someone else you think stands half of a chance at the 44th Presidency talking about this at all, aside from Kucinich whose 9/11T remark was half-hearted and sidetracked at best. I'd love to see a surge in support of our third parties, I really and truly would, but if this country's going further in either direction it's to the right. The number of college Republican clubs has tripled in the last 4 years, while the number of Democrat clubs has stayed the same. I got my hopes up in '04, but when it comes time in '08, I'm just praying for moderation of any sort.

OT:

FTW today, Ruppert reviews "From Freedom To Fascism", and his fiance has a separate article about the Ashland OR screening.

http://fromthewilderness.com/

Not really a 911-Truth flick per se, though most of the major characters in it are 911 Truthers... and as we who´ve descended down the Red Pill rabbit hole some time ago know, many roads lead to the film´s pet topics, Federal Reserve and IRS.

Finish the investigation of 911? How about lets just get one started finally.

good post james redford.

my thoughts exactly. he's the new bird-cage liner - so is Gore/Feinstein

are there any of them who aren't NWO puppets?

"are there any of them who aren't NWO puppets?"

Yes, James Ha: Ron Paul.

Yeah, I'm with you James Redford. Great post. No way does Wesley Clark get my vote. BTW, in case we forgot, Clark was Michael Moore's pick for Prez. Nuf said? Can you say Left Gatekeeper?

Lots more opinion on Wesley Clark from various 9/11 truth researchers can be found here: http://www.oilempire.us/clark.html

Wesley Clark commanded "al-Qaeda" in a little war we call 'Kosovo'. (See Kosovo Liberation Army)

Yes, valis (ARG), that's another aspect to that globalist war. The U.S. government used al-Qaeda against the Serbian government at least all the way into 1998, even though Osama bin Laden had been officially sought for arrest by the U.S. government ever since he had been named as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

For more on that, see the below articles:

"OSAMAGATE," Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, Centre for Research on Globalisation, October 9, 2001:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

"U.S. supported al-Qaeda cells during Balkan Wars--Fought serbian troops," Isabel Vincent, National Post (via Canada.com), March 15, 2002:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_supported_al_qaeda_cells_during_balkan_wa...

"US Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia," Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy, October 31, 1994:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:A5sZFBEOUnEJ:www.angelfire.com/in/b...

"Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base," U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, January 16, 1997:

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm

"Clinton Administration supported the 'Militant Islamic Base,'" Centre for Research on Globalisation, September 21, 2001:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html

Cynthia McKinney for President. an unrealistic pipe of mine i guess. But lets not forget that after the repugs manipulated the voters because she was the only person asking questions. Her voice is what gave me hope for the truth movement. She didnt back down because of the anthrax or give up just because she lost her seat. She stayed in and fought for the people and regained her seat. Recently she had vandals attack her home amd she still refuses to let the fear mongers shut her up.
In my opinion hands down I would prefer the courage, passion, dignity, intelligence compassion and the lack of gonads to restore honor to the Office of the President.

If I were an American, I'd vote for Cynthia McKinney. She is a true American hero.

Couldn't she be the presidential candidate of a popular movement or something?

All I know is this... Wesley Clark was a Presidential Candidate. Wesley Clark was on National Television when he said, "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information that it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time."

Anytime a noteable figure says we need to re-investigate 9/11, on National TV, it's a good thing.

James Redford is either ignorant or lying.

Wes Clark had next to nothing to do with Waco. Tanks from the division he commanded at Ft Hood were loaned to the TX National Guard, as ordered by higher headquarters (and ultimately Washington). Clark's troops did not participate, and he was not involved in the operation, so no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act occurred. There is a mountain of evidence to verify this.

Targetting civilian infrastructure is in complete accord with the Geneva Conventions and is a normal and necessary part of warfare. Neither are DU and cluster bombs considered illegal weapons by international law. War is always ugly; that's why it should be, in Clark's words, always a LAST resort.

The UN tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia investigated all allegations of war crimes (and General Clark submitted to their inquiries... what a concept!) and found that the some 500 civilian casualties in the war were justified by the law.

British Commander Mike "Bloody Sunday" Jackson (he was 2nd in command in hyperbolizing in the heat of the moment.

The Russians had sent a small unit by land to Pristina, with the intent to reinforce with additional forces by air. They wanted their own sector of Kosovo, instead of participating with NATO. Clark's order to Jackson was to place vehicles on the landing strip to block the arrival of Russian reinforcements. There would have been no confrontation at any level. The very idea that there was any danger of nuclear exchange is ludicrous.

When Jackson disobeyed, Clark got Hungary and Bulgaria to deny the Russians over-flight permission instead. The Russians stranded at the airport were working with Jackson's forces within the week. Nevertheless, the Russians have admited since that NATO's unwillingness to challenge their intrusion in Kosovo was what convinced them they would be free to re-invade Chechnya the next year, resulting in far more deaths than the entire Kosovo war.

Russia backed Serbia in that war for ethnic and religious reasons; it had absolutely nothing to do with communism. Milosevic' government was NOT communist. But they are Christian Orthodox nationalists, as is Putin's Russia.

Every word of James Reford's posts is straight out of extreme right-wing sources, meant to smear Clark during his 2004 presidential campaign. It always amazes me when those on the left (assuming JR really is on the left) get in bed with those on the right to generate lies against those who could lead this country with moderation and sound judgment.

Jai, right and left are an illusion.

valis (ARG), you are correct, in that the popular mordern political terms we have been given have been bastardized so that "left" and "right" are just two arms on the same statist beast, i.e., a "difference" with no difference.

There is only up or down: up to liberty or down to slavery. In the original sense of the political terms "left" and "right," left meant liberty and right meant government control.

The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 France. When the French Estates-General met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was in 1614.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, legalization of all drugs, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

Jai, nothing I wrote above was false. The "extreme right-wing sources" which I used include such publications as the Telegraph (U.K.), Democracy Now!, CounterPunch, etc., including articles published years before his 2004 Presidential campaign.

So far as the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia which targetted and murdered civilians, I am not a legal positivist (i.e., the notion that because a government law exists that it is right). Thus, simply because said bombings which targetted and murdered civilians may have been hunky-dory according to so-called "international law," that doesn't make it right.

As far as Wesley Clark's involvement in Waco, the military hardware used in that murderous assault had to be authorized by Wesley Clark, as he was the Commander of that base and the hardware that belonged to it. For more on the details of this matter, see the below articles:

"Wesley Clark and Waco," Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, originally published June, 1999:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09182003.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/waco.html

"Wesley Clark and Waco," Lowell Ponte, FrontPageMagazine.com, September 23, 2003:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9965

"Clark Tanks Rolled Into Mount Carmel," Kelly Patricia O'Meara, Insight, October 15, 2003:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:cn-rgbeN2vAJ:www.insightmag.com/mai...

What do 9/11 Truthers think about the MSNBC "12 Missed Chances" 9/11 special from 2004?

http://www.ireggae.com/videos/12missedchances.ram (real video)
http://www.ireggae.com/videos/12missedchances.wmv (windows media )

Clearly there are a lot of the hijackers acting odd, setting off metal detectors, and even some of them in Afghanistan smiling about their 9/11 plans. I used to be full MIHOP, but after carefully examining the real truth over the last year, I firmly believe it was allowed to happen. Every point of contention 9/11 Truthers try to make, from the joint chiefs 9/11 warning to not fly, to Cheney standown orders, to foreknowlege, etc all points to allowing it to happen. I find it ridiculous to say al Qaeda are CIA agents or patsies or anything like that. Sure, the name itself "al Qaeda" may be a CIA invention, but these guys truly hate America. Maybe they did get a little help unbeknownst to them, but they committed 9/11 with a sense of honor...and the Bush regime is complicit by proxy of making sure it could go forth. There was no missle that hit the pentagon. And while I am not convinced either way with the towers, I wouldnt rule out an insurance scam involving WTC7.

Sorry Pockybot, the attacks could not have happened without the Norad standdown and controlled demolition. LIHOP is not possible, they MADE it happen, one way or another.

"I find it ridiculous to say al Qaeda are CIA agents or patsies or anything like that."

* NEWSWEEK: CIA ‘Arranged’ for Passports for Al Qaeda Agents & Brought Them to the USA to Recruit for Jihads

* NBC: Over 25% of 9/11 hijackers trained at US military bases

* Plucked from the database: 'Al-Qaeda' boogeymen all share a common past, hidden in plain sight