Gen. Wesley Clark on Bush: "more or less caused it to happen"
(Thanks, c.b. for submitting this.)
October 21, 2006
By Emily Aronson
PORTSMOUTH -- Former presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark warned local Democrats Friday that America is a "nation in peril" because of the foreign policy agenda set by the Bush administration.
"We're on the precipice of a national security calamity of catastrophic proportions," the former NATO supreme allied commander said during the Portsmouth Democrats Banquet at the Sheraton Hotel.
Clark cited what he called failing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran.
"Anyone want to quibble over whether (Iraq) is a civil war or not?" he said. "It is. What we're doing is losing traction and losing troops."
Clark said the race between North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear arms is because President Bush has threatened the countries by deeming them part of the "Axis of Evil" and emboldened their efforts by refusing negotiations.
"The whole point of negotiation is not with your friends, it's with your enemies," Clark said.
The former four-star general who worked under President Bill Clinton also criticized Bush's actions leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. When Clinton left office, he warned Bush about Osama bin Laden, Clark said, and Bush continued to receive warnings through 2001.
Clark said he felt Bush could have been more proactive and tried to "connect the dots" about bin Laden and a possible terrorist attack on American soil. By virtue of Bush's lack of leadership, he said, the president "more or less caused it to happen."
"How does (Bush) think after that kind of record he could persuade the American people for a third time to trust him on national security?" Clark said, referring to the president's efforts to get Republicans elected in the November congressional elections.
He called out to the audience to talk with their independent and Republican friends and say "enough is enough."
The way for Democrats to take back the majority in Washington, he argued, is by emphasizing their foreign policy credentials. He said many American voters don't think of Democrats as being tough on national security and it's time to dispel that assumption.
"The battle this year must be won," he said. "Our country is at stake and only you can save it."
- Login to post comments
He's playing the incompetence route...
I want to write something to completely debunk the idea that it was incompetence, but I'm having a hard time getting it started.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Incompetence
Well, the notion of incompetence pretty much rests on the foundation of good intentions, right? Is that believable anymore, or was it ever?
Here's what I had so far...
George W. Bush And His Friends Are Incompetent Idiots... Not
By Jon Gold
10/19/2006
Have you ever heard someone say that this Administration is far too incompetent to pull off something like 9/11? That the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a perfect example of this incompentency?
Dictionary.com describes incompetent as, "lacking qualification or ability; incapable."
To the untrained eye, the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq could easily be attributed to incompetency. After all, America went to war in those countries to fight the evil terrorists, and now, because of our invasions, the number of evil terrorists are growing. The Taliban are regaining their foothold in Afghanistan. Afghanistan now supplies a "staggering 92%" of the world's opium, whereas before our invasion, the Taliban successfully eradicated 90% of their opium growth.
However, what were this Administration's intentions prior to coming into office, and what kinds of things did they focus on between January 2001 and 9/11/2001?
That's all I have so far... this is a research intensive piece...
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
a lot to research
but on the face of it, the most obvious limited hangout - referring back to Tarpley on this one - paraphrasing: "...they're letting stuff out because the not-so-insame oligarch faction knows it would lose the War of Civilizations (i.e. WWIII) if started at this time..."
Could "incompetence" implode WTC7?
.
Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already!
Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted September 18, 2006.
We have enough proof that the Bush administration is a bunch of lying evildoers. We don't need to make it up.
At almost every progressive gathering where there's a question and answer session, someone or other vehemently raises 9/11 and espouses a grand conspiracy theory. If you haven't had the pleasure of enduring these rants, please let me share.
Here's what the conspiracists believe:
* 9/11 was an inside job.
* Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not Osama bin Laden.
* Arab hijackers may not have done the deed.
* On top of that, the Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because the Bush Administration got agents to plant explosives at the base of those buildings.
* Building 7, another high-rise at the World Trade Center that fell on 9/11, also came down by planted explosives.
* The Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77 but by a smaller plane or a missile.
* And the Pennsylvania plane did not crash as a result of the revolt by the passengers but was brought down by the military.
I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories. Everyone's an engineer. People who never even took one college science course can now hold forth at great length on how the buildings at the World Trade Center could not possibly have collapsed in the way they did and why the Pentagon could not have been struck by that American Airlines jet.
Problem is, some of the best engineers in the country have studied these questions and come up with perfectly logical, scientific explanations for what happened.
Rothschild huh? do i even
Rothschild huh? do i even need to say anything else?
The simple questions
What are the answers to the simple questions? Where are the engines for the plane that hit the pentagon? Where are the bodies of the plane that went down in PA? Where are the plane parts of that crash? What happened to the video clips from the 7-11 near the pentagon? The ones that the FBI uses only part of. If we can get answers to the simple questions then I can move on. But I can't get the answers, not because no one knows, its because its a secret and the goverment won't tell. That's the real problem I have. I can only hope that the Dems win both houses of congress and the sobpoenas start to fly. That's the real fear the Bush republicans have.
that's me asking the question:
Sir, (esteemed Left Gatekeeper of the day), I agree with everything you say: Bush.Co. lied from the day they stole the 2000 election and every day since, but I'm curious why you believe they did not lie about 9/11.
I also agree that we need to mobilize to bring them down before they start WWIII, but since nothing seems to slow them down: WMD lies, outing a CIA field officer, crony criminal war profiteering, domestic spying, sanctioned torture, et al; I find it even more curious that you refuse to seize 911Truth, with indefensible treason at its core, as the only issue that can bring these madmen down.
Physics is beyond me, but like me I think you'll agree these 2 things are all one needs to know about 9/11/01:
1. The (documented) pathetically inept patsies could not possibly have done it.
2. The security stripping of the Pentagon and POTUS on 9/11 was intentional.
These points prove Bush.Co. lied about 9/11 as they did about everything else. So, here's my question:
Shouldn't we be making the strongest case we can possibly make against these neo-con, fascist madmen; and, isn't 911Truth at the heart of that case?
NOTE: you will hear me ask this question of every Left Gatekeeper I encounter and at least once a week on my local "progressive" talk station and I won't stop till it's over. Of course I'm not alone, so you're going to hear it a lot more and if you tire of hearing it, Mr. Rothchild, please lend your voice and help us all end it all sooner; hopefully before than they end us all.
Anyone know what was being
Anyone know what was being housed in this CoIntel building?? Seems a bit fisy on the timing, as soon as the destruction of American Republic Bill HR6166, or as I like to call it HR 6*66, was signed in, with prospect of, though elitist puppeteered, Dems looking to some show-Congressional investigation, unless this midterm election is heavily stolen..
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blog_Sixalarm_fire_at_Maryland_buildin...
sorry folks, I'm having problem loggin in, would someone more knowlegeable about Ft. Meade's program put up a better link with comments? Thnks
The PNAC document is pretty
The PNAC document is pretty good evidence that we are talking about willful negligence at the very least.
I think one reason is that
I think one reason is that many on the left underestimates Bush's intelligence, and are unable to believe that it's just an act. Here's a telling video:
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/06/bush_before_and.html
The fact is that Bush lost his first race for governor (IIRC) because he seemed to much like an intellectual, and after that he learned to "dumb down" his appearance.
The disease is contagious
"There has been a lot of controversy about the Bush Administration's truthfulness about 9/11. Even eight months after the attack, Condoleezza Rice maintained that there had been no warnings, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Centre, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. That they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
James Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor disagrees, "One could not, not have known about that. There were known plans to us to fly a plane into the CIA. We certainly knew about other operations in other parts of the world involving flying a plane into a target. So it was on everybody's radar screen and I don't accept the argument somehow that this couldn't have been imagined. It was very much something that people understood was a potential method of attack."
From: http://origin.www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline10.html
Bush regime too incompetent to pull-off 9/11...
but caveman Osama & 19 kooks (some of whom are still alive) could?
Also, the Bush regime didn't "pull-it-off." True-to-form they made huge mistakes: WTC-7, no-plane found in Shanksville, absurd phone calls from Bingham & Betty Ong, smoking-gun at Pentagon, ISI/Atta connection, phony Osama videos, etc., etc.,
Clark on CBC
http://origin.www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline10.html
CBC:
From the beginning of the Bush Administration, Richard Clarke says that he did everything in his power to coax them into action against al-Qaeda without success. In the twenty-four hours following 9/11, the Bush team was ready to go to war.
But Mr. Clarke says they picked the wrong target, "Well, in meetings on September 11th and on September 12th, the defence department officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, began talking about the need to attack Iraq. I first thought that they were kidding and it became clear that they weren't. Rumsfeld said, well yeah, we could attack Afghanistan but there aren't very many targets to bomb in Afghanistan and they're not worth very much. So we should bomb Iraq where there are much better targets. I thought there's no connection between what just happened and Iraq. That didn't seem to bother them. I said well attacking Iraq actually will make it more difficult for us to get the kinds of support we need in the world particularly in the Muslim world. That didn't seem to bother them. Secretary Powell tried to have a restraining influence on this discussion. Secretary Powell said look the world is not going to understand if we don't go after Afghanistan. That's where the attack of September 11th was launched from. So reluctantly, during the course of the week, the defence department came around to a consensus and the consensus was called Afghanistan first that's what the President approved, an Afghanistan first policy. It was very clear what was second, and what was second was Iraq."
that's a bomb..
A wonderful find truth911.net
The important part is Rumsfeld already in Irak..It proves many things.The Pnac Agenda for one.
I found something interesting.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_omalley/20030905.html
A guy in a bar that knows too much on sept 10/01?
And CBC is a serious network...Its not FOX for sure.
R.R4truth.
What he said, or political suicide...
...of course the election isn't for two more weeks, but let me give you a little Oklahoma perspective.
Wesley Clark won the presidential primary in Oklahoma. If the nation had followed suit, it is safe to say he would done things a bit different than good ole boy Kerry. Don’t forget Mr. Clark also said that we haven’t finished investigating 9/11.
Many in the "peace movement" and "liberals" here aren't willing to make the public stance that I have. In fact many of them have turned their backs to me, for a variety of reasons. I understand, many of these people have seen first have the ruthlessness of the terrorist back in 1995, and are still scared.
It’s unfortunate, but the little inside information from the Democrats I get is they don’t want the truth to come out for 40 years or so. They think it’s too much for our country to handle, but more importantly, it would hurt their party.
I disagree, therefore I’m running on a ‘truth platform’…and have gotten zero support from the democratic party.
Two observations about the Democrats in Oklahoma: during the primary for the seat I’m seeking they had two candidates, one was outspoken against the war in Iraq, the other hadn’t gotten on the bandwagon yet. The party, for the most part, supported the latter.
Second, in the primary race for a State house seat, one democrat accused the other of being too soft on the war on terror. He went so far as sending out a mailing with pictures of UBL, a tactic you see these days in federal elections from republicans. This attack ad was from a democrat against a democrat who’s brother died in the WTC. Unbelievable to me, but you must consider how much money Oklahoma gets from war and oil.
This is the state of the democrats in Oklahoma. Mr. Clark is much more politically astute than I. It is our job, the 9/11 truth movement, to get the bandwagon moving so that the likes of Mr. Clark can hop on.
I hope on Nov. 8th Mr. Clark will look at thousands of votes for me, and decide that the bandwagon has left the station.
Keep up the work everyone, start your own bandwagon, EDUCATE THE CANDIDATES. Mr. Clark and others will eventually come along.
I think wesley is just
I think wesley is just trying to be professional by playing it safe without jumping into conclusions and accuse bush for his incompetence in handling the warnings. He has called for further investigations into 9/11 few times in the past, which may imply that he suspects there was something sinister that has happened (and is happening in middle east). He just doesn't have big enough of cojones as leahy's and steele's to come out and say 9/11 was at least allowed to happen by bush and his cronies...
Don't mean to spam...
But check this out...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3950
Parlor Games
Come On folks, Clark is just a Clinton cronie. You know he has got the shit up to his ears.
The whole plan for the new world order is being played right on cue. IMO.
The Reps are going win the elections. Strong security carried them through.
The Dems dance and play upset. In the mean time the US econmy is bought to its knees. Our national defense is strapped out.
The perfect excuse for a One World Government. All because bush/chesney are incompetent. Once the US is not a problem.
Checkmate.
I hope Bowman is right. About setting the Illuminati back 20 years. The fiasco wars that is. To me it seems to be on cue. There was no intention to win these wars. Incompetence is a straw dog.
People have to hit the streets to stop this from going forward.
NO OTHER WAY!!! Analysis all you want. NO OTHER WAY!!!
CONTINOUSLY, NO OTHER WAY. WE HAVE TO ORGANIZE & DO IT!
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"
absolutely, Wesley Clark is
absolutely, Wesley Clark is a war criminal in fact. just type "Wesley Clark,war criminal" into Google and see what you get.
Wesley Clark
He's right about Iraq being a fiasco. We lost that war the moment we got into it. The longer it goes on the waeker and more desperate our country will get. Bush and his minions have done far more damage than any supposed terrorist could ever have done!
I'll debunk your
I'll debunk your incompetence, 100k wired to Mohammed Atta by the head of the ISI who was having breakfast in washington on 9/11, if you can't connect the dots there then we've no hope.
The funder of the lead hijacker of the bloodiest terror attack on American soil is walking free in Pakistan, even though the FBI no it's him who wired the money.Why don't they want this guy up in the dock? scared he might reveal something VERY unpleasant?.
and lets not forget who got
and lets not forget who got promoted to head the CIA after Tenet. Porter Goss, the man that was with Mahmoud Ahmed,head of the ISI on 9/11.
Great point, Anders!
100k wired to Mohammed Atta by the head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed!!!!!
Couldn't hide such a massive conspiracy...
How often do you hear that when arguing 911Truth? And you know the answer. It can't be done and has not been done. All around this shocking chapter in the history of false flag terror is strewn a courtroom-full of evidence exposing segments of the 911 operation: from the Al CIA-Duh network and their Able Danger 911-operation handlers to Marvin Bush's security tie-in to WTC to the blatant security stripping of Pentagon and POTUS on 9/11. And why no overt whistle blowers? Of course those who are known (i.e. those still alive) are all gaged.
And now the "sanctioned" limited hangout (e.g. Woodward, Clark, et al): Gross Incompetence is to blame. Why? The generals don't want to put their charges into the meat grinder of Iran and the financiers don't want a cloud of nuclear fallout shutting down commerce over half the world.
One can only hope they'll mange to rein in the madmen as we are obviously struggling to achieve critical mass among the citizenry, and it looks like critical mass may be a number in the range of 90% disapproval for a regime that literally owns the corporate media.
I hate the notion of supporting anyone promoting such a limited hangout. Tarpley is clear on this: all the overt lies of Bush/Co. and no polemic per se on Iraq or Iran has proved in any way capable of stopping the neo-con fascist madmen. Only 911Truth is strong enough to break into their 30% hard-core support, but can we achieve critical mass? I urge everyone to hit the blogs of the Left Gatekeeper followers and try to get them onboard and go to the peace rallies. When I go I carry a sign that reads: 911Truth / END WAR OF TERROR
Oh Christ, give up the Atta
Oh Christ, give up the Atta and $100K crap already. All that stuff is misdirection to get you chasing phantoms.
Even Amanda Keller, the trailer park actress who played his girlfriend, admits she made all that shit up.
THERE WERE NO FUCKING ARABS INVOLVED IN 9/11.
Aren't we miles past this
Aren't we miles past this limited hang-out nonsense?
Hey rumpl -