Cite: http://english.aljazeera.net/Articles/News/GlobalNews/US+general+attacks+Bush+war+plan.htm
Original Newsweek story: http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0cb=-317181785
A bold statement to make when you’re running for president. He can’t be making this up, can he? If not I’ll have to say I’m a bit shocked. Seven invasions in 7 years?
Actually, that’s seven invasions in five years.
Although, really, Syria and Lebanon would be one invasion given the links between the two countries. I’m just wondering where they would get the man power.
Even if the Administration was planning that, I’m sure that they’ve chopped that list down considerably given the current strains.
In only the past week or two, Clark has managed to put his foot in his mouth several times. His lack of credibility is rather apparent, but not suprising, considering he endorsed by the Clintons.
Why someone would choose to believe yet another Clark Fable is beyond me. We already have such a fine selection to choose from:
-He would have voted for the resolution authorizing action in Iraq.
-He definitely would not have voted the resolution authorizing action in Iraq.
-He would have been a Republican if Rove only returned his calls.
-He never actually called Rove.
-He got calls from people ‘in the White House’, ‘close to the White House’, or ‘Cananda’, (depends on what day he is being interviewed),trying to get him to link 9/11 to Saddam.
Given the amount of coverage and prying that goes on in presidential campaigns, it’s hard to imagine someone spewing made-up stuff and not expecting to be called on it.
Not much of a debate here, is there?
Alien, you want to call for a change of venue to the Pit?
Is Clark’s claim really any different from what we already knew from Bush at War?
Incredible. He made a joke that wasn’t factually accurate?
As far as the invasions go that could explain why Rumsfield only wanted 50,000 people in Iraq instead of the 140,000 we have there. Cheaper wars means that you can have more of them.
As to the OP, its highly likely that plans were made to attack 7 countries. That does not mean anyone actually intended to carry out the plan (You, know, the old "plan to invade canada, et all).
Ha ha. Yes, we never, um, planned to carry out the invasion of Canada. Heh…heh.
I think we should all commend friend Brutus for his stern allegiance to the Whole Truth and Nothing But. And we should be grateful that he is willing to alert us to the undeniable fact Gen. Clark is a man given to off-handed witticisms.
I take his point well: a man who aspires to the highest office in the land must be a paragon of candor. I await with bated breath his assessment of the relative truthfulness of our Fearless Misleader. A daunting task, to be sure, but worthy.
To be released soon, Lies from the White House, Vol. 1, Aardvaark to Abernathy, 1600 pgs, Remainder House.
I agree. I’ve just asked the Mods to move the thread.
Moderator’s Note: Moving to the Pit.
As a general, it’s hard to believe that he would divulge such top secret knowledge. I would expect him to be disappeared any day now.
Speaking of soldiers that are fucktards…
Says Clark:
"I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned. I hoped the officer was wrong, or that whoever was pushing this would amend his approach.
That did not happen. After the president delivered his 2002 State of the Union address, the policy was locked in concrete."
Of course, 'ol Wesley, at least in that excerpt, presents zero evidence for the 7-country invasion policy being “locked in concrete” (he just mumbles something about the “axis of evil” statement), just as we are supposed to take his word about the other military officer who allegedly spilled the beans in the first place.
Are these contingency plans for attack, such as lots of countries have historically maintained for potential action against enemies or possible enemies - or some sort of Master Plan o’Evil™?
Or is Gen. Clark, as I am beginning to suspect, just seeking a publicity splash for book sales, confirming that he is a chucklehead given to reckless and conflicting statements? Not to forget his disarming admission that he knows squat about domestic issues, but will learn during the campaign. :rolleyes:
What is this fascination with generals and their supposed mystical qualifications for the presidency? I don’t think even Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay (George Wallace’s one-time running mate) said as many dumb things as Gen. Clark in such a short period of time.
As if Senor Bushie was up to speed on international issues at all when campaigning(“Kosovo, that’s in Florida, right?”), or has any sort of handle on our current domestic issues.
Sam
Well, I guarantee you that the US has made plans to invade Canada, Mexico and Poland, too. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. It’s the military’s job to constantly come up with plans for action in any contigency. I bet there’s a big file cabinet in the Pentagon with a detailed plan for every country and the moon.
So we can take it that you wish to institutionalize ignorance as a bipartisan attribute?
Nice.
Is it me or does Wes seem a little more like a slightly less paranoid Ross Perot every day?
First he said people at the White House calling him, begging him to link Iraq and 9/11, right after 9/11. Why would the White House care what some ex-general thinks? Like the nation is waiting for him to make a pronouncement on the issue? An exaggerated sense of self-importance perhaps?
When called on this; “Who at the White House called you”…he backtracked and said it was actually “a Muslim think tank in Canada”. Someone did some research and there are no “Muslim think tanks” in Canada. Don’t know what his story is now.
Then “he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his calls”. This is who Democrats want to nominate? Someone whose affections are turned on phone calls? The people to whom he said this (Senators or house members, forgot which) said he was absolutely serious. But he never made a call to Karl Rove, at least not at the White House. Maybe Karl Rove was supposed to intuit that the little general wanted some attention and flatter him with a phone call?
Now the White House wanted to invade 7 countries? What? Sometimes the military draws up plans covering all possible scenarios. It was released a while back, that there were plans for nuclear strikes on Russia in the case of war. A tentative “all possible scenarios” is not the same as an actual plan of action to be undertaken in any circumstances. Ole Wes implies that this was actually going to happen. Well why didn’t it then?
In one interview he started saying something about the death penalty and then said “stop…I promised myself I wouldn’t take a firm position on this”. Umm…yeah, just cause you’re a politician, who is the press to ask you to take a firm stance on anything? They should just take it that a) you’re really smart b) you have a lot of integrity c) you’d make a great president, and anyone who wants some specifics just isn’t playing fair!
Oh, and the story about “the White House tried to get me fired from CNN!!”. Except that noone at CNN remembers any such thing. So he backtracked a bit. Now he was just “repeating rumors he heard.” A guy throws out a wild ass accusation and then says…“oh it was just a rumor”.
Does this guy have any daughters? Please tell me none of them are getting married soon.
Can’t wait to see this nutjob get cut down to size.
No Jackmanii…
I wish to simply point out that not being an expert in either arena should not and does not preclude a candidate from being able to do the job. I don’t think you will find any possible candidate from either party that will be able to be an expert in both Domestic and International politics.
Sam
We already tried this once, in 1812 and got our asses kicked. I don’t think the same results would occur this time, but that place is too freaking cold to bother.
goest to hide his invasion plans