Editor's Note: Mr. Hulet's condensed version of this article is also published on Axis of Logic.  This more comprehensive work is loaded with details for those interested in this important issue and the serious reader.  - LMB

 

February 17, 2004 - Update: That the allegations of Kerry's infidelity now appear to be entirely false makes the "dirty tricks" charge from John Kerry hold substantial weight, based on the USA Today report. Whether the false claims were planted on Matt Drudge by the White House or some other entity "J.Edgar Hoover (Cointelpro) style" matters less than the fact that general Wesley Clark gave the lies impetus and force because of his "perceived" impeccable character. That Clark leveled the charges to the press, then endorsed Kerry two days later, makes Brutus and Caesar seem a mild soap opera. Clark is a scoundrel of the first rank and should be named as such at every opportunity so he never makes headway into U.S. politics again: Wesley Clark: "is" a Stalking Horse for Bush Junior. - CBH

 

---

 

Understanding the Stalking Horse Wesley Clark

 

This article below is both polemical and accusatory; it is a stray from what I would normally write, but I think it needs to be said, you do not have to agree nor even like it. It troubles me enough to have written it. It was written months ago when Wesley Clark, a consummate “insider,” corporate player upon retirement, millionaire with a little help from his friends and stalking horse for the Bush family regime. Michael Moore has been made a fool of endorsing this man, but as is customary on the progressive Left, he will never admit error nor apologize, he is himself no less arrogant and puffed-up than Clark himself. I took the piece below off my website months ago and had only intended to run it with follow-ups had Clark miraculously gotten the nomination of the Democratic Party. But I never believed (as you will see in retrospect) he was running “to win” but running to see to it no other Democrat could pose a real threat to Bush & Company. His, Clark’s recent statements to the press immediately below give further and damning evidence that Clark is a life-long Bush Republican and Stalking Horse for Bush Junior. He leaves the Democratic race, stabbing the Democrat’s only (remaining) front runner in the heart over some bullshit “intern” Clinton-like issue: It’s Monica Lewinski all over again. He handed Bush the race, by handily handing Hannity Kerry’s head on Platter! Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Savage will savage Kerry; it will be felt all through the race; trickle-down will bleed Kucinich and Dean into pale weak obscurity.  Brilliant move by Bush Senior....Absolutely the chess master’s  Coup d’etat. I give you Matt Drudge’s Report:

 

A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. ...A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked....
MORE : A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head! In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.] The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. (February 12, 2004, 11: 45 AM)

You will now be asked to plod through way too much research and analysis (for most) to understand why Wesley Clark (the consummate team player!) trashed the front runner running against George Bush Junior before leaving the race, why Clark spent five months bleeding off millions (maybe as much as $50 million) of dollars any of the other legitimate candidates would have gotten; bled off support from a significant sector of Democratic support and endorsement (Hollywood and the Michael Moore groupies); used himself to discredit the credibility of all the other candidates, then cut and run (The Clark campaign headquarters had just e-mailed me the day before he dropped out that Clark was raising $1 million a week; when he suddenly dropped out of the race). Here is the article I ran immediately after Clark announced his candidacy months ago, the piece I was only going to run if he won the nomination, the research I think you may now find of interest after Clark set the media dogs loose on Kerry!

 

Craig B Hulet? February 12, 2004

 

Retired General Wesley Clark: Stalking-Horse for Bush Junior and The Grey Men: Get Rid of Bush & What do you Have in Clark?

 

By Craig B Hulet?

Part One: Revised 11/1/2003

 

Will the real General Wesley Clark please stand-up?

 

“General Clark did not discuss what are apparently his reversals on the war.

Last October, he said that he would support the Congressional resolution that authorized the use of military force in Iraq and

then spent months criticizing the execution of the war.

On Thursday, the day after he announced his candidacy, he said,

"I probably would have voted for" the resolution.

On Friday, he backtracked, saying, "I never would have voted for war."

-- Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writer,

Monday, September 29, 2003

 

During mid-2002, I informed my client base, through press releases, an article and e-mails, then later at our regular quarterly business roundtables that George Bush Junior was building the American-led empire, just as Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan and Carter before him. This was and is seen as bad enough if you understand what this regime means for liberty, jobs and any hopes for a future living standard somewhat above that of a third-world developing country. But that is not the only threat in the future for Americans. I stated it this way on a Los Angeles radio interview during May:

 

...Craig B Hulet:

 

“I used to say, ‘you think Clinton’s bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.’

And if you think George Bush is the problem, you have not seen what comes after Bush.

 

Bush is building the Empire. Wait until you see who comes to run the Empire.

Frank Sontag: Maybe we’ll have a guy in uniform as President.

 

CBHulet: I did mention that in a press release.

 

I’m looking for a 4-star general, retired, that’s looking for a nomination.

And believe me, they’re out there. Whoever runs this Empire will not be of the same ilk as those who build it.”

 

(Source: Tape One, about 20 minutes left on Side A, May 26, 2003 Frank Sontag interview KLOS/KABC Los Angeles)

 

Retired general Wesley Clark was working over at CNN, but his particular name did come up during November 2002 right after the elections:

 

Retired four-star general Wesley Clark, who has been famously opaque about his party preference and political future, met privately last week in New York City with a group of high-rolling Democrats and told them he was seriously considering a run for the White House, sources tell TIME. ...Lunching with about 15 Democratic donors and fund raisers at the Park Avenue offices of venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a strong Gore backer in '00 who is neutral so far for '04, Clark laid out his credentials and his differences with George W. Bush....In an interview with TIME, he wouldn't discuss his plans or the lunch. “I haven't made any decision to run, I haven't declared I'm a member of any political party, I haven't raised any money,” he said, adding that he has been traveling the country, talking to groups about developing an American "global vision for the 21st century." (Source; CNN.com November 18, 2002, Are dyspeptic Democrats ready to turn to a military man for leadership? A General for the Democrats? By Viveca Novak, Emphasis mine, CBH)

 

I had forwarded the article to my clients stating “I do not know if this might be the GENERAL I wrote about in the recent past? CBH.” There are reasons why I knew early on right after 9/11, that we would see a four star general, retired, probably a Democrat move to center stage to run the American-led Empire after Bush Junior leaves office. Wesley Clark, a life-long bona fide “virtual-Republican” (many military officers, “lifers,” are registered independents, [Clark was a ‘federal voter’ 2002-03 in AK] for political and career motives) clearly was approached to run for president; decisions like this do not come about in a vacuum.

 

In the beginning his statements were ambivalent, stating at one point “I think I may have voted for Nixon (think? may have?); he later admitted he categorically voted for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan twice and Bush Senior in 1988; and later claims to have changed his mind when Clinton ran for his second term, but admitting “I voted for the man, not the party.” In other words, the statements above seem to me at least to indicate Clark was never a Democrat at all, ever, and voted Republican all but once until he began considering a run for the presidency. Only then does this Democrat surface like a stealth sub.

 

Understand, and some people have made mention of this, “he could have changed his mind about the party, people do change their minds.” I agree, but he didn’t change his mind about it “until” he decided which party’s platform to run on. This indicates opportunism, self-interest, pragmatism, but without getting too visceral here, it just doesn’t wash that he decided the Democrats were the better party or that they held closer to his beliefs. He simply was no Democrat until he needed to become one.

 

 

Gen. Shelton shocks Celebrity Forum, says he won't support Clark for president

By Joan Garvin / Town Crier Correspondent

 

Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, shared his recollection of that day and his views of the war against terrorism with the Foothill College Celebrity Forum audience at Flint Center, Sept. 11 and 12.His review of that historic event and his 38 years in the military kept the audience's rapt attention throughout. But it was his answer to a question from the audience at the end that shocked his listeners."What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!... "That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early (removed as NATO Commander) had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

 

In Arkansas you can only determine how someone voted by what ballot they requested in the primaries (which still is no evidence how they voted); the general election is a secret ballot everywhere so we are left with only his word on whether he actually voted for Al Gore and Bill Clinton the second time in 1996. The record shows he only requested one primary ballot “ever,” and that was during early 2002, and it was the Democratic ballot. He voted on November 5, 2002 and then met with the above Democrats but a few days later (a week before the 18th when the article above was written). I personally do not believe he voted for Clinton the first time in 1992, as I am convinced by all the evidence to the contrary, outlined below, he stuck with Bush Senior. And Clinton, recall, could not have won without Ross Perot taking 21 percent of the votes in 39 states from Bush Senior and again the same later from Bob Dole. Therefore, he has to prove he voted for Clinton in ‘92 as I cannot prove he voted for Bush Senior twice; but that means I must be calling him a liar, and I hate to do that.

 

What I am going to review, in other words, is whether Wesley Clark is a Republican through and through and only running as a Democrat because he knows he cannot unseat a sitting a Republican President in the primaries as a Republican. Again, Clark only registered as a Democrat (ever) on January 7, 2002. Pulaski County voter registration faxed me his ballot request and voting history. Reagan switched parties too remember? So have many. And maybe it isn’t “that” important after all who he voted for, but more importantly who he praised publicly, and why, and what policies did he approve of at the time.

 

Nobody is asking the really tough questions of the man.

 

Nobody wants to ask him the really important questions: If elected will he roll-back Patriot Act I & II and disassemble the vast Executive Branch Homeland Security system Bush has put in place? Will he decentralize the Executive Branch’s vast security apparatus, for instance, returning ATF&E to Treasury where it belongs? Will he roll back the CIA/NSA/DARPA intelligence network that is today allowed to operate domestically? Will he drop the nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan? Stop the drug war here domestically and in Columbia, Peru and Bolivia? (Clark was in charge of that drug war in South America for years while in charge of the U.S. Southern Command.) Will he void the non-competitive contract bids awarded to Halliburton, Brown & Root, Bechtel and the host of other (especially oil firms) U.S. corporations in Iraq? Will he reopen and declassify the now dead 9/11 investigation Senator Bob Graham headed and has complained that the White House had significant portions of it classified for 30 years; there was “credible evidence there were several nation-states involved in more than just financial aid” to the hijackers? At this point all his talk about abortion rights and health care are meaningless; his so-called New Patriotism and a “voluntary draft” of the youth is ominous without more information about his true beliefs. That is what this article intends to look at. The fact is nobody really knows what this man stands for as he has no record, he wasn’t a Senator for thirty years, there is only his word and it is a truism that there are no progressive leftists in the Army’s higher ranks; there aren’t any leftists at all Michael Moore. Moore, who is trying to claim credit for the so-called grass roots draft Clark efforts has only one thing in common with this general, they are both opportunists.

 

The New Democrats:

 

Now Democrats of all stripes are clamoring to believe that this guy, this army general is anti-war? I have been e-mailed by too many saying that Clark is anti-war, even a kind of peacenik, maybe a pacifist; and certainly described as having a typical democratic anti-military posture, like that of the notoriously anti-military Clintons were, while in office? Only the credulous would believe this. Four years ago, NATO’s military commander, Gen. Wesley Clark, getting grief from the press and from members of Congress hostile to President Clinton’s war in Kosovo, heard the skeptics argue that our adversary, Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, had proven to be too mentally strong for us and that we should back off. According to Slate.msn, Clark turned that argument on its head: By refusing to let Milosevic break our will, we would break his. Milosevic “may have thought that some countries would be afraid of his bluster and intimidation,” said Clark. “He was wrong. … He thought that taking prisoners and mistreating them and humiliating them publicly would weaken our resolve. Wrong again. … We’re winning, Milosevic is losing, and he knows it.” ( Source: Slate.msn Decline of the Wes: Clark’s hypocritical obstructionism on Iraq. By William Saletan, October 28, 2003) Sounds anti-war doesn’t it. Right then. Try these statements.

 

“The foreign terrorists are trying to create conditions of fear and retreat,...[They] believe that we’re soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken. … They want countries to say, ‘Oh, gosh, well, we better not send anybody there, because somebody might get hurt.’ That’s precisely what they’re trying to do. And that’s why it’s important for this nation and our other coalition partners to stand our ground.” That’s more like it. But that was Mr. Bush that time not Clark on Iraq on Oct. 28, 2003 (Ibid.)

 

In fact Clark likely could have been chosen to prosecute the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under his long time friend Donald Rumsfeld had he remained in the service but a few more years. In short, Clark is not against war at all, not even the one in Iraq presently. He would not end the war, he would simply turn it over to the UN to finish (maybe, but then he might do yet another ‘about face’ in Army jargon); he has never indicated his opposition in anything but “how” the war was fought, not whether he would have fought it at all. His difference with Bush is that of tactics and grand strategy, not in opposition to war per say. But he must “sound anti-war” if he is to get sufficient numbers of Democrats to vote for him in the primary. After all it is George Bush he is supposedly trying to unseat and Bush is pro-war right? Right then.

 

The question becomes, who approached this retired general (retired for good reasons) to switch parties for the present Presidential race of 2004? Clark was not initially approached by Bill Clinton, as some in the media, mostly on the Right, are straining to convince one and all. No, Mr. Clark, as a past-virtual-Republican voting, media guy, had to be convinced of the necessity to fully and visibly “switch” parties. We do know that during mid-November 2002 he met with Democratic heavyweights and again only registered as a Democrat on January 7, 2002.

 

Clark arguably was approached all right, but I will here suggest by the Grey Men who “remain behind the curtains” and “really run the great stage play,” as Benjamin Disraeli once described them. An elite. The men who put up millions of dollars to see their agenda fulfilled, not mine, not yours, theirs; and their agenda is the corporate agenda whose ideological makeup is Corporatism. Even if the self-important Noam Chomsky over at MIT (fourth largest U.S. defense contractor) cannot personalize the problematic, all knowledgeable press prevaricators know these men by name. They are the men who decide how and where the country is taken (both meanings). They are who the general has worked for all these years of obedient preening military service and as I shall demonstrate fully below, he continued to work for, in the empire’s behalf after his retirement. I shall assuredly be called a conspiracy theorist, as most persist in their belief that men like Bush and Clark never lie, plot and scheme. That nothing could “be up,” as it were, their sleeves. My, Americans are naive in the extreme, almost child-like. If Noam Chomsky doesn’t say it is so, then there simply cannot be an agenda, even less, a hidden agenda. But just because Chomsky knows nothing of the serious Machiavellian machinations, stratagems and plans of the elite in the White House and corporate board rooms, does not, in itself, mean there are none. I spent a good portion of my early years in some of these board rooms.

 

Think about this as you read further: does anyone, particularly Democrats, believe that George Bush Junior and his band of merry men, still accused by so many Democrats of “stealing the election” of 2000, would not do “whatever it takes” to win again? Neo-cons would never act Machiavellian with malice and aforethought? Right then.

 

Before I analyze this possible agenda we need to look at what the media has been doing, how they have been playing this out on the great stage-play of pretenders this presidential election year hails forth. One of the important messages Clark has delivered is, his not very original idea, of a new American patriotism; and god knows after eight years of the Clinton clan and eight parallel years of the Hannity/O’Rielly/Limbaugh media brown shirts, the Democrats could use their mantle of patriotism polished-up a bit.

 

“Gen. Wesley K. Clark called today for ‘a new American patriotism’ that would encourage broader public service, respect domestic dissent even in wartime and embrace international organizations like the United Nations. General Clark, a former NATO commander and Army officer who last week announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration of neglecting economic problems and of pursuing a dangerous go-it-alone foreign policy....But he also used the setting of the Citadel, the military college here, to appeal to about 150 cadets and civilians on the parade grounds to help restore something loftier, a sense of national spirit that he suggested that the administration’s campaign against terror had corroded.” (Source: Clark Calls for a ‘New American Patriotism’ By Eric Schmitt, Charleston S.C., Sept. 22, 2003)

 

“A hint at the future ‘New American patriotism’:

“ Lt. Gen. James Helmly, chief of the 205,000-member Army Reserve,

said Pentagon leaders will be monitoring retention rates closely next year,

when problems could begin to become apparent for

full-time and part-time soldiers coming off long tours of duty in Iraq.

"Retention is what I am most worried about.

It is my No. 1 concern,”

"This is the first extended-duration war the

country has fought with an all-volunteer force.”

(USA Today: Army Reserve fears troop exodus --By Dave Moniz, 09/30/03)

 

First Clark alludes euphemistically to the coming military draft, “encourage broader public service”? i.e., selective service, which would include Democrats and leftists all (though their ears seem stuffed so with pride presently they cannot hear what he is saying). Since releasing this article more has come to light about what the general is planning should he be elected. He calls it euphemistically a “Civilian Reserves“ to distinguish it from a “military draft.” He calls it, almost in jest, voluntary. Here is a portion of the general’s speech:

 

Therefore, to form this Civilian Reserve, I will challenge every American to be prepared to serve their country in times of need. Here's how it would work: Every American age 18 or over will have the opportunity to register for the civilian reserve. If you register, you'll be asked to list your abilities and the types of service that interest you. By registering, you commit that those skills can be called on at any time - domestically or internationally -- for the next five years. Every five years thereafter, you will be given the opportunity to re-register. Should something happen during your five-year commitment that demands your skills, you can be offered the opportunity to serve for a period of up to six months. Your service could be here in the United States, in the aftermath of an earthquake, a forest fire or a severe storm. Or you could also serve in distant lands, where the struggle for social justice and equality demands our immediate aid. As a village struggles to overcome isolation and hardship, a tribe works to preserve its ancestral territory, or a nation tries to piece together a government of laws. You could be biologist, a truck driver, or an accountant. Under this program, you'll be offered the opportunity to get involved when your skill set is needed, working with professional staff, lending your talents to the task at hand, making a difference. For example, members of the Civilian Reserves could be deployed to help to fight forest fires. Members of the Civilian Reserves could also aid overseas in response to our ambassador's calls for assistance in helping nations deal with environmental disasters, political and legal development, and economic growth. The Civilian Reserves would provide a basis for marshaling and coordinating their efforts. The Civilian Reserves would work in partnership with the professional first responders as well as other non-profit and non-governmental organizations. Under my plan, the President will have the power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by Executive Order, and with an act of Congress, would be authorized to mobilize even more. Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members could choose whether or not to accept the call to action. Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to issue a mandatory call-up. But this would be exceedingly rare. Still, if called, this service will not necessarily be easy. (Source: A New American Patriotism: A New Call to Service, General Wesley K. Clark, Hunter College, New York, NY October 14, 2003 Emphasis added, CBH)

 

The key phrases are “for the most part” and “Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to issue a mandatory call-up.” Selective Service registration is already mandatory for every male 18 years old. A man has to do what a man has to do, the sign states at the U.S. Postal Services. It has been so since the Pentagon went all-volunteer in 1975. Who is going to volunteer to go to Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere in any foreign land and work for/with (in whatever capacity) the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, or volunteer to help out Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, or Brown & Root, or ExxonMobil to build the infrastructure in Iraq? Any American, civilian or military is a target for a guerrilla attack. And rightly so, we are occupying their countries in behalf of the western corporate elite. But Wesley Clark knows what he is doing and he knows by proposing it as a “Democrat” he assures Mr. Bush can propose it when he is re-elected as a “Republican.” The Democrats in both Houses are then stuck, they cannot say anything if their candidate Clark gets it on the Party Platform. Then when Bush makes it “mandatory rather then voluntary” given the already existing “grave national emergencies,” declared by Bush and he will have to, because few of the youth are foolish enough to volunteer to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or Columbia (our next region after the Middle East is under Empire’s control),... Bush can then charge the same Democrats who will oppose it “then” (but not now under Clark’s Democratic proposal) as anti-American. It is the obviousness on the part of Clark and the gullibility on the part of so many naive Democrats, that is so disturbing. But do let us return to the subject at hand and pick up where we left off above.

 

Clark goes on to say what every leftist, moderate conservative and classical liberal (sort of like myself) wants to hear, “We’ve got to have a new kind of patriotism that recognizes that in times of war or peace democracy requires dialogue, disagreement and the courage to speak out,” [General Clark said]. “And those who do it should not be condemned, but be praised.” Yes the General, who somewhat out of the blue changed parties to become a supposedly victimized Democrat, seemingly had a change of heart about his Republican brotherhood he has supported for so very long and lavished so much praise upon up until about months ago, April 2003. Does this include Dick Cheney who Clark served so well while Cheney was Bush Senior’s Secretary of Defense?

 

And so Mr. Clark now claims he is disenchanted with this administration’s policies. What policies exactly? Is this what Clark was thinking when he claimed he’d been pressured, victimized ala-Bill Mahr, and management caved-in at CNN to the White House and fired him because he had criticized Bush’s Iraq war policies? The White House states no such thing happened? In this case I believe the White House (which is very rare for me all my days). That Clark claimed it on Fox T.V. too gives his assertion even less an air of truth. Think about it. Clark was not fired by CNN upon the orders of the White House any more than Michael Moore’s last book was banned; both were hoaxes. Clark “needed” to “look” like a democratic victim to make his case for the Democratic nomination! I’ll begin to make my argument here. It is skeptical analysis so do try to bear up under it’s ramblings and rant. I may only prove to make a fool of myself, something I do quite naturally.

 

In the same article above the reporter noted that “General Clark was invited to speak here (the Citadel) by Philip Lader, a visiting professor of political science who is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. Many former top Clinton aides have roles in his campaign.” Clinton backing will get him the Democratic backing needed in the primaries but Clinton has proven to be a liability for anyone with serious intentions about ultimately winning, not the primary, but the general election. Clinton maybe assures the general’s Democratic primary nomination because Democrats these days are as bereft of intelligence as those republicans voting for Arnold in California. But Clinton also assures the general loses the general election. You see, nothing will rally Republican voters to turn-out like Bill Clinton and Lady Hillary of WalMart being back in our collective faces.

 

Still, and it is important, this is “meant to look like” Clinton is behind Clark all the way. We should all recall just how little respect Bill Clinton and Lady Hillary of WalMart had for the military; Clinton often refused to return a salute from military personnel and his portrait was not hung in numerous military establishments throughout the nation, Reagan’s and Bush Senior’s still firmly in place. Mr. Clinton never tried to hide his dislike and contempt for the military in general and specifically the Pentagon’s generals and received criticism from the Joint Chiefs on more than one occasion for his rude manner. So, in my opinion Clark’s opening charge stinks of contrivance when he states “ I’m running for president because I could not stand by and watch everything that we fought for, everything our nation had accomplished and become, unravel before our eyes.” Right then, he says all the right things to sweep the primaries and make sure no other legitimate Democrat wins the same primary nomination. Certainly not Howard Dean. But indeed Clinton is behind the general, but not for the reasons one might think. This was reported in a different piece of late:

 

“Behind Gen. Wesley K. Clark’s candidacy for the White House is a former president fanning the flames....General Clark, in fact, said today that he had had a series of conversations with both the former president, Bill Clinton, and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as well as close aides to them and that all of them had encouraged him to run....The story, though, is not simple....At first glance, it would seem that Mr. Clinton and General Clark would have a longtime bond. They each lost their fathers early. From the same small patch of 1950’s America, they emerged as ambitious, high-achieving golden boys, becoming Rhodes Scholars and attending Oxford University, then soaring to the tops of their respective professions at relatively young ages....In reality, they hardly knew each other. Instead of paths that crossed, theirs were parallel. And when their lives finally intersected - while Mr. Clinton was president and General Clark commanded the allied troops in Europe - it was a complex and tortured time for both....To General Clark’s humiliation, President Clinton’s Pentagon relieved him of his command. And President Clinton had signed off on the plan, according to several published accounts, apparently unaware that he was being deceived by Clark detractors....Now the 58-year-old career Army officer wants to be president. And the 57-year-old former president seems eager to promote his candidacy.” (Source: Late-Arriving Candidate Got Push From Clintons By Katherine Q. Seelye, Sept. 18, 2003)

 

Some reporters on the left are absolutely cooing over the Clinton connection, as tenuous as it is.

 

“This week, a flood of former Clintonites flew into Little Rock to teach Clark the ropes of a successful campaign. Among the Clinton and Gore crew are Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani, Gore’s chief of staff Ron Klain, former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor; former Gore field director Donnie Fowler; Washington attorneys Ron Klain and Bill Oldaker; New Hampshire activist and Clinton friend George Bruno; Clinton appointee Vanessa Weaver and Eli Segal, former head of AmeriCorps. ...Powerful advertising man Skip Rutherford, a Clinton fundraiser and president of the Clinton Foundation that oversees the construction of the Clinton Library in Little Rock, also attended the campaign meeting. His attendance signaled to some that Clinton was much more involved in this campaign than appears apparent....This influence became much clearer on Wednesday as the former president’s inner circle organized the artificial hoopla and former White House staffers and interns fanned out to dispense bottles of water, sign up volunteers and handle media. The theme that resonated: ‘Don’t Stop Thinking About Yesterday.’” (Source: Wesley Clark Announces ... Finally, Suzi Parker, AlterNet, September 18, 2003)

 

Don’t stop thinking about yesterday? You mean Clinton and Gore, and Hillary and Monica? One is always amazed at the Democratic left; they will believe anything in the vain hope of beating a Republican, any Republican, even if “their candidate” is a life-long “virtual-Republican,” and an army guy. (And do try to remember, most army guys, if they are lifers, register as “independents” as a career move.) Out of nowhere, if not right-field, Clark decides to change his entire pattern of life, his true party affiliation, if not better said affections, to run as a Democrat. And all he need say to D’s is, “I’m for abortion rights, gun control,... I don’t think being a homosexual is a sin, and I think Mr. Bush is wrong in Iraq...” and the mental defectives in “the party” would follow him to hell. American politics looks like nothing so much as a NFL playoff. It’s about beating a Republican, it’s about winning, a wave seems more appropriate, not the real issues that matter, not reality, not what “is.”

 

The real problematic? In the end, the so-called “Alternative Media,” “Independent Media,” and even “Pacifica Radio,” are “just Democrats,” and the emphasis is on “just,”--as in only, insufficiently so, meaning sadly. Indeed it all looks terribly contrived, even the above reporter had to note this, “even Clark’s theme song at the end of the speech seemed odd -- Woody Guthrie’s ‘This Land Is Your Land.’ An aide said the song was picked to make Clark ‘look progressive.’” --as in “look,” appear to be, a make-shift contrivance, a con job. “Or perhaps it’s a war call to let [Howard] Dean know he’s coming after his base,” the dreamy-eyed Suzi added.

 

Now we’re getting somewhere.

 

Of course Clark almost immediately heads for the other Mecca of disingenuousness, Hollywood, to be wooed and courted by the real masters of deceit, movie producers and directors: “Andy Spahn, a political adviser who runs corporate affairs for Dreamworks, attended the Spielberg lunch with General Clark, who is based in Little Rock, Ark., saying “There’s a lot of buzz about General Clark now,” Mr. Spahn said. “He combines in one package the attributes of several other candidates. He’s got the Southern base of John Edwards, the outsider status of Howard Dean and a military record that trumps John Kerry.” Mr. Morton, recently host to a dinner with Jordan Kerner, a producer, for General Clark, said: “Simply put, I was blown away by the man. He’s pro-choice, pro-affirmative action. He’s fiscally responsible. He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which I have no problem with and every affluent person I spoke to has no problem with.... “Besides, Republicans have generally been synonymous with generals. To have a Democratic candidate with his military résumé is a powerful element to add to the whole package.” (Source: NYT, The Latest Star on the Hollywood Circuit: Clark, October 1, 2003 By Bernard Weinraub) Bear in mind the above is somewhat irrelevant as the movie crowd, no matter what that whiney little brat Sean Hannity may say, never puts up more than a nickel toward their politics. But let us go forward with the analysis.

 

Listen to the language, “the whole package,” “a lot of buzz,” as though he was auditioning to play a part in the remake of Patton! And “fiscally responsible,” which absolutely nobody can claim about this entirely “untested” man. But just how politically ignorant these peculiarly inept movie moguls are...they actually believe what the general says, first, and secondly that the general has the “outsider status of Howard Dean”! Dead wrong! Clark is the consummate insider of the American-led empire’s globalization process, and its devastation to the U.S. economy and jobs. Indeed Clark has complained of late that the loss of American jobs overseas is one of things he will address as president, as “the Bush administration has done nothing in this area to stem the tide of American’s jobs going overseas.” Remember this line as it will be important below.

 

One author is not about to be taken-in, and he seems closer to the mark. “Let it never be said the neo-conservatives are not persistent. That’s why they must be rounded up by the FBI and charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. But let’s save that issue for another time. The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a ‘New Democrat.’ The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman’s candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a ‘go-to’ candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year....The ‘New Democrats’ (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark’s presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of ‘Mecca’ for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes.” (Source: Wesley Clark for President? Another Con Job from the Neo-Cons, By Wayne Madsen)

 

Now we are getting somewhere. With the exception of his correct depiction of Clark being a neo-conservative and a stalking horse, Madsen is wrong that it is for the Democratic Party that Clark is stalking at all. In my brashly unapologetic skepticism Clark is out to secure the Presidency of George W. Bush Junior. Howard Dean and John Kerry must have the Grey Men very nervous indeed.

 

Col. David Hackworth goes Madsen one further when he wrote regarding the USS Cole attack, “Gen. Wesley Clark of Serbian War shame -- now retired and working for the same Arkansas gang that contributed so generously to Clinton’s taking over the White House in 1992 -- told TV journalist Geraldo Rivera that the U.S. military must take risks; that big guys don’t hide from trouble; and that because we’re a superpower, we had to enter this terrorist hangout to “show the flag.” Showing the flag may have worked when Teddy Roosevelt dispatched the Great White Fleet. But it doesn’t make a lick of sense when a high-tech warship capable of mass destruction can be taken out by two martyrs in a small craft who pulled off a kamikaze attack with a tactic as old as the Trojan Horse.” Col. Hackworth was even closer to a future truth than he knew. The real Trojan Horse would turn out to be (should he win of course, which is likely not the plan at all) Wesley Clark himself. (Note: within both analyses above both author’s err in another way; Clinton did not “win” with the Little Rock gang’s backing, Clinton cannot help Clark win, but instead he will assure he loses in the general election. And it was Ross Perot, both times, that hurled Clinton into the White House with fewer than 50 percent of the popular vote both times.) As an aside as well, the economy then did not defeat George Bush Senior; without Perot, Bush Senior would have soundly trounced Clinton or any other Democrat. Clark’s talk today that “he” has a plan to revive the economy is Greespan nonsense, no president has anything important to say about the economy, never had never will.

 

Corporate connections

 

I am certainly aware that discussing any member of the elite regarding their personal financial connections is taboo on the progressive left. MIT’s (the fourth largest US defense contractor) professor Noam Chomsky has most of these self-appointed elitists (in their own minds at least) convinced that the boards of directors one sits on, the stocks owned and the circle one runs-in through non-governmental organizations (NGO) does not matter. Yet these same progressives have a fit and connect the dots of anyone, other than progressives, who might run in specific circles, or have been “seen” at a meeting not sanctioned by these self-important leftists. Lawyer Danny Sheehan, formerly of the Christic Institute, was hounded for years by these creepy smarmy types on the Pacifica left. Why? He had committed a kind of adultery when he spoke with or included statements by, say, Col. Bo Gritz (Ret.), when preparing a legal brief. Suddenly Sheehan was suspect because he was “associating with” someone not approved of by these sad sick slobs who call themselves “anti-Racist Watchdogs” on the left. He was even accused (of what we can’t be sure, but it was definitely an accusation), that he had a copy of Fletcher Prouty’s book “JFK” on his book shelf? A book? On a shelf? According to the pathetic Pacifica elitists, only the deluded Leftist watch-dogs are to be privileged enough to read a book not published by South End Press. Their thinking? They are the only ones “that can rise above the written language structure and interpret the real truth of the text, its hidden subliminal meaning.” -- Chomskian post-modern claptrap!

 

Sometimes it does matter who someone might be very close to. Financial dealings matter. Who one sits on a board of directors with matters. Nobody of an opposite thought process, ideology, of the board members gets appointed to a board of directors! So it matters who you run with. Not about every mundane individual, certainly not you and I, but certainly it matters when that individual runs for the highest office in the land; certainly more so when he suddenly creates a phony media event saying “the White House got me fired for criticizing the president,” which wasn’t true, but gained him untold media exposure (i.e., name recognition which otherwise would have cost millions of dollars) and sympathy on the Democratic left (even the general was treated badly by Fox T.V.’s rabid right). Understand this as well, some people believe Clark is a real democrat because Rush Limbaugh came out against him. That is no criteria as Limbaugh must come out against Clark because he too has been conned into believing the Clinton’s are behind Clark all the way, old friends. Certainly it matters when this individual “switches party affiliations” (so as to run against that same president he was critical of when he supposedly got fired) out of right-field; certainly it matters a great deal that he runs in the same neo-conservative circles of elites that not only the Clinton’s did, but the “very same” circles Mr. Bush Junior and Mr. Bush Senior did, and still does. It matters.

 

Background matters

 

While in the Army Clark was General Alexander Haig’s protege. Deep throat? The month the general retired from the military he was on the board of directors of the Stephens Group, merchant bakers, out of Little Rock, Arkansas as their managing director. The firm’s website states the group’s activities this way:

 

“Stephens Inc. has been putting its own capital into companies and enterprises since 1933, with investments ranging from small positions in public and private companies to outright acquisitions. Primarily through our parent, Stephens Group Inc., we invest in a wide variety of industries. Many of the companies in which we have invested have become leaders in their industries. Our industry investments include: Oil and gas, Publishing and media, Health care, Financial services, Technology, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retailing and others, the Internet and e-commerce.”

 

Clark joined Stephens Group, Inc., in July 2000, as I stated, the same month he retired from the Army. He served on the boards of directors of Acxiom Corp. of Little Rock; Entrust Inc. of Dallas; Sirva, Inc. of Westmont, Ill.; and privately held Time Domain Inc. of Huntsville, Ala.

 

It may be irrelevant that Lady Hillary of WalMart was a Rose Law firm associate in Little Rock as well. But let us take note for historical reasons in any case. Rose Law Firm clients include:

 

Acxiom, Corporation Alcoa, Inc., Arkansas Business Publishing Group, Arkansas Capital Corporation, Arkansas Development Finance Authority, Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Arkansas Gas Consumers, Arkansas-Oklahoma Gas Corp. Aromatique, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., Bank of the Ozarks Baxter, Healthcare Corp., Bombardier, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Bunge Corporation, CIGNA Companies, City of Little Rock AR, Residential Housing and Public Facilities Board, Columbia Chemicals Company, Cooper Communities, Inc., Deltic Timber Corporation, Diamond State Ventures, Donrey Media Group, Inc., The Equitable Life Assurance, Society of The United States Fairfield Communities, Inc., Firstar Bank, N.A., General Electric Capital Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Gulf States Toyota, Inc., John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., HEALTHSCOPE Benefits, Inc., International Paper Co., The Kemper Insurance Group, Lyon College, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Morgan, Keegan & Company, Inc., Mountaire Corporation, Murphy Oil Corporation, New York Life Insurance Co. Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, Panhandle Eastern Corp., Peabody Hotel Group, Plum Creek Timber Company, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pulaski Bank and Trust Company, J.A. Riggs Tractor Company, Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust, Pat Salmon and Sons, Inc., Keith Smith Company, Inc., Sol Alman Company, St. Bernards Regional Medical Center, Stephens Inc., Stephens Group, Inc., Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable Trust, Bank of America, Trustee SunCom, Wireless TeleCorp Communications, Inc., Temple-Inland Forest Products, Tyson Foods, Inc., White River Health Systems, Inc., Wingmead, Inc.

_____________________________________________________

Acxiom Corporation, 1 Information Way, Little Rock, AR 72203

Key Facts

· Number 72 on Fortune’s “Best Companies to Work for” list.

· Serves customers in the government, media, retail, financial services, health care, telecom, automotive, and consumer products markets.

Company Overview

Founded in 1969 to help the Democratic Party improve its mailing lists, Acxiom sells its enormous marketing database to direct marketers and other companies that want to more precisely target their customers. The database contains information about 95 percent of all households in America.

____________________________________________________

One company that Clark sat on the board of Directors and lent his name is SIRVA, Inc.; whose wholly owned company, SIRVA Relocation, has as its main function in over one hundred countries, the relocation of entire firms and industries overseas. In other words, the general, complaining about the deteriorating economic foundations here in America and the attendant job losses (did you remember?) from globalization whereby American workers are abandoned as companies move offshore, was aided and abetted by non-other than general Wesley Clark (retired), who was paid quite well (salary and stock) in seeing that this was done expeditiously, efficiently; or to put it in SIRVA’s own words:

 

GLOBAL ASSIGNMENT MANAGEMENT

With offices in over 43 countries, Global Certified Partners in over 100 countries and Regional Centers of Excellence in Chicago, London and Hong Kong, SIRVA brings you unprecedented end-to-end control of your global relocation program. "global_locations.asp" for a complete list of countries.... SIRVA Relocation’s comprehensive menu of global services begins with the first visa application and continues through the duration of every assignment. SIRVA’s Global Assignment Management Program recognizes specific needs for handling assignees from any home and host location.

 

Not to put too fine an edge on my humble presentation but the general may just be the biggest liar to have ever run for public office in American history. Indeed, the general, in this analyst’s humble opinion, is set to protect the American-led Empire from any disruption, any change of course, set out by the present administration of George Bush Junior and his band of elite neo-conservatives.

 

General Wesley Clark has, for years, circulated in the very same circles as each neo-con holding senior positions in the present Bush administration and has been a board member of the institutions of this American-led empire everywhere he could wriggle his skinny bullock’s way in. On the boards along with Clark are not a group of patriotic America-firsters, a pack of Pat Buchanans or isolationists. Indeed, we find Clark in the company of nearly every significant Republican office holder who has pressed forward the corporate globalization agenda of the U.S. multinational monopoly corporate structure for decades: i.e., Corporatism. His bio off the web states:

 

General Wesley K. Clark (U.S. Army, Retired) is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a business services and development firm based in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is senior military analyst for Cable News Network (CNN) and is Chairman of the Board of WaveCrest Laboratories, a technology company that specializes in electric propulsion systems that transform electrical energy into mechanical motion. General Clark is a noted speaker presenting key insights on strategic leadership, foreign and military policy and high technology to corporate leaders and other audiences. He serves pro bono as a distinguished senior advisor for the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), as a Director of the Atlantic Council, and as a member of the board of the International Crisis Group, Messer-Griesheim and SIRVA Corporation.

______________________________________________________________

Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS): CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, formerly deputy secretary of defense, who has been president and CEO since April 2000. It is guided by a board of trustees chaired by former senator Sam Nunn. Brent Scowcroft chairs the board of governors; and Zbigniew Brzezinski are listed under “members” and the whole list with some background is included here:

 

Betty Stanley Beene: United Way

Reginald K. Brack: Time Inc., Time Warner, Inc.

William Brock: 1985 - 1987: United States Secretary of Labor 1981 - 1985: United States Trade Representative 1977 - 1980: Chairman, The Republican National Committee

Harold Brown: Secretary of Defense 1977-81

Zbigniew Brzezinski: 1977 to 1981, National Security Advisor to the President

William Cohen: Secretary of defense, from January 1997 to January 2001

Ralph Cossa: Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies

Douglas N. Draft: Chairman of the board/CEO of The Coca-Cola Company

Richard Fairbanks: Ambassador-at-large under President Reagan, chief U.S. negotiator for the Middle East peace process, and assistant secretary of state for congressional relations. Also served as associate director of the White House Domestic Council

Michael P. Galvin: Assistant secretary of commerce for export administration in the Bush administration,

John J. Hamre: U.S. deputy secretary of defense (1997-1999) and under secretary of defense (comptroller) (1993-1997)

Ben W. Heinemen:

Carla Hills: U.S. Trade Representative from 1989 to 1993. As a member of President; Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Ford administration Bush’s Cabinet,

Ray L. Hunt: Chairman of the board, president, and chief executive officer of Hunt Consolidated, Inc., and chairman of the board and CEO of Hunt Oil Company. Additionally, he serves as a member of the boards of directors of Halliburton Company, PepsiCo, Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corporation, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Security Capital Group Incorporated.

Henry Kissinger: Henry Alfred Kissinger was sworn in on September 22, 1973, as the 56th secretary of state, a position he held until January 20, 1977. He also served as assistant to the president for National Security Affairs from January 20, 1969, until November 3, 1975. In July 1983, he was appointed by President Reagan to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America until it ceased operation in January 1985, and from 1984 to 1990 he served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Kaenneth G. Langhone: Serves on the boards of Choicepoint, Inc.; General Electric; TRICON Global Restaurants; Unifi, Inc.; and the New York Stock Exchange.

Donald B Marron: Chairman and chief executive officer of Paine Webber Group Inc

E. Stanley O’Neil: President and CEO of Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.

Felix G. Rohatyn: U.S. ambassador to France from September 11, 1997, until December 28, 2000. managing director of the investment bank Lazard Freres and Company Board of Governors of the New York Stock Exchange from 1968 to 1972.

Charles A. Sanders: chairman and CEO of Glaxo Inc., spent eight years with Squibb Corp

James Schlesinger: senior adviser to the investment banking firm of Lehman Brothers and as chairman of the Board of Trustees of the MITRE Corporation.Nixon selected him to become chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. He held that post until February 1973 when he was named director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He served in the latter position until July 1973 when he was appointed secretary of defense. He remained at the Defense Department until November 1975.

Brent Scowcroft: Assistant to the president for national security affairs to Presidents Ford and Bush. He also served as military assistant to President Nixon and as deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs to Presidents Ford and Nixon. Prior to joining the Bush administration, General Scowcroft was vice chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc. He serves as director on the boards of Pennzoil-Quaker State and Qualcomm Corporations. He is also on the Board of Advisors of ExpertDriven, Inc.

Murray Weidenbaum:1981 and 1982, Dr. Weidenbaum was President Reagan's first chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. In that capacity, be helped to formulate the economic policy of the Reagan administration and was a key spokesman for the administration on economic and financial issues. From 1983 to 1989, he was a member of the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board.

Dolores D. Wharton: Board of directors of the Capital Bank & Trust Company, Albany, New York. In 1976, Mrs. Wharton was elected the first woman and first black to the board of the Phillips Petroleum Company and served for 18 years until her resignation in 1993. She also pioneered as a former director of the Kellogg Company for 22 years and Gannett Co., Inc. Among her other prior boards are National Public Radio (NPR), COMSAT Corporation, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, the New York Telephone Company, the Michigan National Bank, and Key Bank, Albany.

In the area of the arts, Mrs. Wharton was appointed by President Ford to the National Council on the Arts of the National Endowment for the Arts

Frederick B. Whitmore: Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. Partner in 1967; managing director since 1970, when the firm incorporated; advisory director, January 1989.

director on the following corporate boards: Ecofin Limited, London, England; Partner Reinsurance Company Limited, Bermuda; Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma; Maxcor Financial Group, New York; Sunlife of New York, New York; KOS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Florida; Southern Pacific Petroleum, Australia.

R. James Woolsey: Partner at the law firm of Shea & Gardner in Washington, D.C. He returned to the firm in January 1995 after serving two years as director of the Central Intelligence Agency is presently a member of the boards of directors or boards of managers of: Linsang Partners, LLC; BC International Corporation; Fibersense Technology Corporation; Invicta Networks, Inc.; DIANA, LLC; Agorics, Inc.; and Sun HealthCare Group, Inc. He is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. He has served in the past as a member of the boards of: USF&G; Yurie Systems, Inc.; Martin Marietta; British Aerospace, lnc.; Fairchild Industries; Titan Corporation; and DynCorp. (DynCorp has contracts to train police and military in Iraq)

Amos A. Jordon: Has held the positions of principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, deputy under secretary of state, and acting under secretary of state for security assistance. A former U.S. army brigadier general and a West Point department head, Jordan also served as a member of President Bush's Intelligence Oversight Board.

Leonard Marks: Chairman, U.S. Department of State, International Communications Advisory Committee, 1989-94.

Robert S. Strauss: Corporate lawyer; Chairman of the Board of the U.S.-Russia Business Council January 1993. He is a Partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.

In August 1991, Mr. Strauss was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, he in turn became U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation.

 

It is veritable who’s who from each Republican administration since Nixon. A sprinkling of Democratic administration officials and a gaggle of corporate board members. Officials from the Carter Administration are less numerous as well and those familiar with Carter‘s global elite will need no further introduction here.

(Source: http://csis.org/about/index.htm#4)

____________________________________________________

Atlantic Council: James A Baker III (and several other notables!) are listed as Honorary Directors -- detailed biographical material is omitted due to a veritable redundancy.

James A. Baker III

Frank C. Carlucci III

Warren Christopher

Harlan Cleveland

Russell E. Dougherty

Gerald R. Ford

Alexander M. Haig, Jr.

Christian A. Herter, Jr.

Robert S. McNamara

Paul H. Nitze

Bernard W. Rogers

Edward L. Rowny

George M. Seignious II

Raymond P. Shafer

George P. Shultz

William H. Webster

John C. Whitehead

(Source:) http://www.acus.org/board/Default.htm

 

The Bushes are laughing in their hats!

 

Ring any bells?

 

It should be noted here as just one instance of the politico/commercial nepotism inherent in these ongoing relationships; I am sure some Noam Chomskian “followers” will make the argument that “so what, this proves nothing.” Standing alone this may be true. But one has to have had some history tracking “all” the activities of “all the men” who make up the various lists, corporate and defense board rooms, NGOs, Foundations and Trusts, and high level government positions of note. And they are far more numerous than one article about one candidate for president could possibly contain.

 

The Grey Men, was a term first used by an author to describe the men above. Some crackpots that believe anything Clark says thought I was speaking of “little Grey men” from Mars, in the hopes of discrediting my skeptical rebut and painting an uglier picture of me than is even necessary. The Grey Men were described that way because they are indoors all the time, board rooms, meetings at NGOs, dinner at the rainbow room, sipping a white wine at the Council on Foreign Relations’ latest hobnobbing event. And, I must add, it is true, I have met some of them personally, they do take on a certain skin color for being so white and so little time in the sun. In any case to give you one example of the system effects:

 

Santa Fe International (I know, here he goes again....)

 

An example might aid the Chomskian neophyte: Take Carla Hills, former Trade Representative in the Bush Senior administration; her husband Roderick Hills sat on the board of directors of Santa Fe International along with Brent Scowcroft, Bush Senior’s National Security advisor and partner of Kissinger Associates, along with former president Gerald Ford, who made George Bush Sr., CIA director at the crucial time of the Cointelpro hearings over the CIA’s illegal domestic black-ops. Santa Fe International is, and was at the time of Persian Gulf I, an American corporation wholly owned by the ruling Al Sabah family of Kuwait. Which some might argue caused some personal concerns over our dispatching ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait? Given that Santa Fe International’s main contribution in the oil exploration field was its “slant drilling technology” which was used to steal oil from Iraq by the Al Sabah families’ Kuwaiti operations, one would have hoped it might have gotten a bit more notice than it did at the time.

 

But let us get back to our, becoming more discreditable now all the time, general Wesley Clark (Retired) and Democratic hopeful.

 

In the area of non-commercial enterprises the one which stands out is a Republican Administration initiated, neo-conservative institution only a few would recognize. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Here is a bit of background for the uninitiated.

 

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was launched in the early 1980s, premised on the idea that American assistance on behalf of democracy efforts abroad would be good both for the U.S. and for those struggling around the world for freedom and self-government. This is called nation-building, which both Clark and Bush have stated the U.S. military ought not to be doing. Which is what we are presently doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Then President Ronald Reagan proposed an initiative “to foster the infrastructure of democracy--the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities--which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.” He noted that the American Political Foundation would soon begin a study “to determine how the U.S. can best contribute--as a nation--to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force.” Delivered to a packed Parliamentary chamber in Britain’s Westminster Palace, the Reagan speech on the topic would prove to be one of the central contributions to the establishment of a U.S. democracy foundation. ...The American Political Foundation’s study was funded by a $300,000 grant from the Agency for International Development(AID) and it became known as “The Democracy Program.” Its executive board consisted of a broad cross-section of participants in American politics and foreign policy making. The Democracy Program recommended establishment of a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation to be known as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Endowment, though non-governmental, would be funded primarily through annual appropriations and subject to congressional oversight. NED, in turn, would act as a grant-making foundation, distributing funds to private organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy abroad. A much needed investigation would be to look into who received some of these grants and funds over the years. (Ralph Nader’s groups like Public Citizen and right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation would be the place to start.) These private organizations would include those created by the two political parties and the business community, and those in the labor movement already in existence. ...NED’s creation was soon followed by establishment of the "http://www.cipe.org" (CIPE), the "http://www.ndi.org" (NDI), and the "http://www.iri.org" (later renamed the International Republican Institute or “IRI”), which joined the Free Trade Union Institute as the four affiliated institutions of the Endowment. Here is where we find Wesley Clark once again. Here is another group with as many ties to the elite institutions of governance as one could imagine.

 

NED Executive Board Members:

Vin Weber Chairman, Thomas R. Donahue Vice Chairman, Matthew F. McHugh Secretary, Julie Finley Treasurer, Carl Gershman President,

 

Board of Directors: Morton Abramowitz Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations Evan Bayh U.S. Senate, Wesley K. Clark U.S. Army Retired The Stephens Group, Inc., Frank Carlucci Chairman of the Carlyle Group, Thomas R. Donahue Senior Fellow Work in America Institute, Esther Dyson Chairman Edventure Holdings, Julie Finley Founder and Board Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, William H. Frist U.S. Senate, Francis Fukuyama Institute of Public Policy George Mason University, Ralph Gerson President & CEO Guardian International Corp., Bob Graham U.S. Senate, Lee Hamilton Director The Woodrow Wilson Center, Antonia Hernandez President Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Richard C. Holbrooke Counselor Council on Foreign Relations, Emmanuel A. Kampouris President and CEO, Retired American Standard, Inc., Jon Kyl U.S. Senate, Leon Lynch Vice President United Steelworkers of America, Matthew F. McHugh Counselor to the President The World Bank, Donald Payne U.S. House of Representatives, Vin Weber Managing Partner Clark & Weinstock, Dante B. Fascell (1917-1998), John Richardson, William E. Brock, Winston Lord, John Brademas Chairmen Emeriti , (Source: NED Annual Report 2000, NED Officers and Directors)

 

These are names that serious researchers know well. These are names not of liberal progressive thinkers, compassionate do-gooders, but monopoly corporate elites who revolve in and out of each administration, for over five decades now, bringing the American-led empire to fruition. Bringing the American-led military forces into countries uninvited to “build their nations” along lines more compatible to the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Agency for International Development. Sustainable development is one of their useful euphemisms.

 

This probably doesn’t matter to a Chomskian but Frank Carlucci Chairman of the Carlyle Group, is one name that appears with Wesley Clark often on boards of directors and NGO membership lists. It is, or ought to be at least by now, well-known, Frank Carlucci’s intimate ties to the Bush family for decades.

 

Circle of Friends they were called in Weimar Germany

 

And none of this matters to the dewy-eyed Democrats? But we, those of us trying to wrinkle our brain matter, begin to see the revolving door yet again. From the military, to defense firms, to the monopoly corporate board rooms to the White House. The Iron Triangle Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of; from the elite institutions and circle of friends as they have been called since the heady days of Weimar Germany. One man often sitting on up to eighty different boards of directors, institutions both non-governmental and commercial, banking and industry. The elite who’s who; where often as few as 5,000 mostly white males can be seen running everything that matters. I stated this during early 1990-91 in lectures and was duly chastised by the silly-Left as an “obscure conspiracy theorist from the right.” It bothered me none at the time as I knew time would bear it out as too true to deny. We all know now who runs both major parties, who runs the important major institutions, who runs, in their enlightened self-interest everything that matters; everything that doesn’t matter, is left to us to decide, bicker over.

 

What may be afoot

 

What I sense is afoot will certainly not make a Democrat grin. My sense of it is from personal, very personal experience; experiential that is to say. I have worked on more than one candidate’s campaign (both D’s and R’s and one Libertarian’s). I have seen first hand what I am about to describe to the reader.

 

To begin with, the Grey Men exist; it is no more a conspiracy than it is a conspiracy theory. It is neither one nor the other. They are neither left nor right. But they do care very much indeed where our country is going and it’s been going towards Empire for decades. (See this author’s book “The Hydra of Carnage” 2002; in fact see the fifty books currently in print making the argument in one way or another.) These powerful men operate on the fringe of electoral politics, funding it, manning it, backing it, but never themselves running for any elective office as that would be a significant loss of power and critical exposure. Even the president has nothing like the power the power elite (C. Wright Mills’ term, not mine) maintain by being in the background where they never see a background check.

 

Are these men going to spend “their” collective billions of dollars “for decades” to build their American-led corporate Empire under the tutelage of every president since FDR, and see it frittered away by Howard Dean, John Kerry or anyone else? Have they have gotten a man who has long taken orders from above to switch parties and run as a stalking horse for Mr. Bush Junior, to see Bush is reelected with certainty? What kind of a man, then, is this Wesley Clark? Here is just a slight sampling from the recent past. “His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, “the Supreme Being.” “Clark is smart,” concludes one sarcastically who has monitored his career. “[But] his whole life has been spent manipulating appearances (e.g. the doctored OPFOR exercise) in the interests of his career.” (Col. David Hackworth)

 

“A long time ago, the French, tired of war, turned to a short general named Napoleon to lead them to peace and prosperity. Instead, Napoleon seized imperial power and ensured the French would have more war. After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the "anti-war" candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people.” -- Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist.

 

Retired Colonel David Hackworth says about Clark ... “Some have said that Clark is the way the elites in the Democratic party hope to get rid of Dean who has made a mockery of the elite’s acceptable candidates - i.e., Kerry and Lieberman. Another source looked at Clark closely:

 

“No sooner are we told by Britain’s top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west’s war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO’s supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war....“I’m not going to start the third world war for you,” General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo’s provincial capital.” (Source: The guy who almost started World War III? From The Guardian, Tuesday August 3, 1999)

 

Certainly some of this may be sour grapes, anger at Clark’s unbelievable hubris; some have called him an “arrogant preener, vain brown-noser of the worst sort towards his superiors; towards his men, he treats them with contempt.”

 

What matters is, is he a prevaricator, a liar?

 

Recall above what one reporter reported: “At first glance, it would seem that Mr. Clinton and General Clark would have a longtime bond. They each lost their fathers early. From the same small patch of 1950’s America, they emerged as ambitious, high-achieving golden boys, becoming Rhodes Scholars and attending Oxford University, then soaring to the tops of their respective professions at relatively young ages.”

 

“In reality, they hardly knew each other. Instead of paths that crossed, theirs were parallel. And when their lives finally intersected - while Mr. Clinton was president and General Clark commanded the allied troops in Europe - it was a complex and tortured time for both. To General Clark’s humiliation, President Clinton’s Pentagon relieved him of his command. Even though they both grew up in Arkansas, General Clark wrote in his book, “Waging Modern War” (Public Affairs, 2001), that he met Mr. Clinton for the first time in 1965 at a student conference at Georgetown University. He met Hillary Clinton in 1983 in France at a conference of French-American Young Leaders. The Clarks and the Clintons had dinner “once” when Mr. Clinton was governor of Arkansas and, as General Clark told it, “I had talked to him once on the phone as I was passing through the state a few years later, but that was about it.” (Source: Late-Arriving Candidate Got Push From Clintons By Katherine Q. Seelye, Washington DC, Sept. 18, 2003)

 

“That was about it?” Then we are being conned by the Arkansas gang led by the Clintons and the grasping-at-straws Democrats, that he is their man of the hour. He doesn’t even know the Clintons, he has always been a virtual-Republican, voting for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Senior and I will argue categorically he voted for Bush Senior twice. I have a nagging doubt he ever voted for Al Gore, we only have Clark’s word for that. I wish I were wrong about all the above but my understandable skepticism allows too little room.

 

Once retired from the Army, after having been fired by Clinton’s boys at the Pentagon, he promptly enters the sleazy underworld of Corporatism and Banking. The neo-conservatives on both the Democratic side and Republican side adopted the general. He roams the halls of elite power and some ditz calls him an outsider? But it was a Hollywood ditz so no further explanation is needed.

 

Talk about a Trojan Horse? How do you protect Bush’s Trojan Horse, Wesley Clark from exposure? You tell yet another big lie, this time a feminist-worshipping Democrat will offer the deed openly. Listen to this reported nonsense, nonsense because it is not only untrue, but the perfect foil for the foolish to fall for:

 

“The Clintons’ promotion for General Clark’s candidacy has set off speculation about their long-term strategy. Conservative commentators have suggested that the Clintons were encouraging weak candidates to enter the race so that they would lose, leaving the Democratic field open for Senator Clinton in 2008. ... Asked today about some of that speculation, including whether he might be a stalking horse for Senator Clinton and might wind up as her vice presidential candidate, either next year or in 2008, General Clark said he had heard the talk but dismissed it. He also said he had no interest in being vice president.” (Source: Ibid., Katherine Q. Seelye: Emphasis added CBH)

 

The only ones that can think that way are what? Crack-pot conservatives like Hannity and O‘Reilly? Democrats with a full frontal lobotomy? Stalking horse for Hillary! Lady Hillary of WalMart will never be allowed to run legitimately to win, (run?... sure, she may run all she wants, it makes good copy and keeps the elite looking fair-minded) and for president? She will never be allowed to win if the Grey Men have anything to say, and they do, and they will.

 

Of most recent reportage on this stratagem of the Grey Men, it becomes clear, Clinton is playing a role for a deal he struck with the same Grey Men; Hillary? well everyone knows she will do anything to get ahead...absolutely anything! On the one hand Clark is backed by the Clintons he doesn’t know at all, but on the other hand, Clark knows the Bush team well; one could conclude he is quite a friend of Bush’s boys one and all given the prolific praise he has offered them. According to a video of a speech he gave provided to Matt Drudge, “Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans -- just two years ago, [the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal!]”

 

“During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: ‘And I’m very glad we’ve got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.” (Source: A video of Clark making the comments, DRUDGE REPORT.)

 

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.)

 

Clark on American military involvement overseas:

 

“Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can’t solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?”... “And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don’t you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That’s them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

 

“In an April 10, 2003 column for the Times of London, just after the fall of Baghdad, Clark wrote, “President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”

 

Since releasing this article further evidence has come to light in the form of yet another speech by Clark praising Bush Junior. Time reports:

 

From Day One as a Democratic presidential candidate, Wesley K. Clark, the retired general, has had to defend his past praise of the president’s national security advisers-some of those compliments coming in a speech Clark gave at a GOP fundraising dinner in Little Rock in May, 2001. At that event, he singled out top officials from Vice President Cheney to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, calling them a “great team” and saying that “we need them there.” Those remarks raised the hackles of Clark’s rivals for the party’s nomination, veteran Democrats who questioned whether Clark-who says he voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan-is a closet Republican who changed political stripes out of opportunism. Clark says at the time of that speech he had quiet doubts about Bush’s team, but wanted it to succeed. “I still could have hope in early 2001 that this administration would learn its lessons,” he said at a recent Democratic candidate debate in Phoenix, Arizona. But another Clark speech recorded by videotape suggests that his hope wasn’t snuffed out too quickly. Eight months later, even as some administration officials were making the case for war against Iraq, Clark still applauded the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as he addressed a large audience at Harding University, in Searcy, Arkansas. “I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush,” he said in the January 22, 2002 speech. The university provided TIME a videotape of his remarks. Clark’s presidential campaign adviser Mark Fabiani said that the former general was simply crediting Bush for the Afghanistan campaign for which “90 percent of Americans would have agreed” at the time. Fabiani said it was the president’s Iraq policy, which had not fully flowered by the time of the Harding speech, that was the “turning point” for Clark and launched his political plans. (Source: Saturday, Oct. 18, 2003, About Face, Another videotape has emerged in the Wesley K. Clark collection of kind words for the Bush administration. By MICHAEL WEISSKOPF)

 

Does this sound like the “New Democrat” Wesley Clark? or Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz? Well, yes, if you understand that a “New Democrat” means a neo-conservative Empire-building elitist simply calling himself a Democrat today and Republican tomorrow. Neither left nor right. Remember too when he registered as a Democrat for the first time in Pulaski County, January 7, 2002, right before the above speech was tendered; meeting with the Democratic power brokers shortly after the November 5, 2002 elections to run for that party‘s nomination. Later In an April 10, 2003 column for the Times of London, just after the fall of Baghdad, Clark wrote, “President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”

But Fabiani said it was the president’s Iraq policy, which had not fully flowered by the time of the Harding speech, that was the “turning point” for Clark? Really, which turning point Mr. Fabiani? The one when he registered as a Democrat and praised Bush while courting the Democrats? Or when he told TIME “I haven't made any decision to run, I haven't declared I'm a member of any political party...” while courting the same Democrats November 18, 2002 and praising Bush still?

 

We must not forget that Clark has administered each administration’s plan in South America, the drug wars fought in Columbia, Peru and Bolivia as the nation’s head of our U.S. Southern Command; he has implemented each administration’s use of force too often to ignore, remained a steadfast Republican voter and vocal supporter of the present Bush regime, even as it repudiated 11 international treaties. And under Clinton the use of the military for nation-building all over the world. Would he be prepared to risk it all to deceive the American people; he was an expendable soldier for three decades, serving the Commanders in Chief collectively, R’s and D’s, with no complaints. And he was no “muddy-boots soldier” according to Col. Hackworth, but a “preener and brown-noser.”

 

Yes, suddenly he would do for empire whatever empire asks of him, more so now than when serving the country, his past oath of office mere historiography. Suddenly Clark, just prior to another presidential election year, conveniently retired (and retired for good reason), he reverses himself and publicly criticizes the present President’s policies? Clark is fast and loose with the truth. I don’t believe any of it. But there is still more.

 

There is the coincidental release of Clark’s new book: “[T]he Release of the book, titled “Winning Modern Wars” and shipped to stores last week, coincides with Clark’s entrance this month into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination....Publisher Peter Osnos of Public Affairs said the book was not conceived as a campaign manifesto. Osnos, who published another book by Clark two years ago (Waging Modern War) on the retired general’s military experiences, said he suggested in May (exactly one year after his lavish praise of Bush) that Clark pursue a second book that would combine and expand on much of Clark’s commentary as a CNN analyst during the Iraq war. “It certainly wasn’t part of any grand plan,” Osnos said in a phone interview.” (Source: Clark Wants More Foreign Aid, New Department to Handle It -- Book Faults Bush for Pursuing Notion of American 'Empire' By Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A05 )

 

But while Clark was writing the book, he was already considering running for president! Right, Clark had no idea he was planning to use CNN as a launch pad, coupled with the orchestrated lie that the White House had him fired, for the name recognition needed to run for high office? Just think how stupid the elite must think we the people are; and probably with good reason as it seems to be working quite well.

 

Now comes the general’s new book, Winning Modern Warfare, written during the exact time frame he meets with the Democratic power brokers, while praising Bush Junior saying, “After 9/11, during the first months of the war on terror, a critical opportunity to nail Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was missed. Additionally, our allies were neglected and a counter-terrorist strategy was adopted that, despite all the rhetoric, focused the nation on a conventional attack on Iraq rather than a shadowy war against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks: Al Qaeda. I argue that not only did the Bush administration misunderstand the lessons of modern war, it made a policy blunder of significant proportions. . . . Evidence and rhetoric were used selectively to justify the decision to attack Iraq. . . . We had re-energized Al Qaeda by attacking an Islamic state and presenting terrorists with ready access to vulnerable U.S. forces. It was the inevitable result of a flawed strategy.” And on page 135, still another previously unspoken analysis: “And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns. . . and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without the support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations. And just as the Bush administration suggested, [the conflict] could last for years.”

 

There are further arguments against the present regime he so lavishly praised just month‘s ago. According to the Washington Post, Wesley Clark argues in his new book the following:

 

“The larger point of the book deals with what Clark considers the damaging consequences of the administration’s pursuit of a ‘quasi-imperial vision’ aimed at liberating people around the world. This strategy, among other things, is imposing a severe strain on the U.S. Army, which, in Clark’s words, ‘isn’t an army of empire -- at least not yet.’ It was built for combat, not occupation, Clark says.... Clark argues that the whole notion of an American empire runs counter to deep historical currents in this country. The ‘American way,’ he says, ‘was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on persuasion and shared vision.’ Borrowing a term from Joseph S. Nye Jr., dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Clark says American power in the 20th century was marked by ‘soft power’ based on diplomacy and persuasion....Soon after taking office, the Bush administration launched the country on a different course, Clark says, reflecting ‘a more unilateralist, balance-of-power stamp.’ He cites the U.S. withdrawal from international efforts to address global warming under the Kyoto treaty and the decision to proceed with a national missile defense system. The administration’s response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks only reinforced these defiant, high-handed tendencies, Clark argues....‘Overnight, U.S. foreign policy became not only unilateralist but moralistic, intensely patriotic and assertive, planning military action against Iraq and perhaps other states in the Middle East, and intimating the New American Empire,’ he writes.” (Ibid., Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A05)

 

Today Clark claims he has had a problem with the administration “since they took office” but his praise of the same administration during the same time period in another context (May 2001 thru April 2003) makes one wonder which is true: the timely praise “at the time,” or the criticism now about the “time past,” and just since he decided to run against “his” Party’s men? Wesley Clark is a political opportunist, and I am sorry for such raw bluntness, a liar. No different than the typical neo-conservatives we’ve witnessed over the past twelve years of both Clinton’s administration and now that of Bush Junior. They call it being Machiavellian.

 

The difference between some typical wrong-doer and a greater level of evil in similar acts is the amount and kind of deception applied. People do wrong things all the time; people make mistakes and change their minds. When the amount of deceit grows, hypocrisy, the deception is all the greater because of the “why” it is used, we find ourselves having to admit that we a seeing an intense level of evil, not just immoral or amoral acts. Mr. Clark and his criminal combination are deceiving the public far worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger has the California voter. Clark’s elaborate deception is to specifically corrupt the system of democratic principles and free and fair elections of a free Republic to secure the presidency of his opponent. Why perpetrate such an act of evil when Bush Junior fairly certainly has Texas locked-up, as with Florida’s Jeb Bush and now California Arnold pretty much sewn-up for the election? Why perpetrate such an evil? The elite remember well the Florida recount and “that Gore thing” was way too close a call and that will never happen again; if the Grey Men have any say in it, and they do.

 

No, I fear my own sense of it comes from the facts above, proper data that is, and my own experience in campaigns. [Where] I witnessed the Republican Party back a Democrat in the primaries for U.S. Senate in a northern state, a retired military man, saw he was backed with sufficient funds from Republican connected defense firms (all from California) to run a campaign (with every individual from campaign manager to strategists Republicans players, except myself), so as to eliminate any threat from any legitimate other primary Democratic candidates in the race. All this was to guarantee the incumbent “seated” Democrat would be the only winner possible in the general election. The incumbent took the primary election easily as the stalking horse simply ceased to campaign, stopped raising money, and went to sleep at the wheel. That was the plan all along, and the Republicans that orchestrated it had “their man” back in office another six years...a Democrat! No viable Republican even surfaced by the general election as these same Republicans refused to back any candidates in the primary.

 

Should Wesley Clark win the primary nomination for president for the Democratic party, America loses and Bush wins, the empire goes its way unmolested; or Clark wins the general election and America loses, the empire goes its way unmolested by some “other” legitimate Democrat. America loses and Empire remains the only winner.

 

It will be said in the future, when what I have written here becomes common knowledge, “It was so easy to pull off.” Mostly because the dewy-eyed Democrats can’t see anything but their hatred for anything Republican. Mostly because the rabid-right Republicans can’t see anything but their hatred for anything Democrat. “It was so easy to pull off, even with its obviousness.”

 

It is this obviousness with Bush’s stalking-horse Clark that offends even the weakest minds. The obviousness that the vast majority of all the people, all the time, never even see at all. Lincoln was wrong. But all this might just be a skeptical observer who only cares about what “is.” Whose only allegiance is to liberty.

 

End Part One: 11/01/03

_________________________________________

Mr. Craig B Hulet: Security, Military Affairs & International Relations Expert (Author: The Hydra of Carnage: Bush’s Imperial War-making and the Rule of Law: An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of Empire. Available @ www.kcandassociates.org); Hulet was Special Assistant for Special Projects to Congressman Jack Metcalf (Ret.) www.craigbhulet.com Hulet can be reached at: cali@localaccess.com

Copyright 2003 The Artful Nuance and Craig B Hulet

____________________________________________

 

Get Rid of Bush & What do you Have in Clark?

 

Retired General Wesley Clark: Stalking-Horse for Bush Junior and The Grey Men

 

Wes Clark Wins! (On Wall Street)
Kerry may have swept Iowa, but Wesley Clark has taken the Street.
FORTUNE
Monday, January 26, 2004
By Richard Behar

John Kerry may have won Iowa, but Wesley Clark cleaned up on Wall Street. On Jan. 20, just a day after the caucuses, bankers tell FORTUNE, Clark made about $1.2 million in paper profit on his investment in Messer Griesheim, when the private German maker of industrial gases agreed to sell most of its assets to rival Air Liquide. While the $3.3 billion deal went largely unnoticed in the U.S., it was the best investment Clark ever made. And it barely cost him a dime—thanks to a low-interest, "non-recourse" loan from Goldman Sachs, which insulated Clark (a Messer director since August 2001) from any personal exposure. "Was he smiling yesterday?" wondered a Goldman executive, just hours after the Euro-deal was announced. "General Clark's probably got more money than he's ever had in his life." Clark resigned nearly all his directorships last fall after he announced his candidacy. But he stayed on Messer's board until early January. Goldman co-owns 67% of the firm, and "Clark was our guy on the board," says a Goldman insider, who adds that the company wanted to find a way to give Clark a stake. But Goldman's stock was held by a fund whose bylaws didn't permit loans. So, in a complex swap, Messer loaned Clark 500,000 euros for his 6,734-share purchase in mid-2002, and then Goldman bought the note from Messer. The non-recourse terms mean that if the deal had gone south and Clark defaulted, Goldman would be stuck. In other words, pure upside for Clark, who repaid the note—but kept stock when he left the board.

Overall, that was the biggest home run of the general's brief tenure as a businessman. After leaving the military in mid-2000, Clark spent nearly three years working as a managing director for Little Rock's Stephens Group, one of the largest investment houses off Wall Street. He was eventually pushed out—and left behind some sour feelings.

Clark's primary role was to help the firm expand into defense and IT sectors. He used his impeccable contacts to gain not one but two audiences with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, giving Stephens an inside track on the government's Iraq thinking. And he was likable, often speaking to packed rooms during client forums. "He's smart, he knows the technology, and has the contacts," says Warren Stephens, the firm's CEO. "But we needed about five years with him—to help him filter deals. As with many who are new, he thought everything he saw was doable." Clark helped one Stephens-backed firm, SmartSignal—which uses harmonics to determine when an engine is failing—to get a contract at DARPA, the DoD’s research wing. And as both a lobbyist and board director, he helped another Stephens-backed firm—Acxiom, one of the world's largest processors of consumer data—secure government contracts in homeland security.

But he couldn't persuade Stephens to back a DARPA-funded startup called PharmAthene—a Virginia developer of biowarfare vaccines, whose chairman, Joel McCleary, is a former treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. (Clark joined PharmAthene's board last January, just days before Stephens suggested he resign.) And Warren tells FORTUNE that Clark never informed the firm about his Messer investment. According to top securities lawyer and ex-prosecutor Sean O'Shea, employees of securities firms "must disclose an outside investment" to their bosses. Violators can face disciplinary action by regulators. (Clark says he's "very grateful for the start" in business that the Stephens family gave him, but declines further comment.) Warren says he nudged Clark out after the General began publicly criticizing the Bush administration and it became clear he had presidential ambitions. (Warren serves as finance co-chair of President Bush's reelection drive in Arkansas.) "He was disappointed, and so was I," says Stephens. At the time, Clark had a different spin. On March 1, he told the local paper that he had decided to leave Stephens to prepare for covering the war as a military analyst for CNN—a post he had held since 2001. Before packing his bags Clark asked Stephens's top deputy, Curt Bradbury, a staunch conservative, if Warren would ever rehire him. "When you get well," Bradbury responded.

 

Part Two:

 

Craig B Hulet?

 

Not long after general Wesley Clark declared his candidacy for President in 2004, a number of stories hit the press which should give the liberal-left Democrats pause in their rather odd support for the general. One must realize that their field of candidates is weak in the extreme. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have almost single-handedly raised almost twice the money for the race, $250 million, than all the Democrats combined, Bush is a war-president who has the corporate media in one pocket for the most part and the remainder of much of the monopoly corporate world in his other. But for the Democrats to swarm to the Clark hive and act the part of raw instinctual, insect-like, partisanship, in the vain hope the general can beat Bush is sheer idiocy! Bees swarm right before they die.

 

But let’s assume they are right and in some fantastical farce Bush loses to Clark and Clark becomes president of the United States? The Grey Men have this covered as well. As I stated during May 2003 on KLOS/KABC Los Angeles radio, “Bush is building the American-led empire, someone else shall come to run it, someone of a different ilk, ...there is a four star general, retired, waiting for a nomination.” What would Clark inherit? In a recent article in the New York Times their lead story on Saturday was this:

 

 

 

“The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism....The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said. Justice Department officials say they are simply using all the tools now available to them to pursue criminals - terrorists or otherwise. But critics of the administration's antiterrorism tactics assert that such use of the law is evidence the administration has sold the American public a false bill of goods, using terrorism as a guise to pursue a broader law enforcement agenda. (Source: New York Times, U.S. Uses Terror Law to Pursue Crimes From Drugs to Swindling, Sept. 27, 2003 By Eric Lichtblau)

 

There are few on the left, Democrats or Greens, Libertarian-left and moderate rational conservatives (including Republicans) that have not been greatly concerned with this absolutist transfer of power to the White House, its new Cabinet level Homeland Security and the Justice Department specifically. We can all be relieved that a terrorist was caught, even a professor like the one cited below. And one would hope that that might continue. The administration claimed they had caught several suspects in terrorism cases which is fine, probably true and what the law intended. The NYT ’s reported, “Justice Department officials point out that they have employed their newfound powers in many instances against suspected terrorists. With the new law breaking down the wall between intelligence and criminal investigations, the Justice Department in February was able to bring terrorism-related charges against a Florida professor, for example, and it has used its expanded surveillance powers to move against several suspected terrorist cells.”

 

But the entire bill of goods, as was put in the article above, was to protect the homeland from terrorism, not protect the government from the homeland -- you and I. There is no reason why new powers granted law enforcement cannot be kept within the specific set of guidelines, the legal parameters, set out in the law’s intent (in legalese “intent” of the law is everything) to get the job done, and still not expand on the use of their new powers to areas never “intended.” Indeed, “intent” is everything in jurisprudence.

 

Every government, since the dawn of time, lies (and only “men” tell lies; institutions cannot speak as Numb Chomsky would have it) and will use all means necessary to protect itself from its citizens; the undesirable citizens, minorities and the dissenters are first to be declared criminals and are always and everywhere simply the first to be persecuted, prosecuted and placed under surveillance under the new regime’s expanded powers. (Every new law, every expanded jurisdiction of existing laws, creates a new class of criminals where none existed before -- or existed as simple misdemeanor cases and now advanced to felony crimes and upon conviction a greater level of punishment). The idea being the punishment should fit the crime is judiciously thrown out the jurisprudential window.

 

It is now being reported that “a new Justice Department report, given to members of Congress this month, also cites more than a dozen cases that are not directly related to terrorism in which federal authorities have used their expanded power to investigate individuals, initiate wiretaps and other surveillance, or seize millions in tainted assets. For instance, the ability to secure nationwide warrants to obtain e-mail and electronic evidence ‘has proved invaluable in several sensitive non-terrorism investigations,’ including the tracking of an unidentified fugitive and an investigation into a computer hacker who stole a company’s trade secrets, the report said.” (Ibid.)

 

This will not seem an abuse of power by the rabid-Right’s self-righteous Republican talk hosts at Fox and elsewhere; we all know what they will say to these expanded powers being used in areas not intended in the law’s original intent. One can hear the self-righteous Bill O’Reilly (who once drew the analogy that he was like a Sheriff going from one town to the next, cleaning-out the bad guys!) smugly contemplating the opposition’s argument with the simpleton’s retort “if you ain’t doing anything wrong, you ain’t got nuttin’ to worry ‘bout, ‘pawdner,’ as smoke slowly twirls skyward from his emptied Colt.”

 

As though the law, law enforcement and the criminal justice system never errs? Of course Justice Department officials have already made their own simpleton’s retort to the story cited above saying (predictably): “....officials said the cases cited in the report represent only a small sampling of the many hundreds of non-terrorism cases pursued under the law.” Number of cases is of course not the point at all, but that their powers are being expanded in areas without the rule of law’s intent being applied. In other words, they are, in doing so, breaking the law’s intent, which is to say, breaking the law.

 

It is the expansion of the powers of surveillance, lowered standards for terrorist suspects applied to lesser crimes and lesser criminals, and using the new law’s powers in contravention of the “rule of law” that is the “abuse of law.” They freely admit this according to the New York Times’ report and the recent Report filed with Congress:

 

“The authorities have also used toughened penalties under the law to press charges against a lovesick 20-year-old woman from Orange County, Calif., who planted threatening notes aboard a Hawaii-bound cruise ship she was traveling on with her family in May. The woman, who said she made the threats to try to return home to her boyfriend, was sentenced this week to two years in federal prison because of a provision in the Patriot Act on the threat of terrorism against mass transportation systems.”

 

There are others reported as well: “[And] officials said they had used their expanded authority to track private Internet communications in order to investigate a major drug distributor, a four-time killer, an identity thief and a fugitive who fled on the eve of trial by using a fake passport....In one case, an e-mail provider disclosed information that allowed federal authorities to apprehend two suspects who had threatened to kill executives at a foreign corporation unless they were paid a hefty ransom, officials said. Previously, they said, gray areas in the law made it difficult to get such global Internet and computer data.” But again, the law was never intended to be used for anything but terrorist cases. The immediate “explanation” above, while certainly useful in the Department’s making its case, is again, not the point!

 

Capital Flight

 

As I have explained to my personal business client base, well over half of Patriot Act I was, and is, directly applicable to only financial areas, for use in other areas not “intended.” (This is purportedly to catch financial crimes of terrorist’s and their funding sources, and thus seize bank accounts; this was the foil for expanding these powers) As the Times reported “The law passed by Congress just five weeks after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has proved a particularly powerful tool in pursuing financial crimes.” Officials with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement have seen a sharp spike in investigations as a result of their expanded powers, officials said in interviews.” (Ibid.) One area of supreme importance to everyone without a totalitarian streak in their heart like Hannity and O’Reilly, is what every government begins to do the more it turns into Empire or any other form of totalitarian governance: that is, restrain capital flight. And Patriot Act I & II has been predictably used for exactly this.

 

“A senior official said investigators in the last two years had seized about $35 million at American borders in undeclared cash, checks and currency being smuggled out of the country. That was a significant increase over the past few years, the official said. While the authorities say they suspect that large amounts of the smuggled cash may have been intended to finance Middle Eastern terrorists, much of it involved drug smuggling, corporate fraud and other crimes not directly related to terrorism.” (Ibid.)

 

The terrorism law allows the authorities to investigate cash smuggling cases more aggressively and to seek stiffer penalties by elevating them from what had been mere reporting failures. Customs officials say they have used their expanded authority to open at least nine investigations into Latin American officials suspected of laundering money in the United States, and to seize millions of dollars from overseas bank accounts in many cases unrelated to terrorism. They did not say how many cases were opened that were not of Latin American officials but Americans. In one instance, agents citing the new law seized $1.7 million from United States bank accounts that were linked to a former Illinois investor who fled to Belize after he was accused of bilking clients out of millions. Publicly, Attorney General John Ashcroft and senior Justice Department officials have portrayed their expanded power almost exclusively as a means of fighting terrorists, with little or no mention of other criminal uses. (See also: "http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22John%20Ashcroft %22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw" - http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?cs=nw&p=John%20Ashcroft")

 

“We have used these tools to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil,” Mr. Ashcroft said last month in a speech in Washington, one of more than two dozen he has given in defense of the law, which has come under growing attack. “We have used these tools to save innocent American lives.” Internally, however, Justice Department officials have emphasized a much broader mandate. (Ibid.)

 

It is the view of all intelligent citizens and this office (I feign believe I have some Grey matter somewhat wrinkled, although I may be very wrong on the point.) that capital flight is the number one threat to Empire; its citizens, seeing the erosion of liberties, loss of rights, random persecutions and trumped-up charges against a growing number of fellow citizens, seek to leave the country with whatever they can get out with. When the inevitable draft of the youth takes effect, which would go down with little resistance if it were implemented by a former retired (and retired for good reason) four star general posing as a Democrat in the White House, the youth may, as well as their wealthier peers, want to leave the country as well. And the wealthier are already speaking of this in private: move to Mexico, France or Germany where their rights would still matter. Capital flight is always the first thing to begin to happen when a nation begins on the slippery slope of tyranny. People try to leave with as much cash and coin, gold and silver in greater numbers; tax avoidance is inherent in the process. The growing underground economy another. Remember the federal deficits.

 

A guide to a Justice Department employee seminar last year on financial crimes, for instance, said: “We all know that the USA Patriot Act provided weapons for the war on terrorism. But do you know how it affects the war on crime as well?” One way was to target any and all businesses who utilize credit card transactions as part of their business and become open to regulatory invasion by the private banking system issuing the credit card processing procedures. Where the regulations were but a two page document for the retailer to follow just last year in using credit card transaction’s electronic funds transfer at the point of sale (EFT/POS) with their customers, Patriot Act I gave the banking industry free reign in regulatory capacity over retailers of all sizes. The paperwork has grown to 51 pages and the banks are now allowed to “audit” any retailer, at any time, in a full financial “field” audit using an outside contractor (auditing firms like one of the Big Eight). The retailer, no matter how small, how little business is done with credit cards, must pay for the audit no matter how much is billed to them by, say, one of the Big Eight. This applies to all retailers regardless of size. The public not self-employed, and many small business owners will never hear of these changes, nor any criminal charges brought against smaller companies’ owners. That is just not news to the news media.

 

This is an outrageous invasion of the [free] enterprise’s financial privacy by the private monopoly banking system which set up the Internal Revenue System (IRS) in the first place through the Federal Reserve System to collect taxes from the citizenry. Do recall the real reason for the founding of the IRS the same year as the Federal Reserve System itself, circa 1913? To collect taxes, yes, but it was set up because it is the Federal Reserve System’s extended private, for-profit, banking system which owns the federal reserve banks and has exclusive rights to loan the money to the federal government to monetize its debt...the deficit that is to say. Therefore the IRS is the Federal Reserves’ tow-truck for the banks under “the guise” of collecting those taxes you volunteer to pay. A lot of things in government are done “under the guise” to achieve other objectives, like running Wesley Clark “under the guise” of being a Democrat who is critical of Bush; his criticism a “guise” as well, which we will all only discover should he win, which is not his intent, his intent is to lose. This will all come out in the wash, as they say.

 

But should he win Clark would inherit the regime’s Patriot Act I & II and Homeland Security. A former four star general will truly then be our Commander and Chief. With powers granted him under the guise of the new laws in areas unrelated to terrorism. Elliot Mincberg, legal director for People for the American Way, a liberal group that has been critical of Mr. Ashcroft, said the Justice Department’s public assertions had struck him as misleading and perhaps dishonest. “What the Justice Department has really done,” he said, “is to get things put into the law that have been on prosecutors’ wish lists for years. They’ve used terrorism as a guise to expand law enforcement powers in areas that are totally unrelated to terrorism.” (Ibid.) That is precisely the point and the truth of it. And the Democrats want these powers in the hands of a former military man?

 

A study in January by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that while the number of terrorism investigations at the Justice Department soared after the Sept. 11 attacks, 75 percent of the convictions that the department classified as “international terrorism” were wrongly labeled. Many dealt with more common crimes like document forgery.

("http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22General%20 Accounting%20Office%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw" - "http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?cs=nw&p=General%20 Accounting%20Office")

 

The terrorism law has already drawn sharp opposition from those who believe it gives the government too much power to intrude on people’s privacy in pursuit of terrorists. Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “Once the American public understands that many of the powers granted to the federal government apply to much more than just terrorism, I think the opposition will gain momentum.” Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee said members of Congress expected some of the new powers granted to law enforcement to be used for non-terrorism investigations. But he said the Justice Department’s secrecy and lack of cooperation in implementing the legislation have made him question whether “the government is taking shortcuts around the criminal laws” by invoking intelligence powers - with differing standards of evidence - to conduct surveillance operations and demand access to records. “We did not intend for the government to shed the traditional tools of criminal investigation, such as grand jury subpoenas governed by well-established precedent and wiretaps strictly monitored” by federal judges, he said.

 

Justice Department officials say such criticism has not deterred them. “There are many provisions in the Patriot Act that can be used in the general criminal law,” Mark Corallo, a department spokesman, said. “And I think any reasonable person would agree that we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect the lives and liberties of Americans from attack, whether it’s from terrorists or garden-variety criminals.” (Source: New York Times, U.S. Uses Terror Law to Pursue Crimes From Drugs to Swindling, Sept. 27, 2003 By Eric Lichtblau)

 

No sir, this office disagrees: “garden variety criminals” are not terrorists planning to use weapons of mass destruction. And “garden variety criminals” should be accorded more protections under the law as the law has always intended. They are, let us try to recall, “innocent until ‘proven’ guilty.” Throwing out probable cause, Writ of Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, allowing the CIA and NSA to operate domestically hand-in-hand with regular law enforcement is an outrageous escalation against the citizens of a free republic based upon democratic principles. That is, “if” we are still a free republic? And “that” is still based upon “valid” democratic principles? None of which may be true any longer. Of course the subjects of empire have no such liberties or rights, as they are subject to the subjective rule of their rulers.

 

And now comes the point to all this written revelry. You Democrats want George Bush Junior out, who has pressed forward these vile authorizations under the law, with a duly compliant Congress, both D’s and R’s, having uttered nary-a-peep, and would see all this centralized power handed over to a died-in-the-wool life-long voting Republican Four Star General who has sung the praises of the two successive Bush Administrations over the years? Are Democrats this stupid? Are the people? well, yes “the people are.” But will the Democratic Party elite not see this Trojan Horse afoot, shod with shoddy trappings, this stalking horse for George W. Bush Junior?

 

His job is to guarantee Bush Junior gets reelected. Not himself. His job is to see that no viable Democratic candidate survives the primaries. Only himself! His job, should he miraculously get elected over Bush, which is not in the plan, but plans go awry, is to then run, execute, implement the American-led Empire precisely and pristinely as George Bush Junior would have done.

 

Should the General get elected THE GENERAL will then do an “about-face,” in military jargon, ... guaranteed. He knows how to take orders. FUBAR!

 

“We’ve got to have a new kind of patriotism that recognizes that in times of war or peace democracy requires dialogue, disagreement and the courage to speak out,” General Clark said. “And those who do it should not be condemned, but be praised.”

 

We’ll see how he really feels about dissent if what I have written here becomes common knowledge “out there.” For what this general represents is nothing so much as high treason. And thus Patriot Act I “ought to apply to him” as well as you and I. But that is highly unlikely under Empire’s imperial rule.

 

http://craigbhulet.com