Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Wesley Clark's New Memoir -"Plans to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years"
afterdowningstreet.org — In "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country," published last month, the former four-star general recalls visits to the Pentagon following 9-11. On the first visit, less than two weeks after 9-11, he writes, a "senior general" told him, "We're going to attack Iraq. The decision has basically been made...Iraq and Syria, then Iran."
polymath22- 838 diggs
- digg it
- duggtodeath, on 10/16/2007, -7/+61Can't wait for the right-wingers to call Clark a libturd for reporting on what senior military officials actually told him.
- Ryalnos, on 10/16/2007, -14/+1Use a real source :).
- Phyltre, on 10/28/2007, -1/+16Be careful here. This political system exists as it does--only two sides, that are supposedly opposites (even though recently that's not the case)--to suck you in. It kind of sounds like a conspiracy, but look at Congress since Democrats got a majority. What changed? Didn't Clinton say she wouldn't pull out of Iraq if she were elected? Didn't Pelosi say impeachment is off the table? Does this sound like opposition to you? Apart from a few pet projects like health care, the agenda is the same for both sides of the aisle these days. No wonder the Republicans and Democrats agreed, last Presidential election, to engage in no televised debates in which a third-party candidate was present.
Two heads, one coin.- obliviousfool, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1This is why I will never vote for Clinton. She represents a false choice.
- obliviousfool, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Clark also made this same statement in his last book; In '03(?), when he was running for president. It's not a new revelation. It never ceases to amaze me that this statement didn't get more attention back then. He re-iterated this message a few time in interviews. Since then, the message has apparently become a mainstay of his book tour. Still, every time this statement falls on fresh ears it creates an impact. Strangely, that impact never culminates into anything.
- pintomp3, on 10/16/2007, -8/+32damn phony generals.
- mikewhite314, on 10/16/2007, -0/+18He has been one of the leading military voices against the Iran war, running the organization Stop the Iran War. I wonder what he thinks of his endorsement of Hillary Clinton now that she has voted for the Lieberman bill.
- CatManDoIt, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5The Lieberman bill that Clinton voted for was watered down. Clinton is in a difficult spot, although I would like her to follow up with the additional bill that clarifies that Congressional approach is required before going to war:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/clinton ...
It is important to understand that Wes Clark is not simply anti-war though, he is not a pacifist, rather he believes in the intelligent use of war. For example, here is a recent op-ed he wrote about how and went one should go to war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...- pintomp3, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4she defended it by saying the iranian national guard is a terrorist organization. we have to stop putting that label on anything that doesn't conform to our interests. it's starting to lose all meaning. i realize she has to say these things to keep the AIPAC support, but it's so transparent.
- SiNN4R, on 10/16/2007, -1/+4She was only following orders.
- otheruser, on 10/16/2007, -0/+9Though the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment was watered down, it still labeled the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Should a situation ever arise, Cheney's lawyers will easily be able to construe this bill as Congressional approval for counter-Iranian action.
But that's not the point. Out of all the candidates, Hillary has the most neocon-flavored foreign policy. It's absolutely horrendous. Even the Israelis are denouncing her hawkish, Bush-like plans:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_note ...
- CatManDoIt, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5The Lieberman bill that Clinton voted for was watered down. Clinton is in a difficult spot, although I would like her to follow up with the additional bill that clarifies that Congressional approach is required before going to war:
- ZenFountain, on 10/16/2007, -1/+11fuuuuuuuck!
- PhairOh, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3There's something ironic about the above comment coming from someone named "ZenFountain"
- mikewhite314, on 10/16/2007, -6/+34The impeachable offenses are really piling up.
- Hobbes24, on 10/16/2007, -3/+2i don't think that:
"this is totally what some un-named general told me! honest!"
is going to count as credible evidence...or hold up during an impeachment hearing. - archimago42, on 10/16/2007, -4/+4Planning war is not an impeachable offense.
- Hobbes24, on 10/16/2007, -3/+2i don't think that:
- wetmetalthong, on 10/15/2007, -11/+6Clark TRIED to run for president. He didn't say this stuff then. This is probably why he was running, and as of now, he hasn't made a move to run. He can as a democrat last election and lost in the primaries. I doubt he'll run this time, since he's not currently in the primaries. He'll probably vote for Ron Paul.
- Hipple, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Probably not
- CatManDoIt, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1wetmetalthong wrote: "He'll probably vote for Ron Paul."
Wes Clark has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton, thus it is incredibly unlikely he will vote for Ron Paul.
- yomamaisfat, on 10/16/2007, -6/+36Wow, Canada is looking really good to me right now.
- cmackattack, on 10/15/2007, -2/+9actually canada = america as does mexico; please see http://spp.gov/ and think of packing bags for Norway or Iceland Should be nice in a few more years with the temp rising....
- F1R3DUP, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2don't bother, Canada will be part of the NAU very soon. Best bet is to buy an island somewhere.
- RogerStrong, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Dream on. The weak point in the NAU conspiracy theories is that Canada would never join.
- RogerStrong, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Dream on. The weak point in the NAU conspiracy theories is that Canada would never join.
- RogerStrong, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Yeah, but Canada always looked good.
- supertaliman, on 10/15/2007, -4/+0Looks like someone's fuked up...
- mmykle, on 10/15/2007, -0/+31.4 countries a year! is he really attempting the impossible?
- Ryalnos, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Oh wait, that was 6 years ago.
- SeekerDarksteel, on 10/15/2007, -1/+0Hey, if our only goal was to depose the current leadership and get out as soon as possible it would be easily accomplished. The US military is great at taking out established armies. It's that whole implementing a stable democratic government while fighting against a distributed covert insurgency they tend to not be so hot at.
- Trozz, on 10/15/2007, -3/+4So much hate...
- wakananda, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3You'd better start getting angry yourself, because if you think any Gandhiesque performance is going to slow these psychos down, you are mistaken. Gandhi hiimself said satryhagrahi would not have worked against the Nazis, because they were beyond human compassion - the British still had their fundamental decency. That is what you are dealing with: inhumanity. Face it. Examine it. Analyze it. Because when it is done with the people between it and it's oil/money/power, it is coming for YOU. Allow the fear to pass, and then get ANGRY. Fascism is an infection, and you are the world's immune system. Heal the world. Do what you have to do. Don't wait until they come to your door.
- p0ss, on 10/16/2007, -2/+16 FTA
"...And we've got five, maybe 10, years to clean up these old Soviet surrogate regimes like Iraq and Syria before the next superpower emerges to challenge us ... We could have a little more time, but no one really knows." -Paul Wolfowitz
By god I hate that man. It is as if the term "War mongerer" was invented purely for him.- psygnisfive, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3Because heaven forbid there were some other major world power that could pose an actual political rival to the US on the world stage...
- p0ss, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2No, Bacause he believes that military force is a justifiable means, and indeed motivation, to enforce his political point of view.
"Military superiority does not grant moral superiority," - Me
- p0ss, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2No, Bacause he believes that military force is a justifiable means, and indeed motivation, to enforce his political point of view.
- psygnisfive, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3Because heaven forbid there were some other major world power that could pose an actual political rival to the US on the world stage...
- CatManDoIt, on 10/16/2007, -2/+17A bunch of prominent Neoconservatives surrounding Bush immediately after 9/11 also served as advisors to Israeli PM Netanyahu in the mid-1990s. During that time advising Netanyahu they wrote a policy document called "A Clean Break" for him. Within this document, they proposed that Israel dispose Saddan Hussain in Iraq, and strike Lebanon, Syria and Iran in order to enhance Israel's strategic position in the Middle East (shift the "balance of power" more in Israel's favor.) It does seem that in the wake of 9/11 these Neoconservatives just pulled this plan out of their desk drawers and gave it to Bush. That's the script we have been following since. You can read more about that document here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_ ...- p0ss, on 10/16/2007, -0/+8If thats the script, these guys are writing the screenplay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A ...- CheeseburgerBro, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1"I love it, I love it. I really think Fox is going to bite, babe.
Just one thing: can we sex it up a bit? I'm thinking we start by swapping Jesus and for a hot chick and making the Syrians into Wookiees.
What do you think? I smell a franchise.
Call me."
- CheeseburgerBro, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1"I love it, I love it. I really think Fox is going to bite, babe.
- p0ss, on 10/16/2007, -0/+8If thats the script, these guys are writing the screenplay
- bingobongony, on 10/15/2007, -14/+3IT has been WELL established that Wesley Clark is a psycho.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/16/2007, -1/+7IT has ALSO been WELL established that bush is a psycho, and you are a complete douche.
- heatmiser, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1It has been even BETTER established that Digg is full of leftist pussies. Case in point : amsterdamordeth
- amsterdamordeth, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3I am neither left nor right. I am reverse.
- heatmiser, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1It has been even BETTER established that Digg is full of leftist pussies. Case in point : amsterdamordeth
- halfabean, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5this could possibly be the most stupid comment ive ever read on digg. congratulations bingo.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/16/2007, -1/+7IT has ALSO been WELL established that bush is a psycho, and you are a complete douche.
- Groovemaster, on 10/16/2007, -1/+12More death for money. America's biggest business.
- krnldmp, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3Under Israel.
- SpykerSpeed, on 10/15/2007, -11/+5Didn't Clarke directly contradict himself at one point during his campaign? Why do we afford him any credibility?
- supertaliman, on 10/15/2007, -4/+1Looks like someone messed up somewhere...
- LoJack, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3How else do you suggest we dominate the world?
- coffee200am, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3Heh...What it doesn't mention is the fact that Russia and China would love for the US to "get rid" of some of the regimes created by the US and the Soviets during the cold war. Russia and China are now emerging as Economic power houses.China faster than Russia. They need easy energy. So does the US. The joint control over the current "easy to get at" oil reserves in the ME would be crucial to the immediate long term development of Russia and China and a benefit to the US. China and Russia would very much rather deal with the US than Islamic fundamentalists. Europe doesn't matter.
- Grimsrud, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3There isn't any oil in Lebanon, Sudan or Somalia, and Syria produces very little (175,000 barrels a day against Iraq's 1.5 million), Oil certainly plays a part, but it's a shame to see it given as the only reason for our wars amongst the opposition when we have a massive Zionist lobby backed by billions of dollars and a gargantuan military-industrial complex that needs war desperately.
- heatmiser, on 10/16/2007, -4/+1"Zionist lobby?" LOL..
- Observant1, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1theres untapped oil those places, but they are more notorious for the drug production, ask poppy bush
- Grimsrud, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3There isn't any oil in Lebanon, Sudan or Somalia, and Syria produces very little (175,000 barrels a day against Iraq's 1.5 million), Oil certainly plays a part, but it's a shame to see it given as the only reason for our wars amongst the opposition when we have a massive Zionist lobby backed by billions of dollars and a gargantuan military-industrial complex that needs war desperately.
- coldkodiak, on 10/15/2007, -3/+4There are hawkish generals in the military, that's not a secret.
But just because one says what he thought at the time, doesn't mean those sort of plans were drawn up as a course of action. I have no doubt that some people would have liked it to happen, but I'm also sure others would have been less enthusiastic.
Point is, obviously, the U.S. hasn't invaded those countries, and the way things are going, the U.S. will not anytime soon anyways.- CatManDoIt, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4Clark is not describing a bunch of separate invasion/attack plans, but rather a plan that involves attacking/striking/invading each of these countries in a series. Thus it is a coherent plan for reshaping the Middle East by force. It isn't a coincidence that Iraq and Lebanon have been attacked with significant pressure now focusing on Iran.
- coldkodiak, on 10/16/2007, -3/+3What Clarke described as being the plan in 2001, simply didn't happen. End of Story.
The Lebanese war meanwhile was instigated by an Iranian proxy force, and it was against Israel not the U.S. So that's irrelevant, and contrary to your point anyways.
and I highly doubt the U.S. (or I suppose Israel) will attack Iran or invade it in a fashion that would constitute anything more than just peppering (heavily) their nuclear facilities; but that would be it.
We're not talking about Iraq part 2.
- coldkodiak, on 10/16/2007, -3/+3What Clarke described as being the plan in 2001, simply didn't happen. End of Story.
- krnldmp, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Nah, them plans been drawn up jes fer fun.
- CatManDoIt, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4Clark is not describing a bunch of separate invasion/attack plans, but rather a plan that involves attacking/striking/invading each of these countries in a series. Thus it is a coherent plan for reshaping the Middle East by force. It isn't a coincidence that Iraq and Lebanon have been attacked with significant pressure now focusing on Iran.
- pleiadianagenda, on 10/16/2007, -1/+13What a coincidence. It's the same 7 countries PNAC wanted to invade a YEAR before 9-11.
- archimago42, on 10/16/2007, -0/+6While the idea seems pretty shocking at this point in time, it was pretty much par for the course just a few years ago. (A few meaning Cold War and earlier imperialism). Mysteriously, everyone in powerful countries just keeps on voting assholes into power who think this way. I think people of low intelligence or simply ignorant people are extremely prone to Fascism. Until we actually provide remotely adequate education to EVERYONE these problems and conflicts will intensify until WWIII.
- dgillz, on 10/15/2007, -2/+3Gen Clark freely admits that it wasn't necessarily a plan for execution, but this had all been discussed in various pentagon circles. I paper plan, so to speak, not a real one. I hope to God that we now, and the next administration, has paper plans to invade all the countries mentioned in this article. If we do not the our commander in chief is derelict in his/her duty. If this is NOT done this is grounds for impeachment.
- eagles2k3, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3Exactly. The diggtards mistake planning for actual execution. There's this thing called being prepared, and I think that's something I'd put on the list of mandatory qualities for a president or maybe someone responsible for one or more branches of the armed forces. What do the armed forces do again? I guess they should be drawing up plans to fly kites or make candles.
- CatManDoIt, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3You are spinning. Clark isn't talking about separate invasion/strike plans but a plan to attack 7 nations in 5 years. There is a significant difference, but you obviously know that.
- KingBunny, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4"Planning war is not an impeachable offense."
What about planning for a war, planning on ways of TRICKING other countries into war, using lies to get INTO war, blatantly lying that you have "no plans to go to war" when you've already essentially "bought the ticket" to war, and THEN having your lies publicly discovered? Plus.. you know.. all that other Constitution-breaking America-destroying stuff..... - mysticjim, on 10/16/2007, -1/+6this article got me to try to figure out where the US has sent it's military and/or covert forces. Here's what I came up with, did I miss anything?
AFGHANISTAN
ALBANIA
ANGOLA
ANTIGUA
ARGENTINA
AUSTRIA
BAHAMAS
BAHRAIN
BERMUDA
BOLIVIA
BOSNIA
BRAZIL
BULGARIA
CAMBODIA
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
CHAD
CHILE
CHINA
COLOMBIA
CROATIA
CUBA
CYPRUS
DJIBOUTI
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
DR OF CONGO
EAST TIMOR
ECUADOR
EGYPT
EL SALVADOR
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
ERITREA
ETHIOPIA
FIJI
FRANCE
GABON
GEORGIA
GERMANY
GREECE
GREENLAND
GRENADA
GUAM
GUATEMALA
GUYANA
HAITI
HONDURAS
HUNGARY
ICELAND
INDIA
INDONESIA
IRAN
IRAQ
ISRAEL
ITALY
IVORY COAST
JAMAICA
JAPAN
KENYA
KOREA
KUWAIT
LAOS
LEBANON
LIBERIA
LIBYA
MACEDONIA
MAURITANIA
MEXICO
MONTENEGRO
MOROCCO
NEWFOUNDLAND
NICARAGUA
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PALESTINE
PANAMA
PARAGUAY
PERU
PHILIPPINES
PUERTO RICO
QATAR
ROMANIA
RUSSIA
RWANDA
SAMOA
SAUDI ARABIA
SENEGAL
SERBIA
SIERRA LEONE
SOMALIA
ST. LUCIA
SUDAN
SURINAME
SYRIA
TAIWAN
TANZANIA
THAILAND
TRINIDAD
TURKEY
UAE
UNITED STATES
URUGUAY
VENEZUELA
VIETNAM
VIRGIN ISLANDS
WEST VIRGINIA
YEMEN
YUGOSLAVIA- k3ano, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3I don't think you missed anything. William Blum's book "Killing Hope" talks about quite a lot of these interventions in detail.
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.h ... - geddon, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Where'd you get this information? I've been looking for a list of American Imperialism but haven't found any good sources.
- URnotheonly1, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2McDonald's /Star bucks Imperialism! Shhhh, they are everywhere, this isn't natural, it's some kind of whacked out conspiracy.
- thewatchman, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1...and there hasn't been a world war in sixty years, thanks U.S.! oh, and btw, an empire generally exacts tribute from its vassal states, the U.S. _gives_ money to other countries-- the U.S. is the opposite of an empire.
- k3ano, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1You shouldn't be thanking the US for preventing another world war. The US is the reason we are on the brink of one.
- k3ano, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3I don't think you missed anything. William Blum's book "Killing Hope" talks about quite a lot of these interventions in detail.
- adaire, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1link to original article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/12/we ...
- scott2007, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1Well, gosh, a powerful nation is moving to eliminate its enemies and extend its power and wealth? That's just shocking.
- URnotheonly1, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0theres gambling in there?
- gummih, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5I guess this plan fell through when Israel failed to get Syria to lash out. Or maybe it just means they will forget about Syria until later.
- partickle, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2Oh please. Clark is a muppet. World-Class arse-kisser, out of control egomaniac. Ask anyone that knows the real Wesley Clark.
Look up all the instances where he praises the Bush Administration (before bashing Bush was 'Cool' )
Nothing he says is worth a single vibrating air molecule. - cheekybastard, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Change can only come from a barrel of a gun. WTF democratic value is that?
- URnotheonly1, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Still have troops in Bosina/Kosovo. 200000 mass graves??? where?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by