Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 10/06/2003 View Sun 10/05/2003 View Sat 10/04/2003 View Fri 10/03/2003 View Thu 10/02/2003 View Wed 10/01/2003 View Tue 09/30/2003
1
2003-10-06 Home Front
Bush plans to attack 7 Muslim nations: Clark
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Murat 2003-10-06 5:34:49 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 This from an MSNBC opinion article: (http://www.msnbc.com/news/974509.asp?0dm=C16PO)

" As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. … He said it with reproach — with disbelief, almost — at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either."
Posted by Sorge  2003-10-6 6:00:13 AM|| [http://www.forgottenfronts.com/]  2003-10-6 6:00:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 What about Turkey? Didn't make the list? C'mon Murat, spice it up a bit.
Posted by Anonymous 2003-10-6 6:45:59 AM||   2003-10-6 6:45:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Weasel Wesley Clark must be trying to win over the barking moonbat demographic. Secret five-year plans disclosed in casual conversations by anonymous sources! What's he going to bring up next? Black helicopters? Flouride in the water? Mossad agents selling velvet Elvis paintings door-to-door?
Posted by Mike  2003-10-6 6:58:30 AM||   2003-10-6 6:58:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Whatever the truth value what Wesley Clark claims may be, it is a serious one Mike, he is not just a haphazard civilian throwing around with wild remarks you can ignore and laugh about, he is/was one of the US top generals.
Posted by Murat 2003-10-6 7:06:21 AM||   2003-10-6 7:06:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Was. Top General? I thought he got fired. By Clinton no less.
Posted by Rafael 2003-10-6 7:09:50 AM||   2003-10-6 7:09:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 he is not just a haphazard civilian

Um, yes, he is. He's retired, remember?

If there's a super-secret five-year plan to attack 7 nations, then we're running way behind schedule. This smells like more of Clark's peyote-induced pandering, and it getting reported is just more pandering to the moonbat demographic.

Which explains why The Rat believes it.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2003-10-6 7:11:37 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com]  2003-10-6 7:11:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I remember when Clark f&cked up big time for CNN. During the war he made the comment that for immediate bomb damage assesment, he would often turn to CNN (probably hoping to pick up bonus points from the execs). The following day or two Nic Robertson and his CNN crew were booted out of Baghdad. Good one general.
Posted by Rafael 2003-10-6 7:17:47 AM||   2003-10-6 7:17:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 More importantly, Clark is a citizen running for President against Bush. Of course he's going to attack Bush.

He'll have to clarify these remarks. He's going to have a hard time arguing that Iraq was unnecessary. Milosevic looks like Valcav Havel compared to Saddam.

Does anybody in the world doubt that the Pentagon have wargame-hypothetical "plans" for invasion of every single country in the world.

Does Clark think it's okay to go around announcing the content of discussions that occurred at the Pentagon 2 months after 9/11.

This guy gives me the creeps.
Posted by Tokyo Taro 2003-10-6 7:36:17 AM||   2003-10-6 7:36:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.

If this is true, I can't believe Clark disclosed extremely sensitive internal deliberations for political gain. I would call this nothing less than traitorous. (At the same time, this may help to scare the crap out of the countries mentioned, which may not be a bad thing).
Posted by Zhang Fei  2003-10-6 7:39:56 AM||   2003-10-6 7:39:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Full combat ops against seven nations within a five year period is logistically impossible. For example: Iran would require even more troops than Iraq to occupy. And notice that the fact that we have to keep sufficient troops avaiable to be a credible threat to North Korea hasn't even been factored in yet. So if the plans that General Clark (and his source) mention are correct and current, they must be discussing operations far short of war.

In any case, the fact that Clark is willing to discuss this sort of staff out loud for political gain just graduated him from a "guy I don't agree with" to a "goddamned fool and menace" in record time.
Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-10-6 7:58:36 AM||   2003-10-6 7:58:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I seriously doubt that the conversation Clark describes actually took place.

Remember his claim that the "White House" called him on September 11 to recruit him to claim that Saddam was involved? Turned out, after people pressured Clark to give details, that the phone call was from some guy in Toronto.

Clark strikes me as one of these guys who makes things up, or embellishes, to get attention.

(By the way, I sincerely hope someone in the Pentagon is working up war plans for Syria and Iran. That's what they're paid to do--plan for all sorts of contingencies. Just remember, the fact that plans exist doesn't mean that there's a present intent to use them.)
Posted by Mike  2003-10-6 8:52:37 AM||   2003-10-6 8:52:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 If the conversation didn't take place then it tells LOTS about Wesley Clark. If it did take
place airing it borders treason and could let
him open to prosecution
Posted by JFM  2003-10-6 9:00:22 AM||   2003-10-6 9:00:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I think this needs to be confirmed by the high ranking staff member who Clark was speaking to. Otherwise he is just talking out of his ass (again).

Bringing this kind of thing up *now* with things like they are is pretty farking insensitive to our troops who are over there. This kind of talk can get some killed. If someone gets killed because Clark revealed these 'alledged' plans then , at least in my book, Clark would be at least partially to blame for their deaths. This is, at least, the second time Clark has revealed sensitive information in his campain.

The fact that Clark is the type who would beleave in a 5 year plan to invade 7 (count them 7!) countries - which is, as has been noted, logicistically and militarily impossible even for us, show what kind of an idiot he is.
Posted by CrazyFool 2003-10-6 9:38:52 AM||   2003-10-6 9:38:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 You gotta know that liberal media outlets like NPR (Not Particularly Relevant) are undoubtedly giddy with excitement over this pronouncement. It provides them with ammo until Nov 2004. It will be hilarious to watch the left fall apart next year.

On the other hand, wiping out Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al, would not break my heart in least.
Posted by badanov  2003-10-6 9:46:07 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org/weblog]  2003-10-6 9:46:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Invading 7 countries in 5 years is not impossible, keeping it occupied maybe yes but invading definitively not, we are talking here about countries like Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Libya (Even their combined armies have a power you laugh about).

But apart from that even if Clark's claims are doubtfull they remain claims of a civilian running for President, which gives a lot of food for talk.
Posted by Murat 2003-10-6 9:54:40 AM||   2003-10-6 9:54:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Do you think that by naming names of the countries on our list of hostiles that 'terrorism' will be reduced?

I wonder if covert actions are being undertaken in this war of political terrorism ?
Posted by Bruce 2003-10-6 10:04:16 AM||   2003-10-6 10:04:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I can easily imagine a member of the Pentagon staff sayiing this to Wesley Clark.

However, I can also imagine that same officer rolling his eyes and grinning as he walked away. I can further imagine this same officer telliing his friends about this conversation in the Officer's club later that day (and for many days to come)

"Geez, as soon as I said that, Wes' eyes just lit up -- he looked like a kid who got a pony for Christmas!"
"Aw, c'mon Hugh... you didn't *really* tell him seven countries, did ya?"

To get a sense of how this would work, Murat, imagine Fred's face as he types the following: "You're absolutely right, Murat -- I hadn't thought of that before"
Posted by snellenr  2003-10-6 10:08:36 AM||   2003-10-6 10:08:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 they remain claims of a civilian running for President, which gives a lot of food for talk

Murat, just because someone says they're interested in being president doesn't make what they say anymore reliable or knowledgable. Furthermore, Clark's been acting like a flake, and this latest statement is just more flakiness.

You believe it because it confirms your prejudices. Step away from your hatred and listen to the assessments people have given above.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2003-10-6 10:12:39 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com]  2003-10-6 10:12:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 7 countries? Now if he'd said 19.....
Posted by Shipman 2003-10-6 10:15:12 AM||   2003-10-6 10:15:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I am not pro-Clark and certainly not pro-Bush, but I heard no denouncements from the republicans about these claims.

By the way I never said I do believe these claims are reliable, nevertheless they are important claims which can have big impact (even if they are lies) like Bush's claim of WMD weapons.
Posted by Murat 2003-10-6 10:28:54 AM||   2003-10-6 10:28:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 I heard no denouncements from the republicans about these claims.

Of course not. No one feels a need to respond to everything a madman says; you haven't heard anyone responding to Kucinich's call for a "Department of Peace", either.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2003-10-6 10:33:10 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com]  2003-10-6 10:33:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Clark's dangerously deranged - I'm really glad he's out of the military now
Posted by Frank G  2003-10-6 10:42:25 AM||   2003-10-6 10:42:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Murat-
Let me just say this, and I am sure that some of our regulars can back me up:
First, I would not be at all surprised to find that there are dusty contingency plans still resting in some safe somewhere that deal with a US war with Canada. Considering that in November 2001 we were still trying to get a grip on the nature of the attacks against us, it seems reasonable that some of our military planners - who are paid to think of these things - would have come up with contingency plans for attacks on any nation that we knew to be harboring terrorists. Interestingly enough, that list is identical to the one noted by General Clark. His statements here are at BEST disingenuous, and worst flat out distortions. I would be very, very surprised if somewhere in Ankara there weren't very tightly guarded contingency plans for the unilateral invasion of Iraq.
Secondly - and I really think that this is proof that General Clark hasn't thought this through too well - since he is running on (among other things) his military skill, knowledge, and experience, his claiming that he was surprised by this is - to me at least - utterly unbelieveable. One does not simply 'create' contingency plans. They are carefully, methodically put together over years, and not just assembled on the spur of the moment. For him to say that he was surprised says that either he was a really lousy 4-star or he is not telling the full truth.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2003-10-6 10:51:35 AM||   2003-10-6 10:51:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 I had a dream that Wesley Clark was elected President, but when it came time for the inauguration, it was Ramsey Clark who was sworn in, and no one noticed the difference.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2003-10-6 10:56:34 AM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com]  2003-10-6 10:56:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Damn! I musta fallen off the Secret 5 Year Invasion Plan mailing list somehow. I hate it when that happens...
Posted by mojo  2003-10-6 11:03:23 AM||   2003-10-6 11:03:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Mike wrote: I seriously doubt that the conversation Clark describes actually took place. Remember his claim that the "White House" called him on September 11 to recruit him to claim that Saddam was involved? Turned out, after people pressured Clark to give details, that the phone call was from some guy in Toronto.

Here is Paul Greenberg's account of this event, read it before you take anything Clark has to say seriously:
Posted by Biff Wellington 2003-10-6 11:05:00 AM||   2003-10-6 11:05:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 its time we deal with our enemies. as time goes on they will only become stronger. these are countries that for over 20 years (since the bastards in tehran took over our embassy - revenge will be sweet) have espoused nothing but hatred and contempt for us, have wished us to be destroyed. and this has not just been talk - for way too long the united states pussy footed around with these regimes (remember billy - another fucking frog weasel). now we have bush - and he is not taking no bullshit and these same countries are now crying about america the threat to world peace. well you get what you reap.
Posted by Dan 2003-10-6 11:05:49 AM||   2003-10-6 11:05:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Sorry, my link to Paul Greenberg didn't appear. Let's try again:
Paul Greenberg on Wesley Clark
Posted by Biff Wellington 2003-10-6 11:17:57 AM||   2003-10-6 11:17:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Angie - ROFLMAO - perrrrfect!

Murat - ANYone born an American citizen who is not a felon and at least 35 (? I think this is correct ?) can run for President. Why even you, were you to meet those simple requirements, could toss your fez into the ring. THEN the fun would begin...

[rant]
Re: Clark
I wonder about all of those review boards which kept promoting this zero. Surely there were signs along the way. Perhaps those fitness reports were written by similarly self-aggrandizing ass-kissing suck-up wanna-bees. I knew some Majors who'd call a fire mission into the Michelin Plantation to save a patrol - but then that's why they were passed over and tapped out as Majors. Clark prolly zoomed through these salad-days without batting an eye -- wearing knee-pads, of course, as he gave those boards the required knobjob.
[/rant]

I think he'll make a fine Donk candidate. I look forward to it. I will truly enjoy watching him go down in flames in the process - and have this wart on the American military removed once and for all.
Posted by .com 2003-10-6 11:24:30 AM||   2003-10-6 11:24:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 General Clark is not a civilian - he is a general officer relieved of active duty and transferred to the Retired Reserve, just the same as the rest of us retirees. He is still liable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and will be for as long as he lives.

His attack on George Bush is a disaster for him, no matter what falls out. Either he's a damned fool that shoots off his mouth too much, or he's a traitor, disclosing classified information during wartime. Either way, he's proven he's a loser, and a loose cannon that needs to be physically restrained. The fact that what he's saying is mostly politically-motivated fabrication, it's easy to see why the Clintons love him - he's another congenital liar, just like them. The fact that this moonbat maroon is the current front-runner for the Democratic Party says a lot about the Democrats, and not any of it nice.
Posted by Old Patriot  2003-10-6 11:35:08 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2003-10-6 11:35:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 .com-
Well, think about this: First in his class, ring-knocking Rhodes Scholar in the MacNamara era. Pretty much explains everything to me. One can NOT denigrate his courage in the field - he earned that Silver Star. But on the other hand, if a brilliant, heroic, wounded combat commander in one of the highest positions the US military then had to offer hadn't gotten pissed at the leadership which didn't seem to recognize his gifts (sound familiar?)...there'd be a Fort Arnold right now.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2003-10-6 11:54:15 AM||   2003-10-6 11:54:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 New campaign theme song for Wesley:
Seven Nation Army by the White Stripes
Posted by Frank G  2003-10-6 12:02:46 PM||   2003-10-6 12:02:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 I don't fault Murat for believing this crap. He's reacting to the best information he's got. In fact, I'd say he's doing us a favor by letting us know that Clark's statements are getting play around the world.

Clark's statements, if taken seriously, are likely to get some of our troops dead. It appears they are being taken seriously.
Posted by Dishman  2003-10-6 12:07:46 PM||   2003-10-6 12:07:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 So - is "the general" guessing, or does he know? Because if he knows this for a fact, then I would imagine that releasing information that is likely to get people killed is likely a violation of law of some sort. If hes just guessing, then whats all the hoo-haw?

Say, Dont they have a word for people who reveal secret plans to the enemy and put american troops at risk?
Posted by frank martin  2003-10-6 12:20:42 PM||   2003-10-6 12:20:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Mike - Can you point to the authoritative sources that convince you he earned his Silver Star?

Re: West Point
First in class looks mighty nifty on your bio / headstone, but proof of zilch. Getting through the hazing and actually acquiring knowledge does indicate fortitude, backbone, and gumption. I wonder where they went, since?

Re: Rhodes Scholarship
BTW, Clinton was almost a Rhodes Scholar - but since he didn't finish, he is not a Rhodes Scholar. And regards the scholarship and the selection of candidates, it isn't pure academics - it's social engineering, with all of the pitfalls and politics. Remember, Clinton received his offer when he was an aide to Senator Fullbright (or was that Halfbright?)- and when the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee campaigns on your behalf, you get a leg up, so to speak. Note that the scholarship choices are made by US committees, so Halfbright certainly was a 900 lb gorilla in their deliberations. Here's a link that gets everything right - except the very last thing - that Clinton is one.
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/6-29-01askeds.html

Re: Intelligence
I offer the following entertaining, and instructive, link - read the whole thing, it may put a different spin on Clark's intellect.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/silveira010729.html

Personally, my IQ is one point less than Marilyn vos Savant's (bitch!). Prolly why I never amounted to anything but an old guy living in heaven Thailand.
Posted by .com 2003-10-6 12:38:44 PM||   2003-10-6 12:38:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Wow so much fodder this early! Murat, I have no doubt that there is a contingency plan to invade seven countries in 5 years. There are also war plans (we called the OPLANs) to invade: Korea, Russia, PRC, India, Columbia, etc). The people at the War Colleges develop these plans for contingencies. The fact that Wealsy Clark leaked SPECIFIC OPLAN information may open him up to charges under the UCMJ. Furthermore, Weasly Clark was the BIGGEST ass kisser with stars. He would have been retired with one star if it hadn’t been for his buddy (and classmate) Slick Willey. Because of all his back stabbing, NOBODY on the JCS attended his retirement ceremony. This is UNPRECEDENTED for someone of four-star rank. This leads me to believe that most (if not all) officers in the Pentagon are avoiding him like the plague and wouldn’t think of passing him OPLANs. What’s all the fascination with this guy anyway? He hasn’t been right with one prediction or pronouncement so far.
Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)  2003-10-6 12:41:38 PM||   2003-10-6 12:41:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 I'm disapponted that Monaco isn't on the list. Maybe they can make room for an eighth? After what they did to Grace Kelly (suuuure, it was an accident!), and because their flag looks so much like Poland's, they're just asking for it!

Additionally, according to the CIA Fact Book, their defense is France's responsibility, so the invasion should take about... oh, an afternoon, tops.
Posted by Dar  2003-10-6 12:59:21 PM||   2003-10-6 12:59:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Is this the same Clark who was essentially FIRED from his position as head of NATO? The same Clark that say he would have dont the same thing as Bush, then re-tracted that statement and said the opposite? The same Clark that wanted to shut down a major airport because of his paranioa, and in a British general refused saying " I won't start WW3 for you" ?!

Clark has offered no solution to the economic troubles of our country ( The stock market is rising more and more ), no solution to the Terrorist equation, no opinion on education, no solution for the deficit ( Which we can most certainly afford with our rising economy), and his slogan is basically " Bush is bad, Clark is good! "

If this guy debates Bush he'll be torn to shreds. And why hasn't any of his fellow coleagues stood up in his defense, active or retired? All they've done is say not to elect him. Also, isn't this the guy who had a STEALTH FIGHTER shot down while he was in command?

I would sooner believe a leprechaun on my shoulder than Clark.
Posted by Charles  2003-10-6 1:11:32 PM||   2003-10-6 1:11:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 So several months after 9-11, Clark visits the Pentagon and discovers that the US is planning attacks on countries that are known to harbor terrorists.

Clark is so appalled that he begins to call Karl Rove and appear at Republican fundraisers.

Why specifically was he fired? Did he fail a drug test?
Posted by Superhose  2003-10-6 1:15:11 PM||   2003-10-6 1:15:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 All I can say is 7 isn't enough. And if anything this makes me support the WOT more. Kill 'em all and let Allah sort them out.
Posted by spiffo 2003-10-6 2:28:49 PM||   2003-10-6 2:28:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 

Steyn on Clark
Posted by Ernest Brown 2003-10-6 3:40:30 PM|| [saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2003-10-6 3:40:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Sgt. Stryker's Clark Bar Archives-take note of the first entry
Posted by Ernest Brown 2003-10-6 3:55:30 PM|| [saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]  2003-10-6 3:55:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Well, I'm not sure which is scariest:

1- Angela's dream about Ramsey Clark becoming president (LMAO)

2- Wes Clark making four stars or

3- PD having an IQ equal to Marilyn's.
Posted by Matt 2003-10-6 4:43:06 PM||   2003-10-6 4:43:06 PM|| Front Page Top

00:51 R. McLeod
00:36 R. McLeod
00:25 Paul Moloney
00:04 Uncle Joe
23:47 Uncle Joe
22:41 Ed Becerra
22:29 Ed Becerra
21:54 Igs
21:39 Hyper
21:31 Steve
21:31 Frank G
20:35 Old Patriot
20:34 Frank G
20:34 RLS
19:55 Frank G
19:54 Old Patriot
19:44 Ptah
19:25 Shipman
19:24 Tokyo Taro
19:05 Steve White
19:00 Anonymous
18:53 Braniac
18:53 Fred
18:46 Anonymous
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com