4-Star General Wesley Clark was told about Libyan War in 2001

[rambone]

This is very revealing. A 4-star General explains in his own words that even the president doesn't have much say in why the U.S. goes to war. He gets "memos" that tell him what to do. The president is a puppet. The Puppetmasters have been planning the Libyan War since at least 2001.


This video is from 2007, discussing meetings with Bush in 2001. Now, Obama is enacting a slightly revised version of the same plan.

YouTube - Can a 4 star General Talk Like a Truther? Try to Debunk a General Wesley Clark! (study his bio)

 

[dross]

This is silly for several reasons:

1. Wesley Clark is now a Democrat politician. Everything he says must be viewed in that light.
2. Memos are generated all the time outlining all kinds of crazy actions that are never taken. That's how options are formally presented to high level folks. Some are ordered, some the lower staffers create on their own initiative. The fact that Clark saw a memo on planned invasions means exactly NOTHING. If the staffers in the current White House are doing their jobs, memos like that have also been written.

3. Nothing in the video supports your silly assertion that the President is a puppet who doesn't decide who goes to war. Because he gets a memo? Seriously, dude, you're just being silly.

4. Days after 911, I KNEW we would be going to war with Iraq. It was perfectly obvious to me that you couldn't let Saddam remain in power in a post-911 world, and we had every legal and moral justification to take him out based on his repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire. Also, it was the OFFICIAL POLICY of the U.S. to remove Saddam from power since the Clinton Administration.

5. Libya removed itself from being brought down for the same reasons as Iraq because they stopped their WMD program and invited scrutiny. The Iraq war caused Libya to fold.

I like your posts in general, but your conclusions are very silly in this one.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ummm, doesn't the U.S. Militree have plans to go to war with Canada in a drawer in Carlisle, Pennsylvania? Operation: Funny, Round Bacon.

Considering Libya sponsored attacks on the United States in the '80s and Ronnie Raygun sent a few Aardvarks to select locations inside Libya and that we have a Coast Guard station near Libya, why wouldn't we have war plans for Libya?

Isn't making war plans what we pay MI guys to do? I mean, really now, don't you think as giant as the U.S. military is that someone is not, at this very minute, re-formatting plans for the invasion of Albania?

 

[88GT]

This is silly for several reasons:



4. Days after 911, I KNEW we would be going to war with Iraq. It was perfectly obvious to me that you couldn't let Saddam remain in power in a post-911 world, and we had every legal and moral justification to take him out based on his repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire. Also, it was the OFFICIAL POLICY of the U.S. to remove Saddam from power since the Clinton Administration.

OMG, I could just kiss you for that one. I went round and round recently with a friend who continually justified her opposition to the war with Iraq on the silly notion that the claims of WMD were lies and that one single informant did in fact dupe twenty-something intelligence agencies. I repeatedly offered the ceasefire violations as evidence, but she would have none of it. (Never mind that her claim of no WMD was just as much incorrect.)


I don't know about Albania, but I hear LIchtenstein is making some waves.

 

[rambone]

You are right - I'm sure that the Federal Government does pay to have people sit around and draw up invasion plans for every country on the planet. But how do these obscure, nonsensical plans end up on the "Commander"-In-Chief's teleprompter? How do these plans become U.S. Foreign Policy?

Is fighting Libya something we need to do, want to do, have to do? No, no, no.

How then, does Anti-war candidate Barack Obama turn into Pro-War President Barack Obama? He campaigned heavily on being against foreign wars. How does he get convinced to do things that look like a glaring hypocrite? Or did he just have a change of heart on all the wars, on the Patriot Act, on Guantanamo Bay, on hundreds of overseas bases, on detention without trial...

I don't believe that Obama just woke up one day and decided to make himself look like a hypocrite by starting another war. People of influence want this war for whatever reason; maybe to install a world-government-friendly dictator. Obama is anti-war until he gets a memo that tells him otherwise. I think he, and those before him, have a lot less say in the U.S. policy than we are led to believe. Our leaders are aware of the consequences of bucking the system.

 

[dross]

Obama has an election to win. His base doesn't like these wars, but they have nowhere to go, he won't have a serious primary challenge. He doesn't have to run to the left like he did last time. He's trying to appear strong on defense for the election.

After 911, invasion plans for all those countries Clark mentioned make perfect sense to me.

 

[rambone]

After 911, invasion plans for all those countries Clark mentioned make perfect sense to me.

As reelection stunts or as legitimate wars?

Clark mentions that the plan was to invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran; 7 countries in 5 years (2007 up to 2012). Not to mention Afghanistan, the original target.

All this, in response to 19 dead hijackers from Saudi Arabia.

I believe our country's dire financial situation is the biggest threat to our national security. This plan would take us to financial ruin even quicker than we are currently, which says a lot. Waging war on eight different countries would be nothing short of World War 3. Might as well call it Blitzkrieg.

 

[rjstew317]

All this, in response to 19 dead hijackers from Saudi Arabia.

seriously?
it was in response to the 2,976 american citizens that were murdered on our own soil.

 

[rambone]

seriously?
it was in response to the 2,976 american citizens that were murdered on our own soil.

I'm aware. Since it was implied that all these wars were relevant to 9/11, I was making a statement about the 9/11 parties being already dead.

Are we just over there to punish people who had nothing to do with 9/11? Are we just going around looking for anyone who hates American foreign policy and punishing them with wars?

As of 2 years ago, in the Iraq campaign alone, there were more than 1 million casualties of war. At what point are we "even"?

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

 

[rjstew317]

it's more about preemptive measures. the enemies of our nation were empowered and emboldened by what took place here on 9-11. what were we supposed to do, say "sorry my bad! we'll stop being a capitalist, christian based nation and adopt your way of life now"? i don't necessarily agree with how everything has transpired but i do think that military action was required.

 

[dross]

I'm aware. Since it was implied that all these wars were relevant to 9/11, I was making a statement about the 9/11 parties being already dead.

Are we just over there to punish people who had nothing to do with 9/11? Are we just going around looking for anyone who hates American foreign policy and punishing them with wars?

As of 2 years ago, in the Iraq campaign alone, there were more than 1 million casualties of war. At what point are we "even"?

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

Seriously, an article from The Nation?

The studies vary widely from about 98K deaths to as many as 600K. But a million?

Try to have some self respect for your own credibility.

 

[rambone]

Seriously, an article from The Nation?

The studies vary widely from about 98K deaths to as many as 600K. But a million?

I don't know anything about this publication. But I've been hearing this figure for a few years now. Lets assume it is the lowball figure of 98K Iraqis. The point was that if any of this is relevant to 9/11, the guilty parties are dead and 'we' have made 'them' pay many times over.

Do you agree with rjstew, about preemptive measures? Aren't we punishing the wrong people? Aren't we making more enemies for ourselves?

 

[rjstew317]

I don't know anything about this publication. But I've been hearing this figure for a few years now. Lets assume it is the lowball figure of 98K Iraqis. The point was that if any of this is relevant to 9/11, the guilty parties are dead and 'we' have made 'them' pay many times over.

Do you agree with rjstew, about preemptive measures? Aren't we punishing the wrong people? Aren't we making more enemies for ourselves?

i think you may have missed the point of these wars to begin with. the simple fact that we live as a free society and are not bound by what they believe are the laws of their god (sharia law) makes us their enemy. there will be no truce between our society and their belief structure, unless of course we submit and conform to Islam. the mistake you've made is thinking that the enemy is a person or a single group, when in fact it is an ideology.

 

[dross]

I don't know anything about this publication. But I've been hearing this figure for a few years now. Lets assume it is the lowball figure of 98K Iraqis. The point was that if any of this is relevant to 9/11, the guilty parties are dead and 'we' have made 'them' pay many times over.

Do you agree with rjstew, about preemptive measures? Aren't we punishing the wrong people? Aren't we making more enemies for ourselves?

It's not about punishment. Preemption is acceptable to me under certain circumstances. It's not about making them pay. They have been our enemies since "the shores of Tripoli."

 

[U.S. Patriot]

We are nothing more than a modern Rome. We all know what happend to them. Maybe our Gumberment needs a lesson in History!

 

[eatsnopaste]

I don't know anything about this publication. But I've been hearing this figure for a few years now. Lets assume it is the lowball figure of 98K Iraqis. The point was that if any of this is relevant to 9/11, the guilty parties are dead and 'we' have made 'them' pay many times over.

Do you agree with rjstew, about preemptive measures? Aren't we punishing the wrong people? Aren't we making more enemies for ourselves?

You don't know anything about this publication yet you have no compunction about quoting from it? I believe that shows the depth of thought that goes into your posts.
No they haven't paid enough for 9/11, and won't have paid enough until all thoughts of terrorism are driven from their fanatical hearts.

 

[firehawk1]

I believe our country's dire financial situation is the biggest threat to our national security. This plan would take us to financial ruin even quicker than we are currently, which says a lot. Waging war on eight different countries would be nothing short of World War 3. Might as well call it Blitzkrieg.

^100% correct IMO.^

BUT... as far as Clark is concerned, I'd take ANYTHING he says with a grain of salt. IMO he spent too much itime at NATO. Things he has spouted recently have not sounded like something a former US general would say. Again, IMO.

 

[IndyBeerman]

No they haven't paid enough for 9/11, and won't have paid enough until all thoughts of terrorism are driven from their fanatical hearts.

An unwarranted, unprovoked attack on our country in my mind means that there is no boundaries set on what we may do to protect our soil and citizens of this country. If it takes total annihilation of said threat, so be it.

 

[Bond 281]

it's more about preemptive measures. the enemies of our nation were empowered and emboldened by what took place here on 9-11. what were we supposed to do, say "sorry my bad! we'll stop being a capitalist, christian based nation and adopt your way of life now"? i don't necessarily agree with how everything has transpired but i do think that military action was required.

I don't think they give a crap about us being a capitalist christian nation. I think they hate our interference with them. We set up dictators and topple legitimate governments all over the world. If any other country did to us a fraction of the bs we pull all over the world we'd be screaming bloody murder. I would say that it is our foreign policy, and our foreign policy alone, that has made us enemies around the world.

 

[jeremy]

I'm aware. Since it was implied that all these wars were relevant to 9/11, I was making a statement about the 9/11 parties being already dead.

Are we just over there to punish people who had nothing to do with 9/11? Are we just going around looking for anyone who hates American foreign policy and punishing them with wars?

As of 2 years ago, in the Iraq campaign alone, there were more than 1 million casualties of war. At what point are we "even"?

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

Really?!
WTF???

As far as when I think we are even...
Not really ever going to be a good number for me...

I don't know anything about this publication. But I've been hearing this figure for a few years now. Lets assume it is the lowball figure of 98K Iraqis. The point was that if any of this is relevant to 9/11, the guilty parties are dead and 'we' have made 'them' pay many times over.

Do you agree with rjstew, about preemptive measures? Aren't we punishing the wrong people? Aren't we making more enemies for ourselves?

You really need to study up on the Peoples who have already made you Their Enemy...