Gen. Wesley Clark, Iran and Other Secrets
3.03.2007
Interesting revelations in this interview. A must read.
If you want to see the underpinnings of US Policy and politics, read this.
Interview excerpt <- this link. Via Democracy now:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq -- the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name.
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 3/03/2007,
,
Vermont lawmakers to call for Bush impeachment
4.28.2006
News of the day: Bush impeachement! No this is not John Stuart:
BURLINGTON — A Progressive lawmaker today will introduce a formal resolution in the state Legislature calling on Congress to draft articles of impeachment against Pres. George W. Bush. Rep. Dave Zuckerman, P-Burlington, claims support from at least a dozen lawmakers, including Democrats, Progressives and one independent, and expects to have more co-signers before handing the resolution into the House clerk later today.
Will the republican-controlled congress vote republican or if this prospers, would they vote away from party lines to preserve their grip on their constituents? Big question: how many people want another war, re: Iran, started by the same president?
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, Politics, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 4/28/2006,
,
US-vs-Iran: Think Again!
4.14.2005
An update on the US-vs-Iran posts --- Here's what Yahoonews via Reuters says about t:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States will decide this summer whether to pursue a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program at the United Nations Security Council, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Thursday
Nobody wants war. Not me, not them, not you. Well, maybe some do. Still, even the past Pope warned about the war on Iraq did he? If he is still alive, he will be against an invasion of Iran, too. "Never again war," he says. How apt.
We are in the midst of a propaganda war, a friend of mine observes. Isn't this how it has been since Desert Storm? If you know the story of CNN you know what I'm talking about. Interestingly, strides in technology and the advent of the Internet created new methodologies for misinformation and counter-propaganda.
I have seen websites from both sides (US and Iran) arguing on the capabilities of both sides. I have even read a war scenario document. While these are largely speculation from theorists, pseudo-historians or mere hobbyists, they cannot be counted merely as so. It seems to this author that all these are part of a propaganda similar to the Mutually Assured Destruction initiatives during the cold war. Never again war, it will be too costly. Even if there is business afterwards, the political backlash on the domestic front - and on a global scale (not to mention how History will judge the Bush administration and that of Iran) even that is on the table now.
The choice: either back down in the name of diplomacy. Stop the pissing contest and go back to the negotiation table. Avoid loses. Avoid casualties. Avoid political problems. Or did I get it wrong ??? Is this a bait to see how Iran reacts?
I wouldn't know I guess. All I can say is --- as if this is a battle of two tough guys -- Cool it! Relax... have some beer.
Labels: Internet, Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 4/14/2005,
,
Iran: A bridge too far
11.21.2004
Thought you might find this interesting - it's a tad bit scary since it details the missile war scenarious... an absolute read for those interested in military re: iran vs US and israel --- i pray this wont happen.... simulation games - re: art of war games etc... click here.
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 11/21/2004,
,
Psychologize Bush
10.20.2004
I still feel stunned when a woman tells me she's returning to live with a man
who recently broke her jaw. With her teeth clenched and mouth wired shut, she
says she's going back, "because he loves me and I love him." Pardon me if I'm
not bowled over by the magic of love.I still feel shaken by the boy who tells me, in great detail and with
boundless enthusiasm, all about the father who abandoned him when he was
4-years-old. And I am still disturbed by the good soldier who blindly follows
his leader's orders and marches into danger -- although his leader has shown,
time and again, poor judgment, lack of planning, and disregard for the men who
serve him.
If the above text is oddly familiar - and in more ways than one would be an article that you can relate too, then there is a big chance that you are not for Bush. If you believe the above statements though, but still strongly believing Bush should win the November elections then you must be a pretty confused person - or a real conservative who thinks that the only issues in the elections would be abortion and stem cell research and the axis of evil which you may add John Kerry to.
Consider the next text from the article oof John Sommers-Flanagan of the Detroit Free Press:
As a psychologist, I should know better than to be stunned, shaken or
disturbed by these images. After all, I know why humans behave irrationally. I
even do it myself.On Sept. 9, 2001, President George W. Bush's approval rating was 55 percent.
Only three days later, after the worst attack on U.S. soil in history, his
approval rating was 86 percent.In psychology, the enhanced allegiance to a person associated with your abuse
is referred to as trauma-bonding. It is a powerful phenomenon. It accounts for
why a woman might return to the husband who broke her jaw. It explains why
otherwise intelligent people begin worshiping those very people whose behaviors
have threatened their safety.
Now we hear Cheney and his fear-mongering tactics? You should have laughed out loud when The Onion feautured him and satired him with their "I'll personally attack America if Kerry Wins" Front Page joke. Makes complete sense thus, that some voters choose them because they think Bush is their only chance --- it's similar to a failed marriage that people strive to make better, shutting their eyes on the truth and wishfully thinking all the troubles will go away eventually...they just need to believe love can still solve their marriage problems! (News: Iran endorses Bush) Nice.
Most battered wives end up more battered that way. I am a romantic but I believe in a more philosophical version of love; not that one which most would ascribe romantics, too.
I just had some psychology units in college and alot of workshops and books in between but I trust this guy. Best if you'll read the full article here. It's a good read.
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 10/20/2004,
,
America's last War
8.04.2004
After a report that pre-emptive strikes against Iran was approved (if needed) and immediately after Bush has something to say against his wrong war in Iraq. I have this to add to must-reads of the day: Ted Rall via Yahoo. A very good read.
So is this the reason why you have Iraq and Afghanistan sandwiching Iran with their US troops? Was it all about Iran in the first place? Ted Rall offers an interesting analysis that even a layman as me would believe. Who would want such a war?
Oh cmon let's sing some more: War! Ugh! What is it good for, absolutely nothing! Ugh! Yeah! Sing it! [Mga pinoy manuod na lang muna tayo ng TV, kapag ubos na lahat ng tao sa mundo tayo na lang matitira and we'll rule the world !!! By then we'll take over and establish a New World Order requires everyone to use tabo :) hahaha ]
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 8/04/2004,
,
New Political World Map of a Fool
Zen style has a map depicting how any fool would have thought of the world right now. I was hoping we can update it or derive from it; and come up with a more accurate version but this one is a winner already! He shows for instance that Iraq and Afghanistan = US territory, The Philippines is not named in the map, China is not that big, Spain is in Latin America and somebody asked: How many hours does it take to go to Japan by car? Check it here.
This is what I propose though: perhaps he can add where exactly people thought Rwanda, Somalia, and Haiti are. And it would be great where in the map any fool will point where Titanic sunk. To cap it, it would be swell if he can label where the fools thinks where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are. I'm sure any fool would put it alot of times in Iraq, a few times in North Korea, some bunkers in Iran and some in Canada and France. By the way, interestingly, the author did not update it: Israel does not exist in his map. Maybe he can put a huge wall all around it.
Check it out. It's good for laughs.
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 8/04/2004,
,
Will Cockroaches Rule the World after a Nuclear War?
7.14.2004
There's an always exciting discussion that follows after a hefty exchange of ideas. Specially when the topic is Iraq and the US war, it's a guaranteed feast of opinion. While the Internet has produced a new medium of exchange which allows for faster debate through commenting, and thus giving more freedom to users, (discussed in my old post: musings on long comment threads) I have to breathe a sigh that the humor such off-topic discussions and passionate debating does get on my head.
Following Sassy's commentary on why the prison garb of the Filipino Hostage in Iraq is orange and Ayatollah's accusation that it is a western plot, a long thread followed. I had to post that it is a funny remark coming from Iran, after all, Nick Berg's father did blame Bush for the death of his son, not Abu Gharaib. Now, a certain 'Vitamin E' had to say that it wasn't anything funny at all. He posted:
vitamin E's comment:
To suggest that the Americans are behind those kidnappings & killings of foreign nationals in Iraq is just ridiculous and it’s not funny Jardine!
(07-13-04 at 08:26 PM)
I understand his concern that it is not a laughing matter, however, I do not appreciate such a personal attack, especially if he missed my point why I think it is a funny post. After all, conspiracy theories, are funny, but may be true, and it's that glimpse possibility that makes it even more hilarious.
I had to respond:
Jardine Davies's comment:
It is funny Vitamin E. That’s my opinion. In case you don’t know humor by its first name, and can’t take it, then its a hard life to live for you when you don’t see the mundane in the most serious. I kinda wonder what life you live without laughing Come on give me a break man! Think Happy thoughts.
Conspiracy theorists only thrive when there is too much or too little information. If everything is clear and black and white, there is no room for speculation.
I know and believe speculation is dangerous, and it is worst when we pass it as gospel. I do not believe it to be true either, I have always wished America is as great as it should be, but funny thing is how such a serious matter as how to tackle terrorism is being approached like a farce.
YOU want me to explain the joke to you? Here goes: It’s funny that both sides are using outlandish propaganda (Bush versus Dr. Evil, Children of God versus Zion) it’s funny that they can go to this great lengths and bomb the hek of each other when there are many other more pressing problems out there, it’s also funny if its true because that means the world is filled with fools that believed in Bush (that means me and you Vitamin E), it’s also funny because if it is not true it is about how two peoples could never undertand any other nation beyond their noses. It’s also funny because it’s something that can be so ridiculous like you said, and at the same time possibly true as well.
Hey is it not historical that conspiracies are created of the CIA? It’s zeitgeist, read some Joseph Campbell man, The mythos of the modern world is conspiracies, and it’s funny that we are allowing that to progress. Either way, serious or not, I find it funny too that I had to explain the reason to you as well. And you are so pikon.
Harharhar. You’ve just been baptized with Pinoy Humor. Harharhar (Laughs out Loud).
(07-13-04 at 09:15 PM)
After that, a certain 'Miel' had this to say to me: Whew! Happy to see that Jardine clarified that she sees this as “outlandish propaganda”. As if to insunuate that I am on the wrong side of the debate. Well let me explain why I find it even funnier that a poster would refuse to understand why the Conspiracy is Funny:
Outlandish Propaganda from both sides, ok people let's divide the world a little more, and bomb the hell of each other till only cockroachesremain in cold nuclear winter:
1. Those for us, and those against us (funny, i'm scared. quite despotic of bush... felt like hitler. It's either he's that of a dullhead, or he makes us all think he's that dull when in fact he is so clever to have ridiculed the UN by his monstrosity of a decision to invade Iraq based on cracked intelligence. If those CIA honchos listened to Manila's finest there's no 9/11, mind you.)
Did anyone in the world ever studied Being? C'mon how can you categorize things in the absolute? How can Bush divide good and evil in such absolute terms under an uncertain agenda, over a cloud of indistinct war, over an enemy he could not even define. Hehehe he got lost in translation I guess.
2. Well let's make it fair --- Even Ayatollah has his funny side: he's provoking the US... and crafting conflict with his own juice. When everyone else can live in peace he's highlighting a defensive stance, much like N.Korea so that if the US attacks, the US is painted as the bad guy who's on a roll and keeping score on all the virgins in campus. Bullying is something we all don't like. But similarly Ayatollah is hosting discord with such a statement.
Thing is, since nothing is ever clear, everyone else is an instrument of this global destruction. What are we gonna do? Are we going to choose sides? Who would go for 1. Bush (maybe coz you think you are safer or with the winner) or with option 2: Iran, coz you got the Muslim world and the unseen enemy to back you???
That's ridiculous if you choose 1 or 2. That's what we bloggers are saying, there are choices beyond an insipid America that Bush cooks, and a Fundamentalist/extremist state Ayatollah paints. Are we going to be agents of either? I say lets blog on and try to stop a non-sensical war based on any one man's ambition of a New World Order. (search that in google and you will see both sides)
Who wants cockroaches to represent this planet in Galactic congress? Star Trek Fans, anyone? I wouldn't want that. Meanwhile I'l blog and rant on and laugh my heart out of those who chose the coackroaches. Harharhar :)
As for the question Will Cockroaches Rule the World after a Nuclear War? Evolutionary biologists think so, their exo-skeleton protects them possible radiation, and may evolve thicker armor. Only microwave and extremely low temperatures will kill them, when nobody is left to squish them or spray insecticides. Fortunately, their nook and crany habitat will have saved them from extinction, including their highly protected nesting grounds and eggs. They reproduce quite fast, and are all over the world, second only to ants. One other thing: they are highly adaptable because their diet is 'everything that has carbon' that means you and me, and every organic matter. Before they start becoming sentient, and think about eating me and you, I think it's good time to stop any war that will make them lord us over. ;-)
Labels: Google, Internet, Iran, Iraq War, Politics, Technology, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 7/14/2004,
,
More on Iran and the US
6.22.2004
Check this article: U.N. Agency Rebukes Iran on Nuclear Activity
and an excerpt below:
Although some Iranian moderates are among the voices calling for Iran to develop a defensive nuclear option, policymakers abroad believe the desire of moderates for a greater opening to the West could deter Iran from building such weapons.
In this view, the best hope may be to slow Iran's program long enough for the hard-line religious leaders who run the country to pass from the scene. There is no indication yet, however, that the moderates are close to a triumph. In fact, their power has been steadily eroding.
Apparently, it is coming across as a dilemma between wanting westernization, and reluctance of the status quo. Such a conflict has happened in the Philippines when the clash between accepting new technology, music, and culture is being introduced by new conquerors of Manila: the Americans, back in the early 20th century. Nicanor Abelardo and his kundiman (Philippine Courtship Music), is a testament to the conflicts of those times, when ragtag, and blue grass if I am not mistaken and the jazz, fox trot, swing and blues are sweeping Manila's music scene. He would press on his piano, and emphasize native elements, hum the tunes and ballads, while on the backdrop the jokes of his fellow men who would dance to a foreign beat.
Although that is not easily comparable to Iran, wherein, new powers may come in, and new economics may trample the who's who, it's very similar. It's conflict that pits what people have been used to versus the argument of what one's people can become.
Is it not that history sways and dances itself in this cycle? When an overlord comes to takeover, or a strong force of will or fad sweeps the fashion scene, the followers of an old rule are divided into two: the rule-breakers, and the old-school. Music and fashion is quite easy to follow. Back then it was Spanish and Tagalog versus English. Tobacco versus Hersheys.
The question therefore which differentiate Manila from Tehran is: will the people want to cling to what they have been used to, or would the powers that be chose to stay where they are and stop any effort to remove them their seats. Back in the American Regime in Manila, the conservatives lost to popular culture. It took the seventies to bring back what was Filipino. More than fifty years later, music playing in Pinoy radio is van-halen riffs and korn-infused screams, matched with hip-hop in Tagalog ponding with a west-coast vibe, and fusion of world music from Europe to US to Latin to Jazz. The wounds of culture clash is slowly healing, but is the conflict over? Right now OPM (Original Pilipino Music) is competing with the Western, and it can't be said that it is lording over the airwaves. It plays a second fiddle to the latter, and despite in certain moments, it gets a big plus and takes the number 1, it can't be said that it has fully won the battle with Western genres.
What more a clash of culture that goes beyond music, religion, and tradition? Like I said, from a previous post, hold it, it will be a bumby ride. Or... more aptly, jazz it up, it's a crazy dance.
Labels: Culture, Iran, Iraq War, Philippines, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 6/22/2004,
,
Bush Paranoid, Delusional
6.20.2004
At first hearing, getting the hint that Bush is delusional and paranoid is not much of a surprise for those people closely following the US-led war on terror. After all, for a man who has unilaterally forwarded the agenda of the pre-emptive strike, such is the easiest conclusion that any one can make. What else would one think?
Imagine your 5-year old son punching his kindergarten classmate with a faceful of ice cream, only because he thinks, the other kiddo will strike him first... or lick his coney island wonder. Well, such is the logic in a paranoid mind.
Now, there's a big difference when you hear the same news from people who used to admire Bush (a.k.a Dubya), who for once believed him to be fighting a just cause, on just grounds. Check this link to know more about Bush's mental state: Bush: Paranoid, Delusional.
Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees with most of Dr. Frank’s conclusions.
“I find the bulk of his analysis credible,” she said in an interview. “President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain actions are 'God's Will' are symptomatic of delusional behavior.”
It's one thing to hear it from his detractors, and another from his own people. Do not get me wrong, I am not Anti-American, but I am against the methods the Bush Government is considering and brandishing for the world to see. I never liked Bullies! Here's more... how about pre-emptive strikes against IRAN? Ever heard its approved already? Well apprarently, the media has not taken notice but it was a sealed deal c/o the House of Representatives. I am still researching this but have yet to hear more of it. If you know additional detail, please leave a comment and let me know.
This is gonna get messy... so people, hold on for the ride...
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 6/20/2004,
,
The Author
J.Davies
Jdavies lives in Quezon City, Philippines and has been blogging since 2002. A brand manager in a leading technology company and a freelance new media/web strategy consultant, he has refocused his blogging from personal, political & sociological observations, to marketing-related efforts and Internet trends that are relevant to his career and branding advocacies.
About This Blog
This blog is a depot of thoughts and observations on marketing trends which remain personally relevant to the Author as far as his marketing career is concerned. Having evolved from the personal blog of Jdavies, much of the earlier work contained herein are laced with personal speculation, political views, and similar advocacies. These posts are being kept for posterity's sake and for no other reason. No effort is being made to claim that the author will not contradict himself from his previous positions or that such advocacies are absolute.
Contact
Request access to my Linked-in Profile
