Hillary Clinton Wins Wesley Clark’s Endorsement

-

home_clark.jpg
General Wesley Clark, who was the first among potential presidential candidates, to call for direct nation-to-nation talks between Iran and the United States, has just endorsed Hillary Clinton — who came later to that view on Iran than he did.
Wesley Clark’s statement:

“Senator Hillary Clinton has earned the support of millions of Americans in her campaign for president — and today I am pleased to count myself among them. The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. I believe Senator Clinton is that leader, and I whole-heartedly endorse her for President of the United States. Senator Clinton and I share a worldview in which diplomacy is the best first-strike tool in our arsenal; in today’s complicated global system, the United States should be making more friends than enemies.”
Never before have so many Americans had our well-being so closely tied to world events. Our economic and national security has become more complicated than ever before, and we deserve a leader who draws on wisdom, compassion, intelligence and moral courage — in short, we need Hillary Clinton. She is tough but fair, a rock-solid leader equal to the many weighty challenges ahead of us.”

I respect Clark who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, as did Joe Wilson. Clark has no doubt put himself in contention for a VP slot possibility — or perhaps would be high on the list to be Secretary of Defense.
But I also have great respect for Zbigniew Brzezinski who sees the matter differently.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

40 comments on “Hillary Clinton Wins Wesley Clark’s Endorsement

  1. Kathleen says:

    easy e… Busholini doesn’t want to leave office, period…. watch for another 9/11 coming to a theater near you, martial law, and cancelled elections.

    Reply

  2. Truth789 Clarkie says:

    He made the right decision by endorsing her. He will be valuable to her as well either as VP, Secretary of State, or replacing Petraeus.

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Join and contribute.
    http://www.peacenow.org/

    Reply

  4. KYLE says:

    Does Experience Matter? (Clinton and JFK didn’t think so)
    This Video Is Showing That Obama can be president because two fmr presidents were
    where he is right now, history proves experience makes an either worse president( nixon, bush, vp dick cheney, defense sec.rumsfeld)
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=LBy3AKn_2Fk

    Reply

  5. easy e says:

    More suppressed information on so-called Iran nuke program.
    IAEA DENOUNCES U.S. EVALUATION
    By Mark Heinrich
    Reuters
    VIENNA — UN inspectors have protested a U.S. report on Iran’s nuclear work in a letter to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee, calling parts of the report “outrageous and dishonest.”
    The letter, obtained by Reuters, recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings, cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran’s dossier.

    Reply

  6. easy e says:

    BUSH SETTING AMERICA UP FOR WAR WITH IRAN
    By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
    Last Updated: 3:20am BST 16/09/2007
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml
    Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
    Dick Cheney (‘The Man’) with George W Bush
    Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
    Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
    Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
    In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq – arming and training militants – would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
    advertisementA prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
    Under the theory – which is gaining credence in Washington security circles – US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
    Senior officials believe Mr Bush’s inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
    The intelligence source said: “No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen.” But he said that within the CIA “many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing” and that “top Pentagon brass believes the same”.
    He said: “A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq.”
    Possible flash points: Click to enlarge
    Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
    Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.
    The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
    Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
    Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
    The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
    A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
    The source said: “When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.
    “Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with.”
    The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the “open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war”.
    Miss Rice’s bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
    The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult “meaningfully” with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
    The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran.
    “One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would – over two or three days – hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.”
    Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

    Reply

  7. easy e says:

    “…I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”
    Posted by: sdemetri at September 16, 2007 09:25 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators
    http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html
    Tip of the iceberg.

    Reply

  8. ... says:

    more interesting is what chafee and hagel are doing… cut the endorsee crap.. it is just more hot air b.s.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    Posted by easy e at September 16, 2007 03:01 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Booman is always a little lite on doing his own research.
    “If I were the Iranians, what I?d be freaked out about is that the other Arab states didn?t protest” the airstrike, said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ”
    If you google the ME papers you will see that every single Arab leader condemned and protested Israel over the Syria deal…but true they haven’t actually ‘done” anything about it…yet.
    I am going to query the Russian embassy and see how much Russia would charge for some fully ready nukes…maybe we could raise enough money to buy a few for Iran and all live happily ever after with the great mutually assured destruction leveler.

    Reply

  10. Kathleen says:

    They are not going to IMPEACH, much as they should.
    They will only don their little flag lapel pins and be good little Pavlovian Patriots.
    They are all from Stepford and they like it that way.

    Reply

  11. easy e says:

    IMPEACH OR IT’S ARMEGEDDON
    by BooMan23
    Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:52:25 PM PDT
    Andrew Sullivan in the Times of London:
    Some cynics argue that George Bush is playing a small, domestic game of keeping the ordeal [Iraq] going so that the next Democratic president can be accused of losing Iraq ? not him. But this theory, while not totally implausible, does not quite fit with the messianic ambitions of the president and apocalyptic fears of Vice-President Dick Cheney.
    Okay, so Andrew Sullivan doesn’t have any special insight. But the word has definitely gotten out that Dick Cheney is frothing at the mouth to make more evil. There’s not a constant amount of evil in the world, you know. It’s not a zero-sum game. Cheney makes evil where evil did not previously exist. And his brush-clearing sidekick is too eager to go along. Here’s the news coming out today.
    BooMan23’s diary :: ::
    Helene Cooper in the New York Times:
    Mr. Cheney and hawks in his office, however, have become increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress in curbing Iran?s nuclear ambitions.
    Allies of Mr. Cheney continue to say publicly that the United States should include a change in Iran?s leadership as a viable policy option, and have argued, privately, that the United States should encourage Israel to consider a military strike on Iran?s nuclear facilities.
    Julian Borger and Ian Black in the Guardian:
    The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday to discuss Iran’s defiance of UN resolutions calling for its suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.
    “Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The talk is of multiple targets,” said Mr Cronin. “In Washington there is very serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at seriously because there is only six months to ‘do something about Iran’ before it will be looked at as a purely political issue.”
    Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman in the U.K. Telegraph:
    Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
    In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq – arming and training militants – would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
    Not convinced? How about this?
    Wesley Clark in the Washington Post:
    Think another war can’t happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney’s office have been pushing the use of force.
    There is still a possibility that this is all part of a game to pressure Iran to do anything from backing off in Iraq to abandoning their civilian nuclear power research. But with rhetoric this heated, things can quickly spiral out of control. Consider this:
    Iran’s leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and warned: “I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have created in Iraq.”
    That doesn’t sound like a man that is thinking about backing down. The U.K. Telegraph article has some alleged inside baseball.
    Miss Rice’s bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
    The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult “meaningfully” with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
    If you read through the publicly available evidence against Iran (varying from their nuclear ambitions and capabilities to their malevolent role in Iraq) the evidence is as weak or weaker than the case that was made against Iraq.
    These articles attempt to address this problem, but they really just show that Bush and Cheney hope to instigate a war.
    Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman in the U.K. Telegraph:
    In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq – arming and training militants – would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
    A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
    Under the theory – which is gaining credence in Washington security circles – US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
    Julian Borger and Ian Black in the Guardian:
    Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security analyst, said: “The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions.”
    Evidence of Sunni backing?
    But a belief has been growing in Iran, which administration officials have pointedly not tried to stem, that the Bush administration was considering military strikes against Iran. An Israeli airstrike in Syria last week kicked up speculation in the Iranian press that Israel, in alliance with the United States, was really trying to send a message to Iran that it could strike Iranian nuclear facilities if it chose to.
    “If I were the Iranians, what I?d be freaked out about is that the other Arab states didn?t protest” the airstrike, said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The Arab world nonreaction is a signal to Iran, that Arabs aren?t happy with Iran?s power and influence, so if the Israelis want to go and intimidate and violate the airspace of another Arab state that?s an ally of Iran, the other Arab states aren?t going to do anything.”
    George Perkovich might be freaked out, but the Iranians might be something else:
    The Iranians also have reason to be sceptical. They hear some of the rhetoric coming out of Washington and conclude that, whatever they do, they will be attacked. So they may conclude that the only course of action is full acceleration towards a nuclear deterrent.
    Considering how far Iran is away from actually having a nuclear bomb and how close we are to having a new administration, we cannot allow this attack on Iran to go on in the next 16 months. We can’t hope that Condi Rice will resign, or that her resignation will prevent an attack. We have to impeach, convict, and remove this administration. Don’t say it can’t be done. It has to be done. Or it’s Armageddon.

    -above from DailyKos http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/16/05110/6920
    ************************
    IMPEACH
    or, as Carroll says,
    ***BURN WASHINGTON TO THE GROUND AND START OVER!***

    Reply

  12. Carroll says:

    Posted by sdemetri at September 16, 2007 02:18 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    I wish I personally knew someone that I could trust to give me a totally unbaised professional opinion on the collapse of the towers. My uncle was an engineer and his company built overwater bridges, hospitals and skyscrapers but alas he is dead now. The only professional person I know who commented on 911 was a friend who was a 727 captain overseas for 30 years and he made the remark that to hit those buildings the way they were hit would take “one hell of a pilot”…implying to me that he doubted the ‘training” the terrorist reportedly had would have made them that expert.

    Reply

  13. Sandy says:

    Thank you to all these last posters here. You’re why I come here.
    Thank you for an HONEST, straightforward discussion of what is really going on.
    Not just D.C. Spin.
    B.U.R.N W.A.S.H.I.N.G.T.O.N T.O. T.H.E G.R.O.U.N.D A.N.D S.T.A.R.T O.V.E.R
    I couldn’t agree more! Far too corrupt to salvage.

    Reply

  14. sdemetri says:

    It is the scientific evidence that is motivating me. There are certain laws of physics that cannot be violated, even by the Bush Admin. Objects don’t fall at “free fall speed” when coming up against resistance from below. Conservation of Momentum, I believe that one is called. The collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were independently videod from all sorts of angles by witnesses. Their rate of fall is documented ad nauseum.
    The angular momentum of the top part of one of the towers, the twisting motion seen in videos toward the damage where the plane entered and burned, began and by rights should have continued with that top section continuing to rotate and falling off the building. In mid-twist, however, its angular momentum was interrupted and stopped, and the section dropped straight down. The only plausible explanation for this is the building below it began to fall out from underneath it. Cutting charges set at 45 degree angles at intervals along the supporting steel columns, cut the columns allowing the column to slide down past itself. Photos of the debris show beams in the wreckage with this signature cut pattern. Much of the steel debris was rapidly sold to scrap dealers in Asia. All fact, and well documented.
    Very possibly the mother of all the other outrages we have suffered these past six years.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Posted by sdemetri at September 16, 2007 09:25 AM
    >>>>>>>>>
    I agree the 911 investigation report was a complete joke. Every agency employee who was pointed out as failing in their job beforehand was promoted. And in follwing up on that I now notice most of them so named are “retired”.
    I am not expert enough on the tech aspects to have an opinion on all the theories about that part but my smell-o-meter started ringing about the “coincidence” of “all” US agencies “all failing” at the “same time”, on that “specific” day. That’s quite a feat.
    There was also something not quite right and very unseemly about how fast the adm rushed in with billions to buy off the families…and the way they distributed the money based on the victims current income level and future earnings instead of just making it equal for everyone was somehow very offensive and telling about the mentality. How do they know that the dead waiter in the resturant wasn’t going to med school and would have been a wealthy doctor, or the dead janitor wasn’t working on a best selling novel that would make him celebrated and rich?

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    Sur’prize, sur’prize!……and you are voting for the same red and blue Board of Directors who are suppose to oversee your money? Are you nuts?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Defense, Homeland Security Can’t Pass Audits
    The Associated Press
    Friday 14 September 2007
    Disorganized records leave big-budget agencies vulnerable to waste, fraud.
    Ten years after Congress ordered federal agencies to have outside auditors review their books, neither the Defense Department nor the newer Department of Homeland Security has met even basic accounting requirements, leaving them vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.
    An Associated Press review shows that the two departments’ financial records are so disorganized and inconsistent that they have repeatedly earned “disclaimer” opinions, meaning that they simply cannot be fully audited.
    “It means we really can’t put any faith in the numbers they use,” said Ross Rubenstein, who teaches public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School.
    The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 requires, among other things, that the financial systems of major federal agencies “comply substantially” with generally accepted accounting standards. Each year, those agencies are required to release results of outside audits.
    The review of financial statements from the federal government’s 15 executive departments shows that most pass their audits, although many agencies – including NASA, the Coast Guard and FEMA – have been frequently cited for serious accounting errors.
    The entire Homeland Security Department, with a $35 billion budget this fiscal year, passed its first audit in 2003 with strong stipulations but has failed every one since.
    And the Defense Department, with a $460 billion budget this fiscal year, has never even come close to passing. Because that department makes up at least 20 percent of all federal spending, the entire federal government also has failed its audits since the congressional mandate took effect.

    Reply

  17. easy e says:

    It’s all about PNAC-inspired U.S. global hegemony. Greenspan has just confided about Iraq, and we all see what will happen with Iran. The “complex” will ensure (through complicit corporate media, think tanks, pundits, opinion manipulators, etc.) that final Dem & GOP tickets consist of their sponsored puppet candidates. It would be much more constructive for TWN to help enlighten how Americans citizenry can reclaim the constitution and break the power that the PNAC and complex wields. Discussing Hillary/Wes Clark, Obama, Hagel, Chafee, Petreus, etc., etc., will bring about NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

    Reply

  18. Carroll says:

    Picture this…….
    September 14, 2007 |
    Members of an honor guard, assigned to a group burial, hold six American flags at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. Army Pfc. David Neil Simmons, Staff Sgt. Harrison Brown and Pfc. Todd Singleton were killed in an explosion in Iraq in April.
    Their remains were unidentifiable, leading to the group burial.
    (Photo: Win McNamee / Getty Images
    September 14, 2007 |
    Members of displaced Sunni Muslim families line up for food and clothing in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad. They were forced from their homes by militants in the Arab Jabour area, southeast of the capital.
    (Photo: Loay Hameed / AP)
    >>>>>>>
    Freedom is great.
    Freedom from having to live longer than 21 years.
    Freedom from food,family, clothing, shelter,safety, health and home.
    B.U.R.N W.A.S.H.I.N.G.T.O.N T.O. T.H.E G.R.O.U.N.D A.N.D S.T.A.R.T O.V.E.R

    Reply

  19. Kathleen says:

    Former Senator Lincoln Chafee has left the Republiklan party. Better late than never.
    http://www.projo.com/news/content/CHAFEE_GOP_09-16-07_DP751KF3/dd3fe.html
    I think I figured out why Democraps won’t impeach. Given their penchant for blaming Ralph Nader, rather than their own sorry assess for their losses, and given Nader’s position in ’04 that it would be better for Dopey to be re-elected and impeached, Democraps will be DAMNED before they’ll ever do anything that would make Nader right. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me as a reason for refusing to flush this team down the crapper.

    Reply

  20. Kathleen says:

    sdemetri, I think it’s more than a remote possiblity that we will have another “inside job” and martial law, with no more elections.
    When Busholini says we’ll be in Iraq long after his term is over, it doesn’t mean he’s actually leaving office. That’s just a ruse to throw easilly hoodwinked Democraps off his trail.

    Reply

  21. sdemetri says:

    What do over 100 senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement, and government officials, as well as over 200 engineers and architects, 50+ pilots and aviation professionals, and over 150 scholars and academics all have in common? Names in this list include diverse folks, such as: Ron Paul, contender for the Republican presidential nomination; Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Ford and Carter; General Wesley Clark, US Army (ret), former Commander of the US European Command; Major General Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret), former Commanding General of US Army Intelligence and Security Command; Melvin A. Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs, CIA, as well as Senior Analyst in the State Department; Curt Weldon, former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania; Louis Freeh, former Director of the FBI; Dennis Kucinich, Democratic presidential contender.
    There are architects, civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, structural engineers, material scientists, current and former commercial airline pilots, fighter pilots, a military accident investigator, a Labor Department chief economist for George W. Bush, prosecutors, Justice Department officials, presidents of foreign countries, former ministers of foreign countries, diplomats, and members of parliament on this list.
    These 500 or so folks, representative of positions across the broad spectrum of political thought in this country and the world, have all come to a single conclusion, in most cases completely independently of those who compiled the list. They are not “ravers,” conspiracy theorists, irresponsible or illogical people. Some have asked to be added to the list in the past few weeks. But what they all have in common are public statements that question the accuracy and thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission Report, the official account of the events of 9/11.
    Major General Stubblebine said, for instance, “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
    Capt. Russ Wittenberg, US Air Force (ret), former fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions, and 30,000+ commercial airline piloting hours under his belt said, “The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple…” Wittenberg argued that a 757, structurally, with amateur pilots, had absolutely no possibility of having “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”
    Judy Wood, BS CE (Structural), MS Eng Mechanics, PhD Materials Eng Science said, “So, for the [WTC tower] to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone. Did we see this? I believe it’s pretty clear in some of the videos. The “wave” of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence… In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001.”
    Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury under Reagan, and former editor of the Wall Street Journal said in 2006, “We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.”
    Some of the people quoted in this list, which can be viewed at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com, state explicitly that they don’t know why the available evidence has been neglected, uninvestigated, or buried. Others are very clear about why.
    Wayne Madsen, former US Naval Intelligence Officer, assigned to the NSA and State Department said in 2006, “After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country.”
    Robin Hordon, former commercial pilot, trainer, and FAA Air Traffic Controller in the Boston Control Center said, “I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job… There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen… It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing “in-flight emergencies” such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers… This type of “immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency” scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 – 150 times per year for ten years.”
    Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Chief Economist US Labor Department under George W. Bush in 2006 said, “I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq… We can prove that the government’s story is false.”
    We have just marked the sixth anniversary of 9/11. The official story stands, has given rise to two wars, the Patriot Act, torture as policy, the loss of habeas corpus, nearly 4000 service people’s deaths, and over one million civilian deaths in Iraq. Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you will. If so, I feel I am in good company. I honestly don’t know what happened that day, but I do know the evidence sealed or destroyed by the Bush Administration, and Mayors Guilliani and Bloomberg, with the many questions uninvestigated and unreported by the 9/11 Commission, implies the existence of a version of events very different than what we have been given to believe.
    There is a very real potential for a false flag operation between now and Nov 2008, the imposition of a state of emergency, suspension of elections. Just saying, it’s possible. And if the above is true, perhaps even likely.
    Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD – Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement.
    She said of this:
    “The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations. I arrive at this conclusion largely as the result of the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11. I first met him when he was a speaker at a scholarly conference unrelated to 9/11. He immediately impressed me as a brilliant, outstanding philosopher – theologian – author, a Whiteheadian scholar motivated by an intense curiosity to know everything possible about the world.
    On the plane home and for the next two days I did little else but read Griffin’s first book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor. From there I went on to read his even more disturbing account of the bogus 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.
    It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct: the 9/11 “new Pearl Harbor” was planned in astonishing detail and carried out through the efforts of a sophisticated and large network of operatives. It was more complex and far more successful than the Allende assassination, the US bombing of our own ship the “Maine” that began the Spanish-American war (and brought us Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines), the Reichstag fire that was used to justify the suspension of most civil liberties in Germany in the 1930’s, and even Operation Himmler, which was used by Germany to justify the invasion of Poland, which started World War II.
    Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.
    I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

    Reply

  22. KathyF says:

    I agree with lina, it would be unusual to have a former general at Sec Def; that position is usually a civilian job. (Not that you can’t have served–Rummy did, but not as a general.)

    Reply

  23. Marcia says:

    MarkL:
    I did not intend to imply I am impressed by Obama, however between Hillary and Obama I prefer his choice against the Iraq invasion to Hillary’ knowing all the ropes.
    The Washington Democrats made a choice too, not to envisage impeachment and to leave the war to Bush, tactics that backfired, both defensive positions, hoping to gain traction without acting so they constantly find themselves rowing against the tide.
    It is not for nothing Congress’ rating is below sea level. The dilemma now is how to keep money from buying Congress when it is Congress that must vote to do it and how much time is left.

    Reply

  24. Vadranor says:

    Lina,
    Congress could easily enact an exemption for Clark to serve as Secretary of Defense. Don’t forget that George Marshall was Truman’s Secretary of Defense in 1950.

    Reply

  25. JohnH says:

    LJ: Funny how Greenspan can acknowledge what think tanks, like the New America Foundation, cannot. So if they can’t think, or even venture to guess as to what the Iraq War is about, why are they called think tanks? Maybe the answer is that, if they clearly identified the objective in Iraq, it might raise questions about the logic of their proposed solutions. Better to keep the goals ambiguous and the policy prescriptions intact.
    This is very reminiscent of Bush’s first term. Whatever the problem, the solution was tax cuts.

    Reply

  26. RonK, Seattle says:

    What prominent mainstream American political figure put the two state solution ON the table in May, 1998?
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/07/palestinians.hillary/index.html

    Reply

  27. lina says:

    I don’t think Clark has been out of uniform long enough to be Sec Def.
    Sec of State, yes.
    I too am disappointed. He endorsed her too early.

    Reply

  28. LJ says:

    Not to change the subject, but, … oh well,
    “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” –Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World

    Reply

  29. MarkL says:

    Marcia,
    I’m not impressed with Obama yet. He has not shown leadership on Iraq, in my opinion.
    Leadership is not saying that we should be out of Iraq: leadership for Obama, Clinton or Dodd means working in the Senate to force Bush to bring the troops home. There are legislative ways to do this which could not be filibustered. There is also Webb’s bill which would mandate more home time for troops, indirectly forcing troop reductions.
    No more speeches from Obama —or Hillary, needless to say—on Iraq. Get to work, or shut up.

    Reply

  30. Marcia says:

    This is not a surprise, for some time now some said he did not run for president because he is a friend of the Clintons, so if this is true to say Hillary “wins” his support is perhaps an exageration.
    I think the Clintons are like yesterday’s soup in a world where conditioned reflexes are useless. Brzezinski’s choice in backing Obama is better founded in turning toward a younger generation. Obama may be a more stable individual in character and judgement.

    Reply

  31. Carroll says:

    I report you decide.
    From Daniel Levy…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    September 13, 2007
    Clinton vs. Clinton on Israel
    To coincide with the Jewish New Year, fresh statements are coming out of some presidential campaigns reaffirming the candidates’ ‘pro-Israel’ credentials. It’s the kind of thing that stretches the thread between domestic political posturing and smart policy prescriptions to a snapping point. It is almost redundant to note that the content of these declarations have precious little to do with advancing what is good for Israel, or, for that matter, US interests.
    But one sentence from the Hillary Clinton press release of September 10 stands out. (Curiously, the the statement is not up on Clinton’s campaign website.) In staking out her position on “Standing with Israel against terrorism,” Hillary Clinton defends Israel’s right to exist with “… an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.” Oddly enough, this places her in direct contradiction with the plan put forward by a certain President Bill Clinton in December 2000.
    He proposed dividing Jerusalem:
    The general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. I urge the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both sides.
    The plan became known as the Clinton Parameters, and it is widely accepted as the outline for any future deal. These issues are on the agenda again as Israeli Prime Minister Olmert meets with Palestinian President Abbas to outline areas of agreement in advance of a proposed November peace summit.
    Israel’s highest-circulation Daily, Yediot Ahronoth, ran a piece last weekend about the progress in these talks. According to two highly respected journalists, Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, Israel’s Deputy PM, Haim Ramon, who is leading exploratory talks on behalf of Olmert, has proposed, well, …. dividing Jerusalem.
    From Shiffer and Barnea in Yediot (Sept 14th, my translation from the Hebrew):
    On Jerusalem Ramon, in the talks (with Palestinians – DL), adopts the principles outlined by Clinton in 2001: … Jerusalem should be divided between the two states. The area populated by Jews would remain under Jewish sovereignty; the area populated by Arabs would come under Palestine’s sovereignty. In the holy basin, i.e., the Old City and its environs, each religion would be responsible for its holy places.
    So, candidate Hillary Clinton is running to the right, not only of former President Bill Clinton, but also of the centrist Israeli Government. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s press release says nothing at all about a two-state solution, about a Palestinian state, or even a peace process. (Palestinians do, though, exist as terrorists and/or as promoters of incitement).
    Barack Obama’s new press release also gives an emphatic nod to the standard fair of the strong and enduring US-Israel partnership. He does so at least in the more constructive and inoffensive context of referring to the peace process and a two-state solution, which is far more in keeping with the sentiments of most American Jews.
    None of this, admittedly, comes close to the unreconstructed neocon venom coming from Rudy Giuliani and his camp of advisers that include (among others) Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, and, as of last month, Daniel Pipes .
    But the interesting point emerging among the leading Dem contenders is that Barack Obama, so far, represents continuity with the Bill Clinton legacy of active engagement in Arab-Israeli peace making, while Hillary, so far, does not. It would be fascinating to know whether candidate Hillary Clinton supports the parameters for Israeli-Palestinian peace that carry her family name.
    Posted by Daniel Levy on September 13, 2007 3:35 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Life was so much less confusing when American elections were actually about America.

    Reply

  32. Carroll says:

    heheheh..unless of course Hillary is still pissed at the Jewish establishment’s attack on her when she befriended Queen Noor .. if she is a grudge holder she could just cut the legs out from under the whole Israeli crowd in the US once she has the bully pulpit…then she would have no need of their support a second time around.
    Stay tuned…this soap opera never ends.

    Reply

  33. Carroll says:

    Gawd!
    Would the real Hillary please stand up.
    What is she telling Clark, who has an internet campaign going to prevent an attack on Iran, that she isn’t telling AIPAC and her Lukid supporters?
    Let me tell you what…Hillary may “try” diplomacy in the ME..but the bottom line is Israel will continue in provoking a war with Syria and Iran ….if they succeed in creating a war then Hillary’s personal politicals ambitions will committ the US to more war in the ME under the “ally” theory for Israel and the Lobby’s behalf.
    That is the bottom line. It’s not about what Hillary will “try” to do, it’s about what she “will” do when she has to choose between that special interest US Lukid money source for re election to a second term and doing what is right for the country.
    She won’t make the right choice.

    Reply

  34. pt says:

    why is it that everyone who worked with clark could not stand him? why is it that his 04 pres campaign fell apart almost as soon as it started? Why is it that Gen. Jackson (UK, rtd) said Clark “almost started WW III with the Russians over an airstrip in Kosovo? Why would we think it is a good idea for this guy to be Sec Def?

    Reply

  35. easy e says:

    Hillary/Clark vs. Guilliani/McCain?
    I’m sorry, but I really believe that the GOP beats any Hillary-led ticket in ’08.
    GOP’s Corporate Mainstream Media will continue to dumb-down the general public, instill fear about growing Islamo-terrorism, etc. etc.
    Regarding Wes Clark, it’s just a matter of time before they jump on his “money people” comments earlier this year.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=811472&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=2#article811472
    Until our hijacked constitution is reclaimed and criminals brought to justice, a fascist USA will be solidified and controlled by corporate/industrial/war-profiteering interests (ie GOP).
    ***What will it take to wake up the sheeple?***

    Reply

  36. JohnH says:

    Hillary and most of the Democrats seem pathologically driven to paint themselves into a corner. They claim that their 2002 votes were either “a mistake,” or “they were misled,” both severe errors of judgement. Now they are all publicly wringing their hands, saying, “we’d like to do something, but we’re powerless.”
    Who would vote for a bunch of gullible weaklings with bad judgement? If they can’t defend their constitutional war funding prerogatives from Bush, how can they protect us from Osama? If they pass warrantless wiretapping laws, and don’t even have the sense to realize that they are the first people that Bush will wiretap, how can they possibly be trusted to run the government?
    Hillary had better get all the military endorsements she can, because the Democraps have no strength of character to show. And she should seek out endorsements from wise people outside the in-grown, corrupt foreign policy elite, who are apparently clueless about our goals in Iraq but still manage to tell us what we course we should be following.
    “You have to be careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there.”

    Reply

  37. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Damn, and here all this time I thought Clark was a stand-up guy.

    Reply

  38. Whipmeister Borstch says:

    The General “endorses” Hillary Clinton. Yeah, that figures. One retired general after another sucks up and in for future political appointment. Leaves a soul wondering when, if ever, one of our retired generals just might endorse America’s Constitution and call the current crop of posers playing for president, for what they really are. Treasonous scum that are not to a man/woman, worthy or honorable enough to be America’s President. ‘We the people’ are sold out to special interest/corporate concerns and are simply screwed!

    Reply

  39. Dan Kervick says:

    Clark has no doubt put himself in contention for a VP slot possibility — or perhaps would be high on the list to be Secretary of Defense.
    That’s what this is about. There is a deal in here somewhere.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *