

Wesley Clark Says We Need To Investigate 9/11

..weve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information at hand, the evidence seems pretty clear to me..

Wow, a democrat that openly questions the Bush Administration regarding 9/11? Hallelujah! Check out the video hosted by crooksandliars.com via the link above, and send Wesley Clark a thank you or two.

Big thanks to Jon Gold for the heads up!

Wesley good.

Wesley good.

Labels, and especially guilt

Labels, and especially guilt by association, are a tricky thing/business, but Wesley Clark is a Rhodes Scholar, which, along with his past behavior and role in the military-industrial complex, means, IMHO, he deserves the doubt, not the benefit, of the doubt. (not a thank-you)

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20574 (long)

they're all in the same gang

they're all in the same gang in my opinion until one of them actually mans up and makes claims.

what is he actually saying

what is he actually saying here? Is he saying that they "misused the intelligence" against the US? because that's huge if that's what he ment.

That's what he said.

That's what he said.

Iraq Is In A Civil War, And

"We've never finished the

"We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information that it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time."

He didn't say against the U.S., but that's what he was implying.

I wanted to vote for Clark

I wanted to vote for Clark in '04 but didn't get the chance, and ended up voting for a third party to boot. I recognize that he's got a historical role in our military industrial complex, but I also recognize that this country's more likely to stay relatively moderate rather than shift as hard left as I'd like it to. He's one of the best contenders out there as far as I'm concerned, and his being one of the first clear 9/11-Truth statements by a significant politician, shows that very clearly.

Come on guys! This guy

Come on guys! This guy thinks we need to stay in Iraq! Unless he goes on Meet the Press and says something like:

"This President and Vice President,without a doubt, worked in collusion with various terrorists and covert agents to pull off a massive inside job on the American People on 9/11. The facts are plain, a Movement is growing around these issues, and sooner, rather than later, we need to act upon the truth behind what happened on that fateful day. We need impeachment and imprisonment for everyone in the Administration who either aided in those attacks, or who assisted in covering them up."

Until that day, gang, there's no f-ing way I'm getting behind a war-monger masquerading as a moderate voice.

I'm not saying he's my ideal

I'm not saying he's my ideal leader, but unless we see a violent revolution, we're not looking at a fast or easy change of direction. We need a strong, central leader to get the ball rolling. And, I'd like to see someone else you think stands half of a chance at the 44th Presidency talking about this at all, aside from Kucinich whose 9/11T remark was half-hearted and sidetracked at best. I'd love to see a surge in support of our third parties, I really and truly would, but if this country's going further in either direction it's to the right. The number of college Republican clubs has tripled in the last 4 years, while the number of Democrat clubs has stayed the same. I got my hopes up in '04, but when it comes time in '08, I'm just praying for moderation of any sort.

That sounded really

That sounded really pessimistic, but it's optimisim at a realistic pace, I promise.

OT: FTW today, Ruppert


FTW today, Ruppert reviews "From Freedom To Fascism", and his fiance has a separate article about the Ashland OR screening.


Not really a 911-Truth flick per se, though most of the major characters in it are 911 Truthers... and as we whoÂ´ve descended down the Red Pill rabbit hole some time ago know, many roads lead to the filmÂ´s pet topics, Federal Reserve and IRS.

Man, don't be pessimistic or

Man, don't be pessimistic or rationally optimistic, be committed to transforming the world for the better! You can vote for Clark if you like, but don't plug somebody for President that has no problem with bombing wedding parties and killing babies. This is serious business. We have got to get out of there. We are draining our treasury to make billions for Halliburton and the other profiteers. We cannot accept any candidate, for any office, that won't look at impeachment or ending this war in a rapid fashion. I truly believe that our democracy won't survive if we don't start demanding exactly what we need. Our future depends on a speedy resolution of this conflict.

Pooey on Wesley Clark! Russ Feingold for President! Finally a Democrat with some cajones. Take on the President, Russ!

Finish the investigation of

Finish the investigation of 911? How about lets just get one started finally.

Wesley Clark is a totally

Wesley Clark is a totally sick demon. This guy is a New World Order puppet all the way.

Let me count just a few the ways of his demonic manner:

Wesley Clark was the Army commander who used U.S. soldiers and military hardware against American civilians in the federal assault against the Branch Davidians which violated the Posse Comitatus Act and resulted in the massacre of nearly ninety lives, including old men, women, and children.

During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander targeted civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, including bombing Radio Television Serbia, used cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and in one incident sped-up a cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident.

And Wesley Clark would have literally started World War III if he had had his way. During the Kosovo conflict, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Clark ordered General Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of the British forces, to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control. General Jackson refused with the statement, "I am not going to start World War Three for you."

For those of you who don't realize what the significance of that act would have been, one needs to realize that the Serbian government was Communist, and hence the formerly U.S.S.R. Russia was there by the Serbian government's will to at least somewhat mitigate in the NATO transition. And Pristina is the capital city of Kosovo.

Thus, this would have been a Western-power military confrontation directly with Russian forces. General Sir Mike Jackson wasn't using hyperbole when he rebuked Wesley Clark on this matter. The nukes could have literally been flying that evening between East and West had General Sir Jackson obeyed General Clark's order. That is to say, you likely wouldn't be reading these words today had Wesley Clark gotten his way, because you would be dead.

That, my friends, is Wesley Clark for you.

good post james redford. my

good post james redford.

my thoughts exactly. he's the new bird-cage liner - so is Gore/Feinstein

are there any of them who

are there any of them who aren't NWO puppets?

"are there any of them who

"are there any of them who aren't NWO puppets?"

Yes, James Ha: Ron Paul.

Yeah, I'm with you James

Yeah, I'm with you James Redford. Great post. No way does Wesley Clark get my vote. BTW, in case we forgot, Clark was Michael Moore's pick for Prez. Nuf said? Can you say Left Gatekeeper?

Lots more opinion on Wesley Clark from various 9/11 truth researchers can be found here: http://www.oilempire.us/clark.html

Wesley Clark commanded

Wesley Clark commanded "al-Qaeda" in a little war we call 'Kosovo'. (See Kosovo Liberation Army)

Yes, valis (ARG), that's

Yes, valis (ARG), that's another aspect to that globalist war. The U.S. government used al-Qaeda against the Serbian government at least all the way into 1998, even though Osama bin Laden had been officially sought for arrest by the U.S. government ever since he had been named as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

For more on that, see the below articles:

"OSAMAGATE," Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, Centre for Research on Globalisation, October 9, 2001:


"U.S. supported al-Qaeda cells during Balkan Wars--Fought serbian troops," Isabel Vincent, National Post (via Canada.com), March 15, 2002:


"US Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia," Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy, October 31, 1994:


"Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base," U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, January 16, 1997:


"Clinton Administration supported the 'Militant Islamic Base,'" Centre for Research on Globalisation, September 21, 2001:


Cynthia McKinney for

Cynthia McKinney for President. an unrealistic pipe of mine i guess. But lets not forget that after the repugs manipulated the voters because she was the only person asking questions. Her voice is what gave me hope for the truth movement. She didnt back down because of the anthrax or give up just because she lost her seat. She stayed in and fought for the people and regained her seat. Recently she had vandals attack her home amd she still refuses to let the fear mongers shut her up.
In my opinion hands down I would prefer the courage, passion, dignity, intelligence compassion and the lack of gonads to restore honor to the Office of the President.

If I were an American, I'd

If I were an American, I'd vote for Cynthia McKinney. She is a true American hero.

Couldn't she be the presidential candidate of a popular movement or something?

All I know is this... Wesley

All I know is this... Wesley Clark was a Presidential Candidate. Wesley Clark was on National Television when he said, "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information that it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time."

Anytime a noteable figure says we need to re-investigate 9/11, on National TV, it's a good thing.

James Redford is either

James Redford is either ignorant or lying.

Wes Clark had next to nothing to do with Waco. Tanks from the division he commanded at Ft Hood were loaned to the TX National Guard, as ordered by higher headquarters (and ultimately Washington). Clark's troops did not participate, and he was not involved in the operation, so no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act occurred. There is a mountain of evidence to verify this.

Targetting civilian infrastructure is in complete accord with the Geneva Conventions and is a normal and necessary part of warfare. Neither are DU and cluster bombs considered illegal weapons by international law. War is always ugly; that's why it should be, in Clark's words, always a LAST resort.

The UN tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia investigated all allegations of war crimes (and General Clark submitted to their inquiries... what a concept!) and found that the some 500 civilian casualties in the war were justified by the law.

British Commander Mike "Bloody Sunday" Jackson (he was 2nd in command in hyperbolizing in the heat of the moment.

The Russians had sent a small unit by land to Pristina, with the intent to reinforce with additional forces by air. They wanted their own sector of Kosovo, instead of participating with NATO. Clark's order to Jackson was to place vehicles on the landing strip to block the arrival of Russian reinforcements. There would have been no confrontation at any level. The very idea that there was any danger of nuclear exchange is ludicrous.

When Jackson disobeyed, Clark got Hungary and Bulgaria to deny the Russians over-flight permission instead. The Russians stranded at the airport were working with Jackson's forces within the week. Nevertheless, the Russians have admited since that NATO's unwillingness to challenge their intrusion in Kosovo was what convinced them they would be free to re-invade Chechnya the next year, resulting in far more deaths than the entire Kosovo war.

Russia backed Serbia in that war for ethnic and religious reasons; it had absolutely nothing to do with communism. Milosevic' government was NOT communist. But they are Christian Orthodox nationalists, as is Putin's Russia.

Every word of James Reford's posts is straight out of extreme right-wing sources, meant to smear Clark during his 2004 presidential campaign. It always amazes me when those on the left (assuming JR really is on the left) get in bed with those on the right to generate lies against those who could lead this country with moderation and sound judgment.

Jai, right and left are an

Jai, right and left are an illusion.

valis (ARG), you are

valis (ARG), you are correct, in that the popular mordern political terms we have been given have been bastardized so that "left" and "right" are just two arms on the same statist beast, i.e., a "difference" with no difference.

There is only up or down: up to liberty or down to slavery. In the original sense of the political terms "left" and "right," left meant liberty and right meant government control.

The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 France. When the French Estates-General met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was in 1614.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, legalization of all drugs, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

Jai, nothing I wrote above was false. The "extreme right-wing sources" which I used include such publications as the Telegraph (U.K.), Democracy Now!, CounterPunch, etc., including articles published years before his 2004 Presidential campaign.

So far as the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia which targetted and murdered civilians, I am not a legal positivist (i.e., the notion that because a government law exists that it is right). Thus, simply because said bombings which targetted and murdered civilians may have been hunky-dory according to so-called "international law," that doesn't make it right.

As far as Wesley Clark's involvement in Waco, the military hardware used in that murderous assault had to be authorized by Wesley Clark, as he was the Commander of that base and the hardware that belonged to it. For more on the details of this matter, see the below articles:

"Wesley Clark and Waco," Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, originally published June, 1999:



"Wesley Clark and Waco," Lowell Ponte, FrontPageMagazine.com, September 23, 2003:


"Clark Tanks Rolled Into Mount Carmel," Kelly Patricia O'Meara, Insight, October 15, 2003:


What do 9/11 Truthers think

What do 9/11 Truthers think about the MSNBC "12 Missed Chances" 9/11 special from 2004?

http://www.ireggae.com/videos/12missedchances.ram (real video)
http://www.ireggae.com/videos/12missedchances.wmv (windows media )

Clearly there are a lot of the hijackers acting odd, setting off metal detectors, and even some of them in Afghanistan smiling about their 9/11 plans. I used to be full MIHOP, but after carefully examining the real truth over the last year, I firmly believe it was allowed to happen. Every point of contention 9/11 Truthers try to make, from the joint chiefs 9/11 warning to not fly, to Cheney standown orders, to foreknowlege, etc all points to allowing it to happen. I find it ridiculous to say al Qaeda are CIA agents or patsies or anything like that. Sure, the name itself "al Qaeda" may be a CIA invention, but these guys truly hate America. Maybe they did get a little help unbeknownst to them, but they committed 9/11 with a sense of honor...and the Bush regime is complicit by proxy of making sure it could go forth. There was no missle that hit the pentagon. And while I am not convinced either way with the towers, I wouldnt rule out an insurance scam involving WTC7.

Sorry Pockybot, the attacks

Sorry Pockybot, the attacks could not have happened without the Norad standdown and controlled demolition. LIHOP is not possible, they MADE it happen, one way or another.

"I find it ridiculous to say

pockyboy... email me at

pockyboy... email me at Gold9472@comcast.net...

"Maybe they did get a little


There is no honor among thieves and murderers. Including those in office. Nothing they do is honorable, so please don't associate murder with honor.

There is NOTHING honorable about killing innocent people. Period.

As far as the LIHOP/MIHOP argument...

They wanted to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to 9/11. On 9/10/2001, no one in America would have allowed a pre-emptive strike against either country without the idea of there being a significant threat.

Before the invasion of Iraq, there was a MASSIVE anti-war movement already taking place.

You know how I know? Because I took part in an anti-war protest in Washington D.C. in February 2003.

Even then, people knew the "reasons" for wanting to invade Iraq, and it had nothing to do with 9/11.

Invading Afghanistan was almost acceptable after 9/11 because of the confusion. However, once you find the truth, the invasion of Afghanistan becomes unacceptable.

REGARDLESS if the reason is LIHOP or MIHOP.

Admittedly, to me, the hijackers are the most confusing part regarding 9/11.

However, you can't plan on invading both countries unless you know you're going to be able to do it.

Now, would you take the chance of letting people like those that were supposedly involved with carrying out the "catastrophic and catalyzing" perform their tasks? People who couldn't fly worth a damn? Or, would you somehow guarantee that those planes hit their designated targets?

Answer that question, honestly, and the idea of MIHOP doesn't become that hard to accept.

"Sorry Pockybot, the attacks


Yes sir, bigguy. I could not have said it better.

I often wonder if pockyboy & AmandaReconwith are the same person. James Ha sometimes worries me too.

Don't get into those

Don't get into those arguments. That would destroy this site. Take me on my word for that.

dz, sbg, if there are duplicate people saying different things, then you should let people know.

What I just said is the

What I just said is the logical reason for MIHOP.

Now... if you want to talk about facts... that's a WHOLE 'nuther ballgame.

"catastrophic and

"catastrophic and catalyzing" event,


OK, Mr. Gold, I hear you. No

OK, Mr. Gold, I hear you. No need for me to open a can of worms.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Admittedly, to me, the hijackers are the most confusing part regarding 9/11."

Actually, the facts aren't

Actually, the facts aren't that hard either...

When you destroy, or cover-up specific evidence, it's for a reason. The reason is that it obviously contradicts the official account, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they would want to destroy and cover-up that evidence.

"OK, Mr. Gold, I hear you.



Call me Jon. They are... we don't know who the hell they were. We have an idea (CIA, MOSSAD, FBI, ACTORS, etc...), but we don't KNOW..

Incidentally, it's ok to say

Incidentally, it's ok to say you don't know something about 9/11. Just so long as you know enough, and that there is enough evidence to support the allegation of complicity.

Yes Jon. I see what you

Yes Jon. I see what you mean. My total guess at this moment is NeoCon perpetrators duped (or allowed) 19 Arabs to do many suspecious things before 9/11. The final act was to have some or all of the 19 board the doomed planes on 9/11 under some pretexts. Then by 9/12 or 9/13, Osama & his 19 supermen were framed as the 9/11 masterminds, and our Govy even had case histories on these guys as further "proof" that they did it.

Osama was branded

Osama was branded responsible by 4:13 that day I believe.



4 p.m: CNN National Security Correspondent David Ensor reports that U.S. officials say there are "good indications" that Saudi militant Osama bin Laden, suspected of coordinating the bombings of two U.S. embassies in 1998, is involved in the attacks, based on "new and specific" information developed since the attacks.

Sorry... 4pm.

Sorry... 4pm.

My pornographic memory isn't

My pornographic memory isn't what it used to be.

So they knew who did it

So they knew who did it within 7 hours, yet they claimed they had no idea it was going to happen!



And take into account what

And take into account what Rummy was talking about that day...

"Hard to get a good

"Hard to get a good case."


Interesting that Rummy was ALREADY promoting illegalities after the attacks. KNOWINGLY.

Pick my brain as much as you

Pick my brain as much as you want people... it's what I live for...

I'm going to bed.

I think one of the hardest

I think one of the hardest things to accept total MIHOP is the simple fact that by all accounts these "al Qaeda"(I do agree that al Qaeda is a CIA word coined to umbrella every extremeist under one term) seem to proudly boast about 9/11. I mean, if they were all patsies, why wouldnt they say they were framed. Osama oriignally said he was innocent and that it was people in the US government; but then he later down the road starts to incriminate himself. Is it a case of 'well everyone thinks I did it, so I might as well go along?'
And what about the man the US refers to as 'the mastermind of 9/11', Khalid Mohammed?

Indeed, the connection of terrorists and secret CIA funded Mujahadeen and Bosnian/Balkan fighters is interesting, but a few things don't seem to add up to complete the MIHOP scenario. I'm convinced Bush had no foreknowlege, and most likely was caught off guard at the school.

Also, we're all trying to unravel what lead up to the 9/11 tragedy; calling people 'disinfo' harbingers and implying things about people is counter productive. I am openly questioning some contentions of 9/11 Truth as I do the official theory.
To me figuring out where the money trail came from(Pakistan?) and the full truth behind the hijackers seems more prudent than arguing over remote controls, pods and missles.

pockybot... no offense my

pockybot... no offense my friend, but you need to do just a tad more research...

It took Osama 2 months to "admit" to 9/11. After almost every terrorist attack since 9/11, there has always been someone taking credit within a matter of days.

There have been so many conflicting reports about whether Osama is alive or dead (personally, I think he's been dead since late 2001), but this past January, he came out with a tape. How is that possible if he's dead?

If "someone" is willing to make a fake recording of Osama today, what would have stopped them from making a fake video of Osama taking credit for 9/11 then?

What about the "standdown" don't you understand? Clearly that shows complicity.

SOA??!! http://www.soaw.org/n

then look at Bosina wher he was Nato commander and what REALLY went on there..not the offical stories either.
he is a fake..

General Wesley Clark, dubbed the 'mad bomber ..

a whole lot of poppycock

a whole lot of poppycock against General in these here coments.

1. Gen. Clark had nothing to do with Waco. It was a false accusation generated by the extreme right and perpetuated by the extreme left.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/2003/12/index.html (Dec 2 entry)

2. Wes Clark was retired early for ruffling Pentagon Feathers of Republicans Sec. of State Bill Cohen and Gen. Hugh Shelton (Clinton gave the GOP control of the Pentagon to deflect their calls that he was a "draft Dodger") by insisting that the Air campaign bombing at high altitude would increase civilian casualties. He fought for Apache Helicopters that could fly low and be more precise of their targets and ground troops to point and verify, all the while holding down a 19 nation coalition.

Clinton's pentagon deathly afraid of the political fall-out of any U.S. casualties (after Somalia--and during the GOP's Wag the Dog accusations) did not want to "chance" it, and insisted instead on 15,000 feet altitude bombing doing the targeting instead. Clark fought them, and they resented it, and he was retired early by Washington's long knives for not being a "Yes" man for the Pentagon.

The fact that Clark had advocated and drawn a plan up to intervene in Rwanda earlier didn't help. Humanitarian interventions have never been popular due to lack of large monentary returns (see Darfur for a current example).

More on the subject of Kosovo and the battle within the pentagon and Clark http://www.torgo.us/wesley/ungen.htm
and paragraph 15 of http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Please understand that the left and the right extremes meet when a arc is formed...which is usually the case when both have agendas. The Right doesn't want to have to go up against a genuine principled military Southern Rhodes Scholar Hero who talks of 9/11 investigations and PNAC, and the Left would prefer some unelectable progressive without any National security experience because many so called liberals insist on stereotyping the military as "warmongers" who like war (which is why Democrats are seen as weak by many in National Security-and why since Vietnam, the troops tend to vote GOP).

But just remember that in the end, it is the Moderates on both sides, who make up the majority of voters percentage wise during a general election (and therefore end up deciding elections). The General, who is on the right side of the various issues, labels be damned, would make a formidable Democratic candidate. Naysayers are just simply not informed beyond reading websites erected with the express purpose of making a good man look bad.

If General Clark had the character that some would suggest, it would be wise for them to explain how it came to be that this General is the most decorated officer since Gen. Eisenhower--with medals from all over the world and here at home.

Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.
His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada, And the Presidential Freedom Award.

General Clark found out that

General Clark found out that his father was Jewish when he was a teenager.

Wes Clark is NOT a member of CRF, although he is a member of the International Crisis Group http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1as doing work in reference to Darfur, as well a Co-Director of Witt and Associates. http://www.wittassociates.com/ doing work in reference to NOLA's Katrina Disaster. He is also a Board member of CSIS, Center for Strategic and International Studies. http://www.csis.org/ and an advisory Board member of the nonpartisan GAO (General Accountability Office).