Can a 4 star General Talk Like a Truther? Try to Debunk Brigadier General Wesley Clark! Ummmm WOW!

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Actually, you are almost right. The title "General of The Armies" was only given to 2 officers. George Washington(posthumously) and "Blackjack" Pershing. Pershing actually designed the insignia as 4 gold stars instead of silver. 5 star generals(Generals of the Army) and 5 star Admirals(Fleet Admirals) had 5 silver stars in a pentagonal shape. This rank was enacted under FDR in order to provide parity with European Marshals and Grand Admirals. Both ranks were a lifetime appointment.

"General of the Army" in the singular (instead of armies) is what was originally being referred to I think. And then you'd also have Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Bradley and Arnold.

Either way, Gen. Wesley Clark held a comparable position to our WW2 generals in that he oversaw more than just US forces, but all of NATO in Europe too. You can't get much more seniority than that.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by primus2012
4 Star General is not a Brigadier General, it's simply "General".

* = Brigadier General
** = Major General
*** = Lieutenant General
**** = General (Once was the highest possible rank and had title of General of the Army)
***** = General of the Army (Very rare rank)

I know it's just semantics...just sayin.

Actually, you are almost right. The title "General of The Armies" was only given to 2 officers. George Washington(posthumously) and "Blackjack" Pershing. Pershing actually designed the insignia as 4 gold stars instead of silver. 5 star generals(Generals of the Army) and 5 star Admirals(Fleet Admirals) had 5 silver stars in a pentagonal shape. This rank was enacted under FDR in order to provide parity with European Marshals and Grand Admirals. Both ranks were a lifetime appointment.

Actually I was correct. The special title General of the Armies (pl) is what you are referring to. General of the Army is exactly what a 5-Star General would be.
The equivalent rank in the Air Force would be: General of the Air Force.
And as you stated, equivalent rank in Navy would be: Fleet Admiral.

The US Army pondered the title Field Marshal for a 5-Star, but at the time of it's inception, there was a 5-Star General named George Marshall, and his title would have been Field Marshal Marshall, and they deemed that undignified.

Wiki - General of the Army

I love how you guys talk without researching. Let me help you out here.

en.wikipedia.org...

The rank of General of the Armies is considered senior to General of the Army, and has been bestowed on only two officers in history, John J. Pershing, in 1919 for his services in World War I, and George Washington for his service as the first Commanding General of the United States Army.

When the five-star rank of General of the Army was introduced, it was decided that General Pershing (still living at the time) would be superior to all the newly-appointed Generals of the Army. Then-Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was asked whether Pershing was therefore a five-star general (at that time the highest rank was a four-star general). Stimson stated:

It appears the intent of the Army was to make the General of the Armies senior in grade to the General of the Army. I have advised Congress that the War Department concurs in such proposed action.[citation needed]

Section 7 of Public Law 78-482 read: "Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Act of September 3, 1919 (41 Stat. 283: 10 U.S.C. 671a), or any other law relating to the office of General of the Armies of the United States."

George Washington was posthumously appointed to the rank of General of Armies in 1976 as part of the American Bicentennial celebrations. According to Public Law 94-479, General of the Armies of the United States is established as having "rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present," clearly making it distinctly superior in grade to General of the Army. During his lifetime, Washington was appointed a general in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and a three-star lieutenant general in the Regular Army during the Quasi-War with France.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


LOL you pwned yorself there guy. "Here let me provide you a quote from your link that you posted just before me."

I don't understand how people can argue without providing anything to the contrary of your original statement. lolol
Like an Bugs and Elmer cartoon. Poster A"The sky is blue" Poster B"You're wrong, it's actually blue. I can't believe you didn't research that."

Or better example yet... Poster A "The sky is blue" Poster B "You're wrong, grass is actually green".

If people are using the term truther to generalize such a huge swath of opinion, theory, and stances then the term is useless. Beyond meaning "seeking the truth" you may as well be using political slang such as conservative, liberal, or progressive where the terms mean nothing more than "super awesome" (in the case of self-labeling), or "super poopiehead" (in the case of labeling someone else).

What he said was very concise, and likely with good reason. It does not rule out a great many possibilities, nor does it isolate anything other than the investigation being incomplete and a need to determine any crimes or wrongdoings that may have occurred in regards to the intelligence warnings blatantly available prior.

So for me that qualifies as a truther, or truth-seeker.

Gen. Clark states:
"...we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time."

-- My question to you trusters is,
What do you think the General is implying when he states that the administration "misused" the intelligence info it had?

Originally posted by Game_Over
Gen. Clark states:
"...we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time."

-- My question to you trusters is,
What do you think the General is implying when he states that the administration "misused" the intelligence info it had?

You have to be told this? He means that they attacked Iraq off the back of it. This is not new information.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Then you didn't watch the video. 1:25 "trick."

I did. It seems you didn't.

Or more likely you did and then just read into it what you felt like hearing. Show me where he says they "chose" not to act. You can't, because he didn't say that. the reason you've added it is to spin his words to make them sound more suspicious.

Information... that was warning of an impending attack by "al Qaeda."

I'm not going to get into a semantic pissing contest with the likes of you. You're obviously taking the route of total pettiness on this thread.


If you agree that there should be a new investigation, then you agree with me. Period. Otherwise you are very confused, and you are, very, very confused.

No, you are. This is not a "semantic pissing contest", whatever that is. It's a very specific attempt by you to gloss his words so that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you can pretend that Clarke shares your extraordinary and ill-founded views.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I did. It seems you didn't.

Or more likely you did and then just read into it what you felt like hearing. Show me where he says they "chose" not to act. You can't, because he didn't say that. the reason you've added it is to spin his words to make them sound more suspicious.

He says they did not act on the intelligence they received, which we've already known for years and is no breaking development. There is example after example of it. Unless the intelligence forced them not to act on it (which I guess will be your next futile argument), it seems to me that the course of action to apparently do absolutely nothing about it was a very poor and negligent choice. Thus its very reasonable assumption of being subject to further investigation and legal action in the first place. You don't get charged for things that just happen to you by chance. You get charged for poor choices. Apparently you're too short-sighted to have thought ahead that far and realized how stupid your argument over the word "choice" is.

What you are doing, is called splitting hairs and playing semantic games. Semantics means words. It's immature and whatever you think you're proving, you're really only proving how petty you will make these discussions just to prove a worthless point. Literally your argument is over the word "choice." Where is Charlie when you need him? "LOSING."

No, you are. This is not a "semantic pissing contest", whatever that is.

Figures that you wouldn't even know.

It's a very specific attempt by you to gloss his words so that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you can pretend that Clarke shares your extraordinary and ill-founded views.

So this must be the crux of it. You'll say whatever you can possibly think of, no matter how weak or trivial of a semantic argument, just so you can feel like you have the right to say the Gen. disagrees with me as far as there needing to be another investigation.

So let's check the score to see how that's going for you.

Who wants a new, more in-depth investigation of the events of 9/11?

I do!

Gen. Wesley Clark does!

(so do millions of others we're ignoring for the moment)


Oh wait, did you see that? Me and Gen. Clark (and even you in a hypothetical in a post above) would all like a better investigation.

The only reason you want to divert from this simple fact to the WTC and other topics, despite the general making no mention of those whatsoever, is because you don't want the conversation to rest on the simple fact that I agree with the General and the General agrees with me. That's too much for you so you have to dilute the topic with garbage, moving goalposts and erecting strawmen and your usual circus routine.

Originally posted by pshea38
9/11 doesn't matter anymore. It was a means to an end.

Tell that to all the many victims..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by pshea38
9/11 doesn't matter anymore. It was a means to an end.

Tell that to all the many victims..

You mean the 1million+ children, women and men from the middle east
who really died because of the devious hoax that was 9/11 with no terrorists,
no planes and few if any victims. We all mistook computer generated imagery for
the real mccoy and swallowed everything a complicit main stream media dished up.
I am dreadfully sorry for those innocents who really suffered.

www.septemberclues.info

Originally posted by bsbray11
So this must be the crux of it. You'll say whatever you can possibly think of, no matter how weak or trivial of a semantic argument, just so you can feel like you have the right to say the Gen. disagrees with me as far as there needing to be another investigation.

So let's check the score to see how that's going for you.

Who wants a new, more in-depth investigation of the events of 9/11?

I do!

Gen. Wesley Clark does!

(so do millions of others we're ignoring for the moment)


Oh wait, did you see that? Me and Gen. Clark (and even you in a hypothetical in a post above) would all like a better investigation.

So you agree with Gen. Clark that we should investigate into the intel failures, screw ups, bungled chances, red tape, beaurocracy BS, rivalry, that led to the largest intel failure since Pearl Harbor, allowing for a large attack to occur? Or are you just agreeing with Gen. Clark that we need a new investigation, even though he shares NO commonality with truthers on magic explosive thermites, bombs, lasers, death rays, fake planes, no planes, some planes, shot down planes, missiles, planted eyewitnesses/evidence/etc, thousands of first responders in on it, hundreds of thousands of people in on it, Bush/Cheney ordering the attacks, NWO doing it, Jews doing it, numbers worshiping cult members, etc etc etc etc? Because if that is the case, then you two are nothing alike, and the only thing that links you two is "wanting a new investigation". That does not make him a truther. Not even close. He wants to get to the actual truth. Not this "truth" crap peddled by Dylan, Alex Jones, Dr. Griffin, Jones, etc.

The only reason you want to divert from this simple fact to the WTC and other topics, despite the general making no mention of those whatsoever, is because you don't want the conversation to rest on the simple fact that I agree with the General and the General agrees with me. That's too much for you so you have to dilute the topic with garbage, moving goalposts and erecting strawmen and your usual circus routine.

Yeah, i can just see it now:
General Clark: "I want to see a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks. I feel as if it was not handled properly and left many unanswered questions"
You: "Yes sir I agree with you too! I, too, want to investigate the 9/11 attacks, and feel like it was not handled properly. They should have checked for explosives in the WTC, the ample evidence of thermite being used, the obvious shoot down of Flight 93, voice morphing technology faking calls on the hijacked flights, the mysterious way WTC7 collapsed so fast, or how the Pentagon was not hit by a plane but a missle, or how......."
Gen. Clark: "Wait, what?? What the hell are you talking about? I never thought or mentioned anything like that. What the hell kind of circus investigation are you thinking of??"
You: "But I thought you also want a new investigation!"
Gen. Clark: "Well yes, but not the fantasy freak show you are dreaming of!"

Originally posted by GenRadek
So you agree with Gen. Clark that we should investigate into the intel failures, screw ups, bungled chances, red tape, beaurocracy BS, rivalry, that led to the largest intel failure since Pearl Harbor, allowing for a large attack to occur?

Right, none of that has ever come under investigation.

Or are you just agreeing with Gen. Clark that we need a new investigation, even though he shares NO commonality with truthers on magic explosive thermites, bombs, lasers, death rays, fake planes, no planes, some planes, shot down planes, missiles, planted eyewitnesses/evidence/etc, thousands of first responders in on it, hundreds of thousands of people in on it, Bush/Cheney ordering the attacks, NWO doing it, Jews doing it, numbers worshiping cult members, etc etc etc etc?

He never talked about any specific beliefs he had about any of that, or believing it was the planes and fires alone, either. Doesn't stop us from agreeing on the first part, though.

Tell me 911 deniers, if we can not trust the word of firefighters, scientists in various fields military people, intelligence people, acting and former politicians, who can we trust? Conspiracy guy goodolddave and pals?

Since when do we live in a world, that the word of conspiracyguys like goodolddave and his buddies trumps the words of people who are in the know, because of an related education or a position that might give access to relevant information? And what exactly do these conspiracyguys on a conspiracyboard base their claim, that all those professionals are lying?

Originally posted by bsbray11
He says they did not act on the intelligence they received, which we've already known for years and is no breaking development. There is example after example of it. Unless the intelligence forced them not to act on it (which I guess will be your next futile argument), it seems to me that the course of action to apparently do absolutely nothing about it was a very poor and negligent choice. Thus its very reasonable assumption of being subject to further investigation and legal action in the first place. You don't get charged for things that just happen to you by chance. You get charged for poor choices. Apparently you're too short-sighted to have thought ahead that far and realized how stupid your argument over the word "choice" is.

It's not stupid at all. Although I'm not surprised that you choose to pretend there isn't a difference. Clark has chosen his words carefully, because he knows there's a good chance that in the proliferation of intelligence it was reasonable for them to ignore it. Or that they did so for reasons of incompetence as opposed to criminality.

Your introduction of the word shows that you're trying to make him say something he did not.

What you are doing, is called splitting hairs and playing semantic games. Semantics means words.

It doesn't actually.

It's immature and whatever you think you're proving, you're really only proving how petty you will make these discussions just to prove a worthless point. Literally your argument is over the word "choice."

I'm not surprised that you try to label this a "semantic" thing. It's a word that people often drop into arguments as an attempt to automatically discredit their opponent.

In actual fact you're incorrect both in the particular - this is not a "semantic" issue - and in the general. The former because this is not a discussion over the meaning of the word "choice", but rather about whether Clark even used it. Which he did not. And in the general because Clark does not concur with your notion that the Bush regime "chose" to ignore the intel. He pointedly does not claim that.

It is of course possible that you are just sloppy enough to not listen properly to what people say. But when your introduction of a new word makes the source say something closer to what you believe, then I have to suspect that you are motivated by something other than simple incompetence.

Figures that you wouldn't even know.

Amusing, considering you think "semantics means words".

So this must be the crux of it. You'll say whatever you can possibly think of, no matter how weak or trivial of a semantic argument, just so you can feel like you have the right to say the Gen. disagrees with me as far as there needing to be another investigation.

So let's check the score to see how that's going for you.

Who wants a new, more in-depth investigation of the events of 9/11?

I do!

Gen. Wesley Clark does!

(so do millions of others we're ignoring for the moment)


Oh wait, did you see that? Me and Gen. Clark (and even you in a hypothetical in a post above) would all like a better investigation.

The only reason you want to divert from this simple fact to the WTC and other topics, despite the general making no mention of those whatsoever, is because you don't want the conversation to rest on the simple fact that I agree with the General and the General agrees with me. That's too much for you so you have to dilute the topic with garbage, moving goalposts and erecting strawmen and your usual circus routine.

I'm just amused that you think an "investigation into 9/11" would look exactly the same if conducted by you or by Clark. Look at the glassy expression when he realises that he's talking to Truthers in the video above. He knows what he wants, which is an investigation into the botched intelligence and its subsequent misuse - indeed he says it constantly.

What he is not interested in is some pointless search for thermite, bombs and missiles. Saying that General Clark wants the same thing as you is like saying that Binyamin Nethenyahu wants the same thing as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because they’d both like to resolve the issue of Israel’s place in the Middle East. The comparison is so vague and general as to be worthless.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
Apparently you're too short-sighted to have thought ahead that far and realized how stupid your argument over the word "choice" is.

It's not stupid at all. Although I'm not surprised that you choose to pretend there isn't a difference.

Right, once again, you are saying there is a difference between Clark's opinions and my own.

The trouble is, like I keep saying, he didn't specify what his opinions were beyond what he said. You choose to assume he believes what you believe apparently, which is fallacious, ie ignorant. I could choose to assume the same thing, that he shares all the same opinions I do, but I don't, because unlike you I'm not pretending the guy said anything that he didn't.

That's the long and short of it, and you can rant all night but it won't change any of that.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Right, once again, you are saying there is a difference between Clark's opinions and my own.

I could choose to assume the same thing, that he shares all the same opinions I do, but I don't

So hang on. I'm wrong to assume there's a difference between your opinions, but you're correct to assume that he doesn't share the same opinions as you?

That makes about as much sense as your views on 9/11 generally, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

because unlike you I'm not pretending the guy said anything that he didn't.

You are precisely doing that. You misquoted him, purposely to make it look as though he agreed with you. You fabricated what he said.

If that isn't pretending he said something, then I don't know what is.

I'm not surprised you couldn't answer the rest of my post. It look like you're clutching at straws. Have a look at what Clark says in other videos and see how much he evidently "agrees" with your notions of bombs and inside jobs. The answer - which is not exactly a feat of supposition to arrive at - is not at all.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So hang on. I'm wrong to assume there's a difference between your opinions

Why do you have to assume anything when you have a lack of information?

but you're correct to assume that he doesn't share the same opinions as you?

I don't know that he doesn't. I never made that assumption. You either can't read or don't have the slightest clue what an agnostic position is, or how someone can simply not make erroneous assumptions. You don't have to feel impelled to believe anything at the cost of just assuming whatever is convenient for you.

You are precisely doing that. You misquoted him

I never misquoted him. Now you're lying. Show me where I quoted him incorrectly. "Quote" means these " " or even an ATS quote tag. You know that, right? Never heard the word paraphrase either apparently, and your argument as to why my paraphrasing was wrong was on par with all the other asinine semantic arguments you "debunkers" are left squabbling over.

I think Clarke probably did hear what he heard after what I discovered today and documented in this thread which was the continuation of the plan by the Obama administration under a different implementation. I doubt the General would have expected that to have occurred either.

reply to post by Newbomb Turk


He just said all the countries we are currently at war with, including Libya. How odd that he says the next target will be Iran to finish it all off. Could the uprisings in other nations be a part of the master plan? Or are the people coming to realize their governments are being manipulated?