We Are Change Talks To General Wesley Clark...Who Got to Him?

page: 1
31

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I'm sure many here on ATS are aware of Wesley Clark, former US Army General and former Supreme Commander of NATO, who in 2007 spoke about the agenda to invade/attack several countries in the middle east region.

Well, We Are Change recently managed to catch up with him, and someone or something certainly seems to have changed his tune-



There is something very haunting about how Clark looks back as he walks away, almost as though he wants to say something, but knows the consequences of speaking out again.

Reminds me of when We Are Change spoke to Tony Blair about his Bilderberg experiences and he got worried he might have said too much-





For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

- Ephesians 6:12


edit on 27-9-2013 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
This is diabolical, this plan unfolds sending the middle east into chaos. the truth is in front of everyones faces.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


almost as though he wants to say something, but knows the consequences of speaking out again.i]



He probably had this image running through his head the whole time...





You know things are bad when a General can't speak his mind.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Well, that's kind of troubling.

I've never understood what can scare an old man like that.

He's not coming back, that's for sure.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 

This is certainly a self serving post but whatever. I am very happy to see my "real" name scroll through the list of supporters for the WRC crew at the end of those videos.

This was a fascinating and crushing video to watch when I first saw it.

It is clear he knows exactly what he just came face to face with. A public that saw, heard, and understood. The implications are enormous.
edit on 27-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Personally, I think James Corbett has a solid take on that Wesley Clark statement, mentioned in one of his Syria videos: (Fast forward to 10:08 for the relevant portion)



If you can't watch it (or don't care to), he suggests:

While two (and an attempted third) of the nations mentioned have indeed been taken down, General Clark says it was a five-year plan which would commence with the invasion of Iraq, which did happen, but that was 2003. Ten years later, five of the seven still remain. He also seemed to mention a chronological order in which the countries will be attacked, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran.

My own little take:
Here's what I see as two important points to remember: 1) being high-ranking military brass, his loyalties must be questioned. This guy ran for president, and unless you're a complete freak of nature like Ron Paul, you don't get to that position without selling out. And, 2) despite the part of his story where he says "don't show me [the classified document] 'cause I want to talk about it!", it's still highly sensitive information which, if he really was still loyal to "Mother Army" (as he put it), would be utterly beyond any chance of getting leaked out. You'd think those seven nations would be interested, or our enemies, and his "revelations" could have endangered American soldiers potentially. A general would never do that without ulterior motive.
edit on 1920139 2013f 527Friday by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Your biblical quote summed it up.

Clarke knows the US gov has been infiltrated by forces of evil and every department along with it - the look he gave when he walked away said everything.

And, funnily enough, this agenda has been in the making since biblical times too.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

facelift
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


almost as though he wants to say something, but knows the consequences of speaking out again.i]



He probably had this image running through his head the whole time...





You know things are bad when a General can't speak his mind.

Beat me to it. Figures it would be you. That was my first thought. The only possible difference being that I imagined Clark being shown the JFK photo.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

facelift
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


almost as though he wants to say something, but knows the consequences of speaking out again.i]



He probably had this image running through his head the whole time...





You know things are bad when a General can't speak his mind.






The bad guys can't tolerate intelligent, knowledgeable retired generals running around shining the light on these cockroaches. If the Kennedy syndrome did not get to him, perhaps they threatened his pension. Or threatened to put child porn on his computer.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I don't think the fact that he wants to collect his pension is a secret. Money is usually the reason someone shuts up. The others are death and harm to family.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Well what did they want him to say? Yeah I may have exagerated somethings for effect and now that deadline has passed clealy I was wrong? I do know what Clark is taking about, in 2001 a list of countries that had Al Quida cells or had ties to them or could potentialy support them was floating around. Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Lebanon were mentioned on the list. Not Syria or Iran. The nations were not targeted for invasions out right but, to be approached about cooperating and if they did not then the US would use covert or overt means to deal with AQ elements in country. Lebanons camps were purged of AQ, Yemen welcomed US support and strikes against AQ, Libya cooperated, and in Somalia the US began its support of a new goverment backed by US allies in Kenya, Ethiopia and the African Union to remove the AQ threat. Iraq of course was a different story. why we invaded them is still up for debate. At the time Syria and Iran were already cooperating against AQ whom they say saw as a mutual enemy. I am sure Clark while trying to sound interesting in an interview and spice things up a bit did not expect to have people dragging it up years later.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Clark now runs a consulting company so,if he even wants a chance at any government contracts then it's in his and his companies interests to keep his mouth shut.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I think the original Clark interview, which he reiterated in at least one campaign speech when he ran for President, is a very important one. It clearly shows that the neocons and their allies in government in the United States did not have an iron grip on the military at the time. High up in the heart of the command structure of the US military there was bewilderment about the plans and intentions of the Bush government.

They obviously didn't understand the rationale for the plans they were being asked to implement.

In the interview with Luke Rudkowski there is an obvious retreat from the statements Clark made in the original interview, that is so well known. Rudkowski asks the general if there is any "follow up" from that original statement and the general says:

"No. Those were discussions that were being held in the Pentagon a decade ago reflecting discussions from 1991 and it's a tragedy how it's unfolded."

In his original interview Clark makes it clear that the revelation of the list of countries to be invaded came "out of the blue" and surprised military planners at the Pentagon. The time attached to this is a fews days after 9/11.

Not 1991.

Clark is obviously giving the powers that be in the United States, cover. He is implying that there was no radical change in US intentions after 9/11, which is clearly not what his famous first interview on this subject is at pains to emphasize.

It is very depressing to see Clark taking this tack, but it does serve to underline that we have a long way to go, as the voting public in our respective countries, to make sure that our governments really are forces for "peace and cooperation" in the world, in the general's words.
edit on 29-9-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Wesley Clark was on the NWO payroll for a very long time. He was their go to boy in Kosovo.
edit on 29-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Reading between the lines of what and why Clark will not discuss this reminds of a line from "Top Gun" with a twist. "That's classified, I could tell you, but then they would kill me."



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Tim Russert comes to mind as well. We all know what happens when we say or ask too much...


Oh yeah, he ruffled a few feathers with this one too. 4 months later - R.I.P. Tim...

edit on 29-9-2013 by sageturkey because: Add



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Dustytoad
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Well, that's kind of troubling.

I've never understood what can scare an old man like that.

He's not coming back, that's for sure.


FAMILY!



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

MrSpad
Well what did they want him to say? Yeah I may have exagerated somethings for effect and now that deadline has passed clealy I was wrong? I do know what Clark is taking about, in 2001 a list of countries that had Al Quida cells or had ties to them or could potentialy support them was floating around. Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Lebanon were mentioned on the list. Not Syria or Iran. The nations were not targeted for invasions out right but, to be approached about cooperating and if they did not then the US would use covert or overt means to deal with AQ elements in country. Lebanons camps were purged of AQ, Yemen welcomed US support and strikes against AQ, Libya cooperated, and in Somalia the US began its support of a new goverment backed by US allies in Kenya, Ethiopia and the African Union to remove the AQ threat. Iraq of course was a different story. why we invaded them is still up for debate. At the time Syria and Iran were already cooperating against AQ whom they say saw as a mutual enemy. I am sure Clark while trying to sound interesting in an interview and spice things up a bit did not expect to have people dragging it up years later.


Right, and Gulf of Tonkin wasn't our fault, the US government never ordered to assassinate heads of state or manipulate regime change, and of course, we had to go into Syria because Assad gassed his people.

America is exceptional and can do no wrong, there is always a reasonable explanation for actions from this nation.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This is just actually very creepy to watch. Wesley Clark is a very intelligent man and If you watch some of his older interviews he is pretty open and quite frank about the agenda being played out in the middle east. Something had to have gotten to him to suddenly change his tune like this.

You want to know why certain interests would want to silence Mr.Clark? Watch @5:15
edit on 30-9-2013 by Konduit because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
31

log in

join