Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call" (FAIR Media Alert)

[roughsatori]

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03). snip//
more at: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

[BushHasGotToGo]

1. Clark is a no-good two faced liar

Fuck him

[RetroLounge]

2. But what do you really think?

eom

[Clark Can WIN]

4. Your skills of persuasion are inspiring

Captain of your debate team, you say?

[damnraddem]

23. No, it sounds like Clark blew in the wind like the American public ...

but with more information than the public had. He sounds like the mainstream Dems who supported the war reluctantly. Well, true, maybe two-faced liar does apply. But they're OUR, damned, spineless, asleep-at-the-switch two-faced liars.

At least he recognizes that it's a mess, unlike Lieberman. He sounds more like Kerry, but with less integrity. ;-)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

93. Why..... that is very nearly a full fledged endorsement of Kerry!

:)

[boilerbabe]

29. I think they all lie just to get a foot in the door...

And you can't have a guarantee as to which door they are putting their foot into. The Dem convention is going to be a circus, just like the CA recall would be ...except that they have waaay cool people running. If I was still there, I would definately vote for Larry Flynt.

[Prodemsouth]

41. You sure don't want Bush gone please change your sign in name.

DK would win DC only. HD would win Vermont and DC only. So why don't you change to BUSHANTOHER4-more apt.

[Lefty48197]

45. No good two faced liar?

Is that all you have to say about him Mr. Limbaugh?

[Democat]

62. I'm sure you've done more for your country than Clark

Right.

[Pepperbelly]

3. it is tough to detrmine ...

the accuracy of the article because it doesn't contain links to the referenced articles.

Also, even with what they quoted, it doesn't actually support what they asserted it did.

[grasswire]

5. the long knives are already out

what a shame.

[Julien Sorel]

8. Predictable, actually.

But these folks will soon be in the corner consoling themselves with their Nadir vote, waiting for the day they can tell us all 'We told you so.' That's why they are where they are.

[ewagner]

35. You can say that again!

Novak on Crossfire linking him to Clinton

FAUX showing Clark asking advice on a cell phone whether to answer reporters questions....Brit Hume "A real decisive one there.."

Pat Buchanan on Buchanan and Press: He doesn't sound like a General.

Not to mention the attacks from Dems up here...

This will be a test of Clark's character....hope he's up for it....

Hope he's wearing armored underwear.

[joeybee12]

9. Face it, Clark is going to come under scrutiny now...

...he's gotten a free pass thus far, and now he's a candidate and the gloves are off. He might very well have as much trouble explaining his position as Kerry is.

[roughsatori]

10. Yes it shows he is not an anti-war candidate

But you must read though. It is very fair. I trust FAIR, you will have to decide for yourself if they are lying. It shows how he is already sliding around on more issues then what his party affiliation was.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. You Trust FAIR? Then Why the Highly Misleading Title?

It looks like they know their stuff is not truly good enough to stand on its own.

DTH

[boilerbabe]

31. Re, your signature line...

Is Tom Joad like a migrant worker? Grapes of Wrath?

[Pepperbelly]

44. yep... nt

[Code_Name_D]

58. Than you are blind. I found this in the vary articel.

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

And their was plenty more examples. Half the articel is nothing more than pro-war qotations. Complet with publication dates. You have been debunked.

[Pepperbelly]

64. so was everyone who saw the intelligence reports...

I do not understand your point. Not a single Democratic candidate has disputed that factoid.

[LoneStarLiberal]

6. Interesting Piece

I backed Clark as a non-candidate and I'll back him even more as a candidate.

This is an interesting piece and, along with some of the better work I've seen here from those with questions about Clark, will undoubtedly merit a specific answer from Wes Clark.

I've got no problem with people who have legitimate questions or concerns. All the "Clark is a war criminal" crap from ANSWER is really annoying, though. If you have a legitimate bone to pick, this FAIR piece is a good guideline for how to lay out an argument backed by evidence instead of a hysterical propaganda piece.

Ready to back Clark 110%!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. FAIR Has an Agenda Just Like Counterpunch and Zpub

But I agree with the rest of your post. I would first be interested to know if the quotes are accurate, and then I'd like to know the context.

Regardless, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a little "wobbliness" on this issue for him, as he was paid to be an analyst and was expected to tell both sides of the issue, not just push his own viewpoint.

It doesn't change his overall position on the war, however, and it doesn't change the fact that he was right on nearly all of his predictions.

And it doesn't change my support for him.

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

21. Actually the FAIR piece is a hack job.

I'm burned out on deconstructing propaganda for a while, but there's an egregious bit of dishonesty in the piece.

Right off the top, it says Clark 'Cheered the war as the "Right Call."' But when you read the piece, here is what Clark said was 'the right Call.'


Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

He didn't say the war was the right call; he said the decision to attack sooner with fewer divisions, as opposed to waiting for more reinforcements, was the right call. It's a huge difference. Satori has dubious integrity, so I wouldn't expect him or her to see this, but the whole piece is similarly slanted with stuff like that, quotes out of context, slanted language, and so on. It's tripe.

[rucky]

37. You're my fact-checkin' cuz!

Why are there so many organizations that do the opposite of their name?

[Lefty48197]

48. Good job Billy

for exposing the entire slander piece for what it is.
Clark haters, please don't insult yourselves by citing this article again.

[StandWatie]

54. it just makes Clark look like an opportunistic weasel

There is far more there than "Right Call" and his PNAC style "bring change to the Middle East" goes beyond anything I've heard any of the other little turds that are running other than Lieberman

[Julien Sorel]

56. If you say so.

[Clark Can WIN]

88. Thanks for making that point Billy

Generals execute wars, they do not declare them.

Wesley Clark was indeed consistent in his message that Bush & Co. were wrong while giving credit due to the fighting men and women forced to execute his ego trip.

[Sweetpea]

7. I guess this is the beginning of the a smear campaign to discredit

a candidate with lots of promise.

[JanMichael]

12. It appears to be true? How's that a smear?

Let's just not call someone an anti-Invasion candidate if they aren't, is that fair? I think it is.

[Pepperbelly]

46. it is actually quite disingenuous ...

If you actually look at the quotations used, you should notice that they do support the arguments advanced by the writer. And without links, it is very difficult to look at the entire quotations or the context.

[JanMichael]

51. He either said these things or not, yes?

I'd simply like to see our candidates labelled accurately as opposed to whatever Rove, or their supporters, wishes to push on us.

Sort of like how Dean gets labelled a Leftist and Clark labelled "Anti-War".

[Pepperbelly]

60. no, not true ...

For example, if I wanted to be disingenuous, I could take what you wrote and turn it into the opposite of what you meant ...

I would be better able to judge what this writer wrote if I the articles used were available.

[roughsatori]

13. Is the article TRUE?

I think it is. You Clark supporters better start defending with facts. The time for the "electable" chant is over. As is just calling the truth a smear. Well you can keep it up of course, it just won't help get your man the votes.

I wonder how many of his supporters are even aware of FAIR since it does favor the left IMHO.

[Clark Can WIN]

90. When you post an article based in fact

And not fear, innuendo and spin......... we will consider it.

:spank:

[damnraddem]

28. Clark has made himself a target, just as the other nine have.

It looks like Clark changed his mind a couple of times -- just as the American public did. It appears that he was somewhat jubilant at the immediate outcome, but then reevaluated as the situation went south. I take the war stuff as less important (although not unimportant) than the DLC endorsement.

[JanMichael]

11. This is my favorite part:

"After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.""

Heh. The way he said that it sounds like he thought Iraq was an Imminant Threat to the US/UK, a view which over time has become obviously wrong.

30 or so days?

Anti-Iraq Invasion? Sure if "anti-the way BushCo planned it until it looked like it worked." is anti-Iraq Invasion.:eyes:

[roughsatori]

15. And they just kept telling me I was in denial of Clark's progressivism?

:shrug:

[JanMichael]

18. Just because he fudged on the Invasion doesn't mean he's a crap candidate.

On many other issues he is indeed a Liberal and proud of it.

I just want all of these little kinks ironed out by us and not the Repukes..

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. This Is a Nod to Strategy and Tactics

He's impressed with the nuts and bolts of the war planning here, and the dominance of the American military. It doesn't make him pro-war.

DTH

[JanMichael]

22. I didn't say he was Pro-War.

I said that the quote suggested that he was in the Imminant Threat camp.

You did see the 4 divisions in March v. the 5 divisions in April, no?

He appears to have been convinced that Iraq was presently armed with WMD's (Whatever that means these days), and apparently a threat, another totally wrong assumption.

That's simply the way it reads.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. Fair Enough

I think his comment will be shown to be in the context of a military analysis on logistics/strategy/tactics, rather than any actual support of the war, but I suppose we'll have to see.

DTH

[rucky]

40. You're workin' overtime today!

I appreciate the views of somebody who's ovbiously read up on your candidate. Thanks for helping us get edumacated on Clark.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. It's My Pleasure

I am a pragmatic cynic by nature, and yet I am more excited by Clark -- to the point where I was literally shaking when I was reading about his announcement this morning -- than anyone in politics, ever.

I will devote long hours and much money toward boosting Clark for President. Thanks for your compliment!

DTH

[Dookus]

19. The quote you put in bold

only tells me that he was commenting on the military action itself, NOT the politics behind it. He WAS a military analyst for CNN, ya know.

[JanMichael]

25. Parsing this will not change the fact that his objections...

...prior to recent events were of the Tactical variety, with a false assumption of threat, and not political.

[Pepperbelly]

61. where in the world did you get that? nt

[alcuno]

33. I haven't been able to get a link to the London Times editorial

There are other parts on the Clark website. I'm not a supporter, but I heard the guy about a hundred times and he was always supportive of the troops but skeptical of the war.

http://www.draftclark.com/archives/002405.shtml#002405

[Jackhammer Jesus]

47. Partially right, partially wrong?

This guy's job was to give his opinion of how the war was executed from a military point of view, not politically. That bit about liberation paints a slightly different picture of his opinion on the war - but keep in mind that he believed Iraq HAD WMD (had being the key, and obviously he has no way of knowing whether they still do), and probably thought the war would be justified in some regard "when" WMDs were found.

Guess what! That doesn't mean he thought Iraq was an imminent threat. He's stated several times that THAT is the very reason he was against the war - there was no imminent threat.

But - OH NO! The general thinks the war was well-executed. That MUST mean he supports it.

[Code_Name_D]

70. Military context? I don't think so.

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained.

Explane to me the military relivence of giving cudoes to Bush? This sounds like politics to me.

[Pepperbelly]

59. without the link ...

it is not possible to judge context. I have searched for this article and searched for it and have been unable to find it. Even based on the quotation, it was clearly in the context regarding military strategy.

[charlie]

71. This is the link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-641193,00.html

But to get to it, you have to pay for a subscription to the Times service.

[charlie]

73. Wait, here it is

Those idiot freepers are still posting full articles on their site:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889260/posts

[Gman]

80. OH! That link is to FR. I thought it was Deanies bashing Clark

sorry.

[charlie]

82. Mmmm?

Wakarimasen, gomenasai.

[retyred]

74. This entire so called Quote

<Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."">

reads as the authors interpretation of what was written by Clark.

Without the original article, this is pure conjecture on the part of the author's slant on the meaning of what Clark said.

If your going to post a hit piece, please post one w/out a pointed spin factor, preferably one with actual links to actual statements.


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[charlie]

77. The original article

is right above you -- post #73

[LalahLand]

16. Ooooops.... thats why assumptions based on sound bites

are a bad thing.

[Bertrand]

20. With that title,

they are misleading the reader to believe clark believed the war in principle to be the right call. The context of the quote was on military tactics:

"...If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Fair does this alot, and the come across as a left-wing version of a Brent Bozell project.


Edit: Contrast that with the Sub-Headline from the Fair Article "Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. Good Point, and It's Very Ironic

Considering "FAIR's" supposed mission of fair reporting.

DTH

[Skwmom]

81. I purchased the referenced articles from the London Times

plus a couple more. The article is misleading. I plan to post some additional excerpts sometime tonight.

[FubarFly]

78. Thanks for posting this.

I'm glad to see Clark's war stance be put into a different perspective. FAIR is a reputable organization and everything said here is an actual quote. As a cable war correspondant at a time of frenzied nationalism it is only natural that Clark occasionally said things that were pro-war, and supportive of the administration. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been invited back. There will be plenty more choice Clark quotes surfacing in the near future. I recommend that Clark supporters have Clark's more skeptical and caution advising quotes ready, so that the next time something like this pops up, we can get a more complete perspective.

Quotes like the one's in this paragraph look bad in hindsight:


As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with.

But can be put into perspective by an interview like this, taken days before the invasion:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index_np.html

You're unlikely to hear Clark the candidate speak up on CNN, now that we're in the middle of war. But when Salon spoke to Clark just before Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced, he didn't shy away from criticizing Bush foreign policy. "I don't think the case has been made well," Clark told Salon about a war with Iraq. "It's been made very poorly."

--snip--

How would that have worked naturally into the work against Iraq?

Because you would have built a case why you needed to take action against Iraq.

So you think the case has been made well then?

I don't think the case has been made well. It's been made very poorly


But it could have been made?

I believe it could have been made. Although the element of urgency was always missing.

You've referred to the campaign against Iraq as "elective surgery"; I imagine that means that you support disarming Saddam in principle, just not with the same urgency the Bush administration feels.

My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency.


---

Put into perspective we can see that Clark supported action because he viewed Saddam as a threat. He adamantly believed there were WMD's in Iraq. But he preferred the action taken to not be unilateral, and also appropiate based on the evidence at hand. He was also willing to consider non-military solutions. He thought that b*sh's hand was forced and standing down wasn't an option, but waiting was. There was more than one way to deal with Saddam.

(I reposted this from a locked thread, and reedited for accuracy and
clarity. Also this was meant as a reply to the original message.)

[Julien Sorel]

84. That was quite a good post.

Actually, it was closer to what the FAIR piece should have been all along, were they interested in living up to their name.

[robbedvoter]

24. Fair magazine cover in 2000: One body with bush and Gore's heads

on it. I see the faux left is once again helping W.

[union_maid]

26. It's not what he said once, but what he would have done that I care about

Same with Kerry. The Iraq vote didn't bother me that much because I don't believe that Kerry would done what Bush did. I certainly don't think that Clark would. Gephardt and Edwards seemed to be actually enthusiastic about the plan and that did bother me a bit. I still don't think that either one of them would have done things they way that Bush did. Anyway, I'll be voting on what I believe the next president will do not for any attempt, no matter how misguided, to support the president we've currently got.

[Skwmom]

27. I'd have to consider his statements in light of what was taking place

at the time. For example, in April were reports of Iraqs cheering all over the airwaves because they were liberated from a brutal dictator? I'm sure many people had feelings then that we must have done the right thing.

Another excerpt:

<The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with." >

Bush was constantly issuing ultimatums. I remember thinking that Bush should shut his mouth because he was forcing the issue and putting us between a rock and a hard place. We either had to forge ahead or our word meant nothing. Any bully in the world would think we were just bluffing. In addition, our soldiers had already sat for months in the desert. Now that we've found out what a lie all the WMD evidence was, our credibility is shot to hell anyway.

I believe I read that Dean also made different statements about the Iraq war. In addition, even though Graham (who I LUV) was anti war I'm sure we can find some statements he's made that can be construed to be pro-war.

Edit: My cut and pasting really screwed up my original message.

[IranianDemocrat]

36. Roughsatori the new king of spin!

"...If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

You're making it sound like he said the WAR was the right call. He said the tactical decisionwas right because he was a military analyst for CNN.

[roughsatori]

97. You seem to think I wrote the article (I just posted it)

I quess you would prefer news with a more right slant but I subscribe to FAIR updates. Other then the title I would have been proud to sign my name to it. As usual you can not refute facts, so you mock.

[Prodemsouth]

38. Insert Howard Dean or DK in place of Wesley Clark and the same people

who are defending FAIR would be crying foul and siting the same problems with the article we are. Clark did not Cheer the war but was commenting on a tatical move. It is Bullshit form defeatist elitist who haven't learned nothing in the past three years. I am canceling my subs.- FAIR sounds like a certain Network that claims to be fair and balanced, if we can get a loyal working class following and the old lunch pail crowd, whats left of them anyway, then screw the far lefties we won't need them.

[JanMichael]

42. "screw the far lefties we won't need them"

Nice attitude.

[Bread and Circus]

39. I read the article in its entirety....

and I can't say they proved anything. Seems
like a lot of quotes taken out of context,
strung together in a clever way to paint a
negative picture about Clark.

Anyone with half a brain can do that about anyone
of the candidates, especially Dean (even though I
kind of like Dean).

Ultimately, you have to ask yourself the real
question:

Who the f*ck can do the best job of getting us
out of this mess?

If Kucinich or whoever is your man for that job,
then fine, whatever, give me a good reason why you think
so.

An opinion piece like this is no better than
all the other conspiracy crap I read here on DU.

Frankly, people are just worried Clark is going to
whip their candidate's ass and suck all of his/her
political oxygen. That's all this anti-Clark tidal
wave is. People really don't have any real
negative dirt about him. They have to insinuate shit
and make stuff up.

Now that Clark is a candidate it is time for him to
step up and do what we think he can do. I hope he
proves the Clark supporters right. We have been right so
far at least when it comes to all the nay saying we
have had to put up with for that past few months here.

Now that Clark is a candidate, the gloves are off. We
have a right to defend him against spurious attacks and
"hit-and-run" articles.

We will have to see who America thinks is the best man for the
job in terms of security. It's that opinion which matters most
right now, for better or for worse.

[JanMichael]

49. I doubt those quotes would look "Anti-Invasion" in any arrangement.

"Seems like a lot of quotes taken out of context,
strung together in a clever way to paint a
negative picture about Clark."

Seems like they took his own words and wrote an article, that's all. As to negative painting of pictures I think DU'ers have done that to everyone we've got.

"Anyone with half a brain can do that about anyone
of the candidates, especially Dean (even though I
kind of like Dean)."

They have.

"Ultimately, you have to ask yourself the real
question:

Who the f*ck can do the best job of getting us
out of this mess?"

True but only to a point. There is nothing wrong with questioning the claimed positions of our, I repeat, our candidates.

"If Kucinich or whoever is your man for that job,
then fine, whatever, give me a good reason why you think
so."

ABB here. Actually like Clark, Dean, Edwards and DK.

"An opinion piece like this is no better than
all the other conspiracy crap I read here on DU."

I disagree. It has a slant but it isn't fabricated. Other than the exagerated title it's simply an opinion piece about the "belief" that Clark was against the Invasion. It's apparent that while cautious he was a "Imminant Threat" believer which is demonstrably a mis-taken POV.

"Frankly, people are just worried Clark is going to
whip their candidate's ass and suck all of his/her
political oxygen. That's all this anti-Clark tidal
wave is. People really don't have any real
negative dirt about him. They have to insinuate shit
and make stuff up."

Honestly? Here on DU I think the Clark supporters, through their actions, brought on the harsher criticisms of Clark the candidate; they did him no favors with the avalanche of threads over the last month or so.

"Now that Clark is a candidate it is time for him to
step up and do what we think he can do. I hope he
proves the Clark supporters right. We have been right so
far at least when it comes to all the nay saying we
have had to put up with for that past few months here."

I hope he does too

"Now that Clark is a candidate, the gloves are off. We
have a right to defend him against spurious attacks and
"hit-and-run" articles."

Once again it had plenty of comments by Clark that paints a different picture of his views on Iraq prior and during the early stages of the Invasion. Not all spurrious.

"We will have to see who America thinks is the best man for the
job in terms of security. It's that opinion which matters most
right now, for better or for worse."

Couldn't agree with you more.

Now should we still call Clark an "Anti-War/Invasion" candidate?

[Bertrand]

52. instead of offering your opinion on what they would look like in context

help us find them in context so we can judge ourselves. Ive checked out his website, but the last times o' london article on their is from the 14th, i think.

[JanMichael]

53. Hmm. I think I'll leave that up to the internecine warfare campers.

Only if that's ok with you though, captain.

[Bread and Circus]

57. I don't care what you call Clark...

in terms of "Anti-War" blah, blah, blah....

it doesn't matter. What will matter is when average
Americans go to the voting booth November 2004 and
ask themselves who stands for what they believe in
and who will keep them safe (whatever that means).

I think Clark fits that bill and because of his life-long
service to our military when he says the Iraq war is/was
a bad idea people will listen and give him the benefit of the
doubt.

Furthermore, I have no idea WTF people are talking about
when they assasinate Clark supporters. I have read almost
everything related to Clark on this site and we are no
more/less constructive/destructive than any group here.
I believe people can't really tear into Clark too much because
even their candidate (Dean/Sharpton/Gore/Clinton/Rangel/etc.)
praises him. So what do they do then?
Pick on the little guy, namely, Clark supporters. Direct me
to any quote made by a Clark supporter that is so atrocious
for us to be singled-out in such a manner.

Finally, people are only posting this avalanche of anti-Clark
hate mail because their candidate is threatened. They can't
stand the idea that after 9 months of bickering and solidifying
a position for their candidate that Clark comes along and polls
10% in a national poll only a few points behind the leaders.
It scares them to think Clark may actually win. Show me
an avalanche of anti-Sharpton threads here and I will be disproven.
You can't, and you know why...because no one is threatened by him so
they don't spend the energy. However, you have every Dean, Kerry, and
Kucinich politico here furiously poundling out the keywords
"Wesley Clark Massacre Babies" into google searches and seeing if
they can find the jackpot. Fine. Whatever. It's politics.
It's reality that we are in a competitive campaign season.

But is also reality that Clark has recently polled 9% and 10%
nationally without even running, raising, or spending campaign money.

It is also reality that when regular Americans hear about him
they are immediately interested and want to know more.
And when they do know more, they really like what they see. It is also
reality that Clark is brilliant, a winner, an achiever, telegenic,
good looking, well spoken, liked by the press, fawned over by
certain pundits, and supported by some very powerful people who
know how to win national elections.

Clark has an uphill battle for sure. Dean (Trippi) has run
an amazing campaign and for some wierd reason Gephardt is still
polling well. Can Clark win the Dem nod. God I hope so but it will
be tough.

I just hope he uses his chance to deliver a message and elevate
the discourse. He has thus far been very supportive of the other
candidates and has only had negative things to say about the
Bush administration. Does any Clark-basher at least want to concede
that and the fact that win or lose, Clark may a blessing for the
Democrats? We are the stronger party in terms of intelligence,
policy, defense, and security. WE just need to remember how
to convince America of that.

I have tried to make nice on DU but frankly I love my country
and liberal ideals too much to not fervently defend Clark.
It may or may not backfire in terms of garnering more support
but at this point I will not take any more of the bullshit
I read here lying down.

:nuke:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark Can WIN]

95. Now that's my kind of doctor to have in the house! EOM

[southern democrat]

55. I f his coverage was so pro war funny damn thing Tom Delay

was not impressed with it.I presonally watched most of Clarks coverage.I would describe his coverage as cautious optimisim.He had been agianst the war and he knew the reality that it didn't matter if he was agianst it or not,Bush was going to go in.Many of his colleauges were fighting over in Iraq.His job was to analyze the military operation,not to harp on why it was conducted.I'm sorry for the die in the wool folks who insist Saddam did not have WMD.Clark has never said Iraq did not have WMD.He knows they had them as well as Bush knows they had them.How do they know Iraq had them,because we gave them to them.When all the WMD were not accounted for after the first Gulf war the logical reasoning was that Saddam still had them.Clark's assertion was and still is that when we went to war with Iraq He was no immenent therat,there was no signifigant tie to 9/11 to Saddam.Should Gen.Clark be ashamed of the very military he was so much a part of?Should Americans be ashamed of our armed forces?I think not,and if Democrats turn on our military and General Clark as this post implies,we are just doing Rove's dirty work for him.We will also be proving to Independants and moderate Republicans that Democrats can't be trusted with the security of America.

[Wwagsthedog]

43. More Clark info here

and not from his website(s)

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[Wendec]

65. With all due respect to Fair

I just don't believe they did a thorough job on this. As early as October 2002, Salon was portraying Clark as in opposition to the U.S. policy towards Iraq. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/index.html
That's well before the January snippets cited in Fair. Frankly, I have never had a problem with Fair, but to cite extremely brief quotes, with no context, always raises my suspicions regardless of the source.

Likewise, a March 1, 2003 American Prospect article portrays Clark as very antagonistic towards the Bush Iraq policy. http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/tomasky-m.html

In a January 22 edition of Crossfire (one day after one of the quotes cited in the Fair article), Paul Begala defended Bianca Jagger's anti-war position by citing Clark as one of several generals who agreed with her.

I don't have tapes of CNN from January, so I can't specifically refute the quotes, but it seems to me that the general body of work on Clark's position more than demonstrates that he has been consistent. That body of work begins in October 2002. I didn't even bother to cite more recent statements. Sorry, but I neither see nor buy the inconsistency theory.

[Terwilliger]

67. there's no inconsistency

he's never been anti-war, and he's never been against the Iraq war

[Wendec]

89. OK

Just trying to answer the questions with some facts. You can obviously interpret them as you choose.

[Clark Can WIN]

96. Terwill

Have another one

[StandWatie]

68. it's the same thing both ways..

the puff piece and the hit piece are both correct because he talks out both sides of his mouth. If Iraq hadn't gotten so jacked up so fast he would have let his criticisms of Bush's handling on Iraq go into the memory hole.

[CWebster]

66. Ha!! FAIR, eh?

That didn't last long.

Gonna be a free for all and the blood is in the water. So much for the coast into the winner's circle.

[Zero Division]

69. As someone who has admired the work of FAIR in the past, I now must...

say that I will be much more skeptical of them in the future as a result of this article.

The basic gist of the article seems to be implying that if you make statements that approved of one tactic over another or display any positive sentiments about what happened during the invasion whatsoever, then you must have supported the invasion. This is almost as ridiculous as the charge that those who opposed the war must have supported Saddam.

It's a disappointment to see such black-and-white thinking and disregard for nuance embraced by those with whom I most likely share the same general worldview.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

72. Read FAIR's Old Kosovo Commentary

They have a clear agenda, and an obvious axe to grind, with respect to anyone associated with Kosovo.

UNfair is more like it.

DTH

[Sterling]

75. I trust fair.

But I would never post on Free Republic either.
:crazy:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

79. Trust Whoever You Want

That doesn't change the fact that FAIR had an agenda, though. Again, read their Kosovo commentary. It's quite obvious.

DTH

[w4rma]

85. FAIR's agenda is to promote more fair coverage in the media

FAIR = Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

It's stated right there in the title.

Was Gen. Clark always pefect on this? No. But, noone should expect someone to be perfect. If he wavered at some points then I don't blame him because the propaganda from the networks was at full throttle. Most people believed the propaganda and many still do.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

87. Their Stated Agenda, Sure

That doesn't make it their actual agenda. When you read their Kosovo hit pieces, you'll see what I'm talking about.

DTH

[w4rma]

91. I generally agree with FAIR's analysis.

I haven't read their Kosovo analysis(es). But, I don't think they were trying to derail a future Gen. Clark political career when they wrote them.

It could be possible that maybe some folks at FAIR are biased in favor of Gov. Dean for his stance against further media consolidation. This is a major point in FAIR's agenda:


It’s been a busy day, but it’s great to blog here on Larry Lessig’s blog.

I’ll be writing all week, but if there’s a day I can’t make it, Joe Trippi, my campaign manager, will fill in for me. Thank you Professor Lessig for inviting me.

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media.

Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=14068&mesg_id=14068&page=

[w4rma]

76. Here comes the scrutiny. IMHO, Dean = Clark on the Iraq invasion (n/t)

[loudnclear]

83. Just hang in there people...a real live liberal anti-war, anti-imperialist

Dem will emerge from the pack in due time. Of course, Mosely Braun and Sharpton already fit the bill but we all know they don't stand a change in hell. But they are needed to keep the rest of the lot on their toes and to keep them honest.

[w4rma]

86. Gov. Dean is a centrist and is only anti-Iraq-war and anti-empire

:evilgrin:

[KoKo]

92. He must have been for Iraq Invasion or CNN wouldn't have hired him!

no matter what he says about it all going badly....or it was badly planned.....the whore media wasn't looking for anyone who didn't agree with that war.....they just wanted someone who sounded more moderate than Bush....which is kind of left of righ wing PNAC/Fundie alliance. You don't need to be to far left of that one to sound reasonable........:-(

[Clark Can WIN]

98. So were you in charge of hiring at CNN, maybe your mom?

Does logic have purchase anywhere in your world Koko? Enquiring minds want to know.

He was never in favor of Bush's ego trip in the desert.

[mkregel]

94. Ladies and Gentlemen...dare I repeat myself??

ANYONE BUT BUSH

REPEAT

ANYONE BUT BUSH