The F.A.I.R. Clark Bash

[retyred]

Yesterday the Clark bashers posted a hit piece by F.A.I.R. no less than 4 times in hopes of adding credibility to the assertion that Clark isn't what he appears to be.

While the article was proven to lack any credibility whatsoever in yesterdays postings, there is a little tidbit to better understand just where F.A.I.R. is coming from.


<<< Besides the Ford Foundation's $200,000 grant to FAIR in 1996 or 1997 to help subsidize the alternative media work of its Women's Desk, an additional grant of $150,000 from the Ford Foundation was given to FAIR in 1997 or 1998. And in 2001, yet another $150,000 grant was given to FAIR by the Ford Foundation for "general support to monitor and analyze the performance of the news media in the United States."

In recent months, the Ford Foundation and Schumann Foundation-subsidized "media watchdogs" from FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy--Norman Solomon and Steve Rendall--have seemed more interested in preventing 9/11 conspiracy researchers and journalists from receiving any airtime on Pacifica's radio stations than in revealing the historical links of their funders to the CIA or the Johnson White House to their alternative media listeners and readers. http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman02.html >>>

Now to me this Ford Foundation/CIA association with F.A.I.R. leaves anything written just a little bit suspect as to being as credible as they pretend to be, and maybe, just maybe, it is they that aren't what they appear to be......F.A.I.R.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
Retyred IN FLA.

[Code_Name_D]

1. Bahahahahahaha

Oh yay, the Clark supporters are getting more desperate by the hour. Come on, trying to link FAIR to the CIA? Just how stupid do you think we are? Your attack against FAIR is little more than an attempt to lynch the messenger.

But you need to keep up. FAIR is only the lead because now we have a growing list of articles raising hard questions about Clark. Truthout, Salon.com, and now the Washington Post is shinning a bright light on Clark's past. Not only is he proving to not be anti war, not to be anti-iraq-war. We now are learning that he even admires the Bush administration and "looks foreword to working with them in the future" – Salon. Question have been raised about how he prosecuted the Kosivo war.

We also now know that Clark has some strong ties with the DLC. And is looking to be more and more like a republicrat every day. And the quality of Clarks defenders such as yourself, only makes him look worse.

[OneBlueSky]

2. yet another lightbulb . . .

of the 1000 watt variety, and in his own words . . . ended my consideration of Clark once and for all . . .

[dfong63]

3. smatter, couldn't deal with the substance of the FAIR article?

[MrPrax]

4. I think you raise a good point...

about FAIR, their funding links and their past track record (Superbowl Sunday wife beating hoax!! for instance)

But nonetheless I still think that Battleship Clark has a few leaks and I don't think grooming a democrat to appeal to disenfranchised Repukes is the best way to go...

He does have baggage...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Jolene]

6. The 'Fair' article is critical of the media

and it whores itself in the process.

[Terwilliger]

7. how so?

could you give an example?

[Jolene]

8. Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

That was 'Fair's' take.

Here is what the article says:

'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."'

Of course, we don't know what he said entirely, because part of what he did say has been removed. What we do know, is that the source says Clark was critical of tactics but exuberant about the results of a specific plan. FAIR says he cheered the entire war as being the right call. Clearly, he's talking about 'ifs,' alternatives, and strategy while referencing a war this administration was going to have regardless of what the people thought.

But that's apparently ok, because once quotation marks are put around even singular words, the impression the article gives seems to take on some life of its own.

[Terwilliger]

10. did he denounce the war?

DENOUNCE? Say "We need to disengage and stand down and not inititate this war"?

I think he was too busy on CNN talking tactics.

[Julien Sorel]

13. FAIR accused Clark of 'cheerleading' for the war; it did not

attack him for failing to denounce it. Yet another example of your astonishing ADD reasoning skills at work.

[AP]

15. My sense was that Clark was a cheerleader for militarism

while being criticial of Bush.

You can be critical of Bush, while still exuding and symbolizing the notion that the solution ot America's problems can be achieved by how and where you place American troops and how and where you use force.

That's the thing that is fucked up about wanting Clark as a president.The military is a tool, and it's last resort. It's not the answer to every problem, and I'm worried about the mood of an America and the direction America is going when we think that a general is the solution to our problems.

[Democat]

9. Clark bashers don't care

They're just happy to do their part in helping Bush get elected.

[Jolene]

11. My issue isn't Clark

It's media and whether or not we're helping Rove.

Oh, and Terwilliger: You don't know what he said. That's the point.

[Terwilliger]

16. Excuse me?

FAIR looked at exactly what Clark said as the basis for their story. What are you talking about? How did they "whore" themselves?

[saoirse]

12. You Clark bashers probably hated Clinton too

And yet, he won!

And so will Clark.

DU, God bless it, is a partisan oasis. Clark, as a military man, has tons of ready-made opponents here. But all of the Democrats elected president in recent memory have faced loads of opposition from the left wing of the party. Just another fact that bodes extremely well for the General...

[seventhson]

14. I still have problems with Clinton-but he was better than Bush

General Clark, by the way, in testimony to Congress asked why we were not attacking IRAN!!!

He clearly supported the war (with caveats) and we were sold a bill of goods by the Clark Bars here.

It is not that Clark is being "attacked" by the left: the guy is a right wing fascist accorsdinbg to his resume.

He probably was a trainer at the "School of the Americas" too.

He is scary.


Why in HELL would we want the commandant of a prison camp who is guilty of crimes against humanity as president???

We wouldn't

(Ohhh, welllll....maybe the GOOD Germans would though...)

Keep moving. You're next. Ask no questions. Take off your clothes. Go in there for your shower. Hurry. Schnell!!!