Slate Smears Clark (Must Be Part Of His "Honeymoon" With The Press 1/12)

[KittyWampus]

Note: An entire article taking Clark's words out of context... and does it so obviously that it comes across as a parody.

Why is the author deducing rhetorical questions from Clark's statements that imply something different than what Clark actually says? Is that Journalism? Why not just report clark's "off the cuff comments" and THEN comment on them? Could the author simply be trying to preface Clark's comments with slurs & mischaracterisations?

Wesley Clark's Loose Lips
Six quotes overheard in New Hampshire.
By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Monday, Jan. 12, 2004, at 5:47 PM PT


Whether it's true or not, Gen. Wesley Clark's rise in the polls in New Hampshire is being partly attributed to some voters having "cold feet" about former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, especially Dean's penchant for making statements that are quickly seized upon by Fox News or the Republican Party as evidence of unpatriotic disloyalty. But Clark has the same propensity for speaking imprecisely off the cuff. Here are some statements I heard him make last week during my trip with him in New Hampshire:

Bush was "warned" about 9/11? "President Bush didn't do his job as commander in chief in the early months of his administration. He was warned that the greatest threat to the United States of America was Osama Bin Laden, yet on the 11th of September in 2001, the United States had no plan for dealing with the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden. The ship of state was on autopilot. There were good CIA officers and FBI officers and everybody doing what they'd been taught to do, but the essential leadership process of putting focus on the resources of the United States, and giving these agencies a real target and a mission, it wasn't done. At least, I think that's what the evidence will show if we ever get the results of this presidential commission, and if they've asked the right questions." (Jan. 6, McKelvie Middle School, Bedford.)

Bush "never intended" to get Osama Bin Laden? "We bombed Afghanistan, we missed Osama Bin Laden, partly because the president never intended to put the resources in to get Osama Bin Laden. All along, right after 9/11, they'd made their mind up, I guess, that we were going to go after Saddam Hussein. That's what people in the Pentagon told me. And they capped the resources, stopped the commitment to Afghanistan, and started shifting to prepare to go after Saddam Hussein." (Jan. 6, McKelvie Middle School, Bedford.)

There wasn't a single terrorist in Iraq before the war? "The president was not and has not been held accountable yet for misleading the American people. He is continuing to associate Saddam, Iraq, and the problem of terrorism. Yet the only terrorists that are in Iraq are the people that have come there to attack us." (Jan. 7, Town House, Peterborough.)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093825/

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Isn't Slate Liberal or is it a New Republic type of rag?

.

[KittyWampus]

2. Well, More Importantly... Who Is The Author?

at any rate... that's what I was left wondering. :shrug:

[NashVegas]

3. You Wanted Clark to Catch Up w/Dean

Well, there ya go.

I saw and heard Clark, himself, say these things and similar in speeches and interviews, but nothing was being said cause the press were too busy telling us about Dean's anger. The accusatory tone (towards Bush) he's been using in front of the press about 9/11 go way beyond anything Dean's come out with in his musings. Kept my mouth shut (on DU) cause it would only start a flame war to point it out.

[KittyWampus]

5. The Author Implies Clark Said "Bush Was "Warned" About 9/11

and puts it in the form of a question before he cites what Clark actually said:

"President Bush didn't do his job as commander in chief in the early months of his administration. He was warned that the greatest threat to the United States of America was Osama Bin Laden".

Clark then goes on to talk about 9/11.

And this is in writing so you can easily see how the author is literally making shit up.

No gaffes ala Dean or references to LIHOP.

[Renew Deal]

4. This is a smear because

of the comments attached to Clarks. Clark is right on these things. Too bad it hurt the right's feelings.

[ryharrin]

21. Exactly.

Welcome to the world of a Dean supporter. 90% of the times the Dean smears are things that he's right about but didn't say in a way that is acceptable to the media.

[Fleshdancer]

6. The press will continue to do this crap if we let them

Doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee will be...the media WILL take messages out of context and resort once again to lazy, herd mentality reporting. We need to find a way to hold these people more accountable for what they write and attempt to pass off as truth.

And they wonder why more and more people now rely on alternative sources for news information. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

7. It's fairly good

Bush never intended to get Osama is a little much, that could have been worded a little better. Quoting the Left Behind books probably wasn't necessary, he could have just made that his own opinion of far right beliefs. But it isn't too terribly bad.

This part is very interesting, it's the same problem our young men have here at home. Too many young men dismiss education or aren't able to handle a college education. Then they're stuck with a dead-end job and in the exact same place these guys are. Good call.

"Young men in an Islamic culture cannot get married until they can support a family. No job, no marriage. No marriage, unhappy young men. They get real angry, they feel real frustrated, they feel real powerless. And a certain number of them are being exploited in the mosques by this recruiting network."

If people actually read it, it might help Clark. I hate that so many journalists can't just write anymore. Report the facts and let the people decide.

[BootinUp]

8. Sent a letter to author

Here's my letter to him:

Chris,

Nice SMEAR piece. Clark's positions on every one of those stump speech quotes is clearly laid out on his web-site. I guess you guys aren't getting enough hits lately? It would have been to boring to seek clarification since you were confused. Funny that so many people are not confused by what Clark means.

1. Bush adminstration did not develop an anti-terror plan prior to 9/11 despite briefings by Clinton Admin.

2. Bush did a rush job on Afghanistan while they were planning for Iraq. Hence they missed Bin Laden because of poor planning.

3. There has been zero credible evidence of Iraq operatives involvement in 9/11. But lets spend 100's billions anyways.


4. He points out an organized effort to discredit the UN. AND? SO?

5. He puts pressure on the Administration to get off their ass and find Bin Laden. Seems like a valid point to me.


Obviously you disagree, perhaps you could elaborate on your opnions instead of a smear job.


Regards,

XXXXX

edit: guess I forgot the match.com thing, I didn't really see a need to respond to that one.

[BootinUp]

14. Response from Slate

For what its worth:

I'm going to do a little follow-up in my next piece about this, since I
was being too oblique. I already posted in the Fray about it. My point
is that Clark is being judged by a different standard than Dean, at the
moment. Clark's statements aren't being treated like Dean's statements.
Allegedly, Clark is the "electable Dean," but I think it's hard to make
that judgment at the moment, since his statements aren't being given the
same level of scrutiny, nor are they being distorted in the same way.
But I wasn't clear enough.

Chris

Chris Suellentrop
Slate.com

[elixir]

9. Accurate statements, inaccurate interpretation

The statements are right on the money for me. It's the interpretation that's off. Bush was warned by a report prepared during Clinton's presidency that Osama bin Laden was one of the biggest threats to national security - how is that a problem.

[maddezmom]

11. agree

the author is spinning.

[Clark Can WIN]

10. When did Slate stop attacking Clark?

As far as I have seen, they seem to have dedicated themselves to smearing, lying and distorting since the first whiff of a possibility of a Clark candidacy showed up on the radar.

[maddezmom]

15. Slate's not exactly nice to Dean either, read this:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093794/

The Brown and Black Debate
Only six more pandering days until Iowa.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Jan. 12, 2004, at 4:00 PM PT



Dean's highs and lows in the heartland

On Sunday, all the major Democratic presidential candidates except Wes Clark debated in the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum. Here are the awards.

Most important exchange: Howard Dean and debate co-host Maria Celeste Arraras. Arraras: "Would you wait, then, until you balance your budget to then go ahead with the middle-class tax cuts?" Dean: "That's right."

Most glaring sign of political vulnerability: Dean being attacked on tax cuts by Dennis Kucinich … from the right. Kucinich: "The tax cuts that are going to the people in the top brackets are the ones that ought to be canceled. We need to remember the working families still need a relief, Earned Income Tax Credit and other tax relief."

Most dishonest pander: Dean, backing away from his four-year-old comment that the Iowa caucus system favors special interests. "Candidates like me couldn't win without Iowa or New Hampshire, because it's the only place that someone without a lot of money but with a good message can look people in the eye, and they can evaluate you and decide what kind of president you want to be." (Imaginary truthful version: "People in any state with inexpensive media markets could screen candidates just as well. But because Iowa and New Hampshire currently go first, I can't win without Iowa or New Hampshire.")

~snip~

more: http://slate.msn.com/id/2093794/

[The Magistrate]

12. Indeed, Ms. Shame

Dissemination of these comments rather benefits Gen. Clark more than otherwise.

The reason they have not been seized on in the manner some similar ones about the Al Queda attack, Afghanistan, and Iraq by Gov. Dean have been is simple. Gen. Clark has the credibility to make such criticisms, by virtue of his career. He has genuine expertise in war-fighting and national security matters, and therefore his comments on them are to be taken seriously. Gov. Dean does not have such credibility, and therefore, even where his comments are accurate, they can be easily dismissed and even caricatured as mere rantings. It is an uncomfortable fact that the messenger is often more important than the message in these things. No one would buy a luxury automobile sold under the Chevrolet brand, even if it was identical to a Lexus in all regards: it simply would not be taken seriously as a luxury machine, for that is not what Chevrolet makes. It would take years of concerted advertising to reposition the brand. Gov. Dean does not have the luxury of such time to gain credibility in war-fighting and national security. Gen. Clark possesses it already. In the upcoming election, that is a priceless asset.

[mzmolly]

13. The Honeymoon is over... Expect more as Clark has entered the top

tier.

[TexasPatriot]

16. Author's Fray Response

http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=9447789

"My point was simply that Wesley Clark's statements aren't being treated like Howard Dean's statements."

So really, the intent of the author was to attempt to smear Clark the way he feels Dean has been smeared...

Pulitzer material to be sure... or maybe he's just bucking for a job at Fox.

[BootinUp]

17. thats my analysis

The answer to smear articles, is to write another one!

[maddezmom]

18. interesting

thanks for posting

[KittyWampus]

19. Perhaps He'll Give Us Some Examples Of Dean's Comments

That have been so twisted as to be rendered of a meaning far different that was obviously implied.

[kang]

20. TNR has its pro-Clark people

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040119&s=scoblic011904

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=foreign&s=greene011304

I thought the Slate article took the angle it did for shock or entertainment value, but his arguments that these statements were akin to the kind of statements that Gov. Dean has made is somewhat of a stretch. In many of the statements he quotes, he's filling in or inferring unsaid conclusions that don't necessarily follow a logical chain. It's gotcha journalism, but it's fair game in my opinion. He could've written the same article and given a less-loaded analysis that would've made essentially the same point without sacrificing the appearance of neutrality (neutral meaning not assuming that he "got" the candidate or not, but letting the reader decide).