General Clark To Appear on Fox and CNN today to discuss Iraq & Bush

[ClarkUSA]

From Suzanne at WesPAC:

HI EVERYONE---

GENERAL CLARK WILL BE APPEARING TONIGHT ON FOX BIG NEWS WITH JOHN
GIBSON AT 5:15PM EST AS WELL AS CNN PAULA ZAHN AT 8:30 EST.

THE MAIN TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR BOTH SHOWS WILL BE THE UPCOMING
ELECTION IN IRAQI AS WELL AS THE NEW ADMINISTRATION.

THANKS!

SUZANNE

[FrenchieCat]

1. Yes!

Needed a Wes Clark Fix. Thank you for the info!

[ToughLiberal07]

2. He is an important man..

We need more people like him. Clinton is still irritated with his decisions as to the potential attack of Croats. But I hope they get their act together.

[Nashyra]

3. Thanks

I'll be sure to watch!

[Texas_Kat]

4. Two Networks in a single day!

.... WOOO HOOO!!!

Can't wait!

I'm so glad Clark is still out there representing the view of rational human beings.

Especially after yesterday...

[FrenchieCat]

5. Did I miss the Fox one yet? n/t

[ClarkUSA]

7. I am going for the 8:30 PM interview on CNN

No time for John Gibson today. Maybe someone else knows.

[Pithy Cherub]

6. Probably missed the first Wes TV, but ready for the 2nd one.

Just am not enamored of zany Zahn, but the General is always worth turning on the TV. :)

[ClarkUSA]

8. Watch his Fox News appearance here

http://www.u-wes-a.com/mediaclips-post.html

[FrenchieCat]

9. Splendid that it was avalaible

for Web viewing that fast. Wow!

[ClarkUSA]

10. Thought you'd appreciate it, Ms. Frenchie Cat

Happy viewing. :smoke:

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Thank you! You are a most resourceful Clarkie!

Much appreciated! :toast:

[ClarkUSA]

12. 20 minutes until his CNN interview with Paula Zahn

[Donna Zen]

13. Well_I don't know

Paula hasn't said anything about this interview yet; and...and... she doesn't have leather on.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Maybe she's figured out that General Clark isn't into leather

Considering Gert Clark is always such a classy-looking women. Thus, Paula decided to look as if she's come in from a spot of fox-hunting.

;-)

[FrenchieCat]

15. Damn!

Took her long enough to figure that one out! She's worn leather like on 3 separate interviews with Wes. Poor Presstitute!

[ClarkUSA]

16. The Man is ON!

Talking about the Iraqi elections right off.

[Sparkly]

17. Both interviews were about basic military tasks

I think when they have somebody like The General on, they should ask more substantive questions about the policy itself. Of course the military is doing its job, and he can explain how; but he also explains the policy in the region, what the job is and what it ought to be, and what needs to be done politically that isn't.

I'm surprised neither interviewer asked him about policy and the Chimp administration. Any of the "substitute generals" could have answered these questions. ;)

[ClarkUSA]

20. They were probably afraid to ask him about Bush and his Iraq policies

Karl Rove faxed the producer the way they faxed Keith Olbermann.

[Sparkly]

21. I wouldn't doubt that

He doesn't mince words when it comes to criticizing BushCo.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Well on that last Wes question as Paula zohre put it....

he was able to manage to get out the point that there will still be violence after the election.......and that's an important point to note....as the plan is to have the presstitutes stop reporting on Iraq as soon as the election is over.

[Sparkly]

23. That's true

Paraphrasing:

Paula: Ask yourself the question, what's going to happen?

General: There's violence now, there'll be violence on their election day, and afterwards there'll be violence.

Paula: Well that's the last time you ask yourself your own question!

What the heck did she mean by that, anyway?

[ClarkUSA]

26. That means she didn't like his answer and she knew her GOP masters

will have a little "talk" with her later.

[me b zola]

29. euw, euw...spill it

KKKarl faxed KO? What's up?

I swear, if I blink I miss something.

[janx]

24. It's cable news, Sparkly!

People on cable news (networks too, but particularly cable) are far more restricted than on NPR or public television.

You've seen David Gergen on cable news, yes? I've heard him on NPR, and believe me, he was very different. He was allowed to voice opinions on NPR, and I loved hearing them.

And within cable news, there are variations of control, depending on the channel (obviously) and the particular program on the channel. Fox News is very heavily scripted at all times. CNN is heavily scripted at some times but not others. MSNBC seems pretty heavily controlled.

I say this because I stopped watching cable news, except for the occasional guest I was interested in, right before the last general election. When I saw CNN International, it was my last prolonged glimpse at cable news. I wish that CNN had the respect for its U.S. viewers that it has for Europeans and others. CNN International is very different from the CNN we get here, with a few exceptions. Some programs are deemed acceptable to the world community; others are not. The commercials are very different, and there are fewer of them.

So when General Clark speaks on cable news, especially Fox News, they are expecting something from him that won't rock the boat. General Clark, no matter who is interviewing him, knows the questions in advance. In certain venues, he knows what is acceptable and unacceptable.

[Sparkly]

25. Yes I know

I've traveled to Europe, too. But there are times when people like Paula and Tweety ask his opinion of BushCo's policy, and this certainly wasn't one of them. It doesn't have anything to do with General Clark making a decision about what's "acceptable and unacceptable," imho. He says what he thinks.

The ONLY time he didn't was when he was in Europe testifying at the Hague, and rightly so. Judy Woofwoof was trying to get him to say something *nice* about the Chimp after some supposed success of the administration (I can't even recall what it was now), and he insinuated that his opinion was different but he didn't want to discuss domestic issues while on foreign soil, which was the right thing to do. (Naturally she pressed it anyway; he held the line, and refused to give her the compliment she wanted... "Even at a time like THIS," she hissed.)

[janx]

27. Sparkly, that's my point.

He *can't* say what he thinks in some of these venues. It's not part of the show. And now that he is not running for president, he won't be asked. They will give him the questions in advance, interview him as a general, and that will be it.

I think it's terrible, but I know it's true.

Judy Woodruff's lines are written in advance, too. I don't know who writes them, but they are awful.

[Sparkly]

28. I disagree

It's not every time; that's why I mentioned it this time.

Only a couple of weeks ago he was asked about Alberto Gonzales, and he said what he thinks. He was asked about Iran and Syria, and he said what he thinks.

[janx]

35. Let's backtrack then.

I've come out against the media recently and been laughed at as someone who like to quote herself or something. But the "major" media make a big difference regarding what most people believe, because the "major" media are all many people are exposed to.

Why is it, do you suppose, that a couple of weeks ago he could voice an opinion versus what happened tonight?

Hint: What questions were asked?

Please believe me when I tell you that questions are given to those interviewed in advance. I have been interviewed for radio, and the questions were given to me in advance. I cannot imagine that the same would not hold true for television, and according to what I've studied, that is always the case.

This is not an attempt to disrespect Wes Clark. It's an attempt to show the "major" media for what they really are.

[Sparkly]

36. I think there DonnaZen and Zensea both gave possible explanations

The media didn't change since last week.

[janx]

39. That is exactly my point, Sparkly. n/t

[Donna Zen]

38. Tweety

They are often more likely to just talk, although if you remember, the General did once grab CM's script. "Want to play HardBall?"

Anyway, they seem to have a different relationship than some of the others. Clark did zing Paula at the end, and her take said it all. No, I don't think she will be letting him ask his own questions again.

I do think that Clark, for whatever reason, also limited the topic. Why were there two identical interviews on two different stations? Either the questions were submitted by a WH blast fax--totally possible--or the set that was agreed upon had input from Clark.

BTW, CNN has gotten much, much worse since the new guy was put in charge. State run media is a bitch.

[Zensea]

34. Media whores are skilled manipulators

I'm sure Clark speaks his mind.
I'm just guessing here, I'll admit, but I would imagine that anyone sitting in front of a tv camera can be manipulated (maybe that's not quite the right word, maybe a closer word that is less charged would be "directed") towards keeping the discussion within certain bounds.
It's not a knock on the person this happens to when this happens, or at least I don't mean it as a criticism.
I stopped watching tv on any regular basis, quite awhile back and when I do watch it now I am always amazed (not surprised) at how subtle the control of the discourse is on television. Keeping everything nice and controlled, within certain parameters. There are a lot of very obvious ways this happens, but I also think there are a lot of subtle ways.

When you say above in another post on this thread
"I think when they have somebody like The General on, they should ask more substantive questions about the policy itself. Of course the military is doing its job, and he can explain how; but he also explains the policy in the region, what the job is and what it ought to be, and what needs to be done politically that isn't."

I agree. They should. & as you say --

"I'm surprised neither interviewer asked him about policy and the Chimp administration. Any of the "substitute generals" could have answered these questions."

I'd say, I'm not at all surprised. They are trying to cast him in the role of a "substitute general," nice and safe so he won't worry the people sitting at home on their couches.

[leesa]

18. Give 'em hell Mr Clark.

[ClarkUSA]

19. General Clark called out Karl Rove on TV during the primaries, leesa

and he does give 'em hell every chance he gets because he tells the TRUTH about PNAC and the neocons.

[Donna Zen]

30. Clark also has a say in the topics.

I remember when he met with Clarkies shortly after an argument that he'd had with "Cakewalk Adelman". Adelman had started it by attacking Kerry and Clark, and Clark went after him only to have CNN cut Clark's mic. The following day, Clark told the group to call CNN. He said that he had appeared as a "favor" to them, and they had agreed that the discussion was not to be political. He said that he had called the producer that morning.

Tonight Clark seems to have limited the subject. I'm betting it was Clark's decision because both interviews covered the same turf and thus, it would seem that Clark set the limits. I think Clark is avoiding any mention of Iran at this time, since one publication linked Clark to Hersch which is not far fetched. Clark is trying to preempt this coming war.

Yes_it was nice for Clark to get in the zinger about the violence after the elections. Paula and Clark both laughed as he had outwitted her.

He is also trying to insulate any failures on election day from falling on the boots on the ground. It is the policy of neocons that should take the blame.

[Sparkly]

31. Interesting take on it

What's the publication linking Clark with Hersch re: recent Iran developments? (I know there were previous communications between them about other issues.)

Your points make sense about limiting the discussion. It was definitely a basic explanation of what the military is doing, and support for the boots.

[Donna Zen]

32. Ya' know

I don't have the link. Someone posted a snip at CCN about a reporter's speculation, and I didn't grab the link. Somehow I think it was from one of the Washington papers. If it was the "times" then it was just an attempt to name drop for the Moonies. If had been in the Post I would anticipate the rumor will get picked up and run again.

With no way of knowing, it would come as no surprise that Hersch and Clark speak. We know for a fact that they do.

If I come across it again, I'll PM you.

The tip off for me that Clark is holding the line, is that two different networks and two different reporters asked him the same questions.

[Sparkly]

33. Thanks

That's exactly what I've been trying to make sense of!! :)

[FrenchieCat]

37. Very interesting....

the part about Iran. I remember Clark in one of the debates attempting to warn us about Iran....he said it would be next, right there at the debates....and he said it in a very concerned way. Knowing that he always told us that this was the most important election in our lifetime, it is unfortunate that his warnings about Iran are coming true.

In reference to the Hersh link....here is what I found...
And obviously there were certain people talking to me. People on the inside know what's going on. And so, I probably agree it was OK to do it. But I felt bad when I saw ? Clark later. I had talked to Clark about the story at the time. Then two years later I ran into him when he was running for president, or right before, and he said, "Whatever happened to that story?" I said, "Well, I just decided not to write it." And he said, "Well, you should have. It's your job."
He's an amazingly straight guy. A difficult guy. "You should have." He basically told me, "Punk kid. You didn't know what you were doing." I also respect him because ...

Odd cause the interview cuts him off there and goes on to ask another question. Weird (or maybe not) that they would cut Hersch off as he was about to explain why he respect General Clark.
http://www.tjm.org/articles/SeymourHershsAlternativeHistoryOfBushsWar

or... http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091904D.shtml