Wes Clark "quotes" from Hannity and Colmes (his Faux debut)

[Rowdyboy]

He would not let the slimy bastard Hannity use him or box him in....

Hannity leads off demanding Clark apologize for Durbin's remarks....

"I'm not gonna condemn him, Sean. I think we have a real issue here and the issue is how we are perceived to have treated those people down in Guantanamo. On top of everything that happened at Abu Graib, on top of the bad press we've gotten throughout the Arab world-all of that puts our soldiers at risk. Now I'd fight anybody that compared our soldiers to Nazis because that's simply not the case. I know the men and the women in the United States army, a lot of'em, and I know how they've been trained. We do respect the Geneva Convention and we do understand what it means. But I'll tell you what we have here, we have a real policy issue for our country.

"We've gotta get buy-in from other nations around the world onhow to deal with these terrorists and other people we've captured."

Sean rants the typical shit again about Durbin and includes Dean's remarks....

"Sean, I think we gotta focus on whats really at issue here. This shouldn't be a political issue. What it is, is a policy issue. This is where the people of the United States, our government, we have to pull together, we have to get a solution to what's really happening down there in Guantanamo.

"We've gotta get buy-in from people around the world. Bring 'em over, let 'em see how they're being treated, let 'em look and evaluate the evidence, figure out what's the best way to deal. Some of these people, if they were released, would attack us again. We can't let them go. Some of them, maybe they should be charged.

"We need a process that the world understands and has legitimacy in their eyes. That's what's really an issue here."

Alan Colmes brings up the fact that Santorum compared Democrats to Nazi's during the judicial filibuster debate. Clark's response:

""Alan, I think you bring up two very good points. But I think the real issue is to get the politics past the name calling. There's an old rule in politics and I seen it many times; whoever uses the "Nazi" word first loses. We oughta get past this name calling, past the politics and the partisan politics on this because we have a national security issue here, and the country needs to focus on it, our leadership needs to focus on it and we can't if we're just calling names back and forth at each other".

Hannity takes a few more cheap shots and the debut is over....

I'm prouder of General Clark every day. He was masterful here, didn't give an inch, didn't allow himself to fall into any traps, and dominated the conversation. His career on Fox is gonna make Brit Hume's head explode. Bank it!

[autorank]

1. He's in training for the 2008 Primary and Presidential debates

Dean went South in his first swing around the country. Why? Becaise that's where we have the most work to do organizing and getting the vote out. With the media, the Faux viewers are the last bastion of "know nothingism" in this country. Clark can piece off at least 20% of them. Hannity is no match for him and he made Hannity look like the piece of intellectual trash that he is.

Rock on Clark!

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[niceypoo]

11. Clark Rocks!!

Clark wipes his ass with mindless airheads like Hannity. I just might start watching it just for fun!

[autorank]

45. Line of the day...

"Clark wipes his ass with mindless airheads like Hannity." :rofl:

[Clark2008]

120. LOL! That one is good.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

125. He Sure Does!

That's the reason I'll be watching it!

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Yo ... Autorank ......

Man, do we see things the same way a lot! :toast:

[autorank]

43. Great minds think alike...

fucking A! (couldn't resist).

I trust Clark. I'm sure he's got an ambush planned for Hannity. It won't be pretty for the poor boy. He's playing in the bigs now.

Good to see you!

[ksilvas]

86. Debates, does that even matter ????

Anybody with an ounce of objectivity, would concede
that *shrub* lost every damn presidential debate he was
in and he was freaken wired. It didn't make a dimes worth of difference
in the end.

[autorank]

95. ksilvas, good point on dumb voters, but Kerry did Win!

* just stole it. If this happens again in 2006 and 2008, its our fault. I'm surprised * got more than 35% of the vote after those debates. jeebus, we're in trouble sincen i figure he ended up, in reality with about 47%.

As PT Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute."

[Rowdyboy]

99. The debate analysis in 2000 and 2004 stunned me.....GWB barely

avoided soiling himself and frequently was declared a winner. Its just too bizarre sometimes.

[autorank]

102. It's all explained in my sig line!

:toast: to the answer!

[ksclematis]

115. Can't let 2000/2004 happen again.....

Dems must group up and have a leader.....Wes Clark can be that leader...he's got the intellect, experience (4 **** general's gotta count for more than boots & guns), and leadership.

He's the one Dem who's got the guts and stamina (again 4 ****) to stand up to the Bushies, Rovites, et al. He's a strategist from the wars and battles he's fought and won.

Let's give him a chance....I'd say: let go with the flow....he'll come out on top! He knows what he wants and how to get it.....

[Clark2008]

121. Welcome to DU, ksclematis!

:hi:

[autorank]

127. ksclematis, Welcome to DU from a fellow Clark Supporter!!!

:hi:

Contact the DNC and Tell Them to PREVENT Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[woodleydem]

118. Debates ABSOLUTELY matter. Without them, Bush would have run away with

the election. The debates got Kerry back in the election, and it gives people an opportunity to see a candidates' ability to critically reason and clearly enunciate their policy views without the fakeness of campaign commericals or stump speeches. (Although debates are relatively watered down) Kerry proved his metal in the debates and he basically erased a 10-point Bush lead after one debate. They won't necessarily be THE deciding factor in a election, but the debates can seriously help or harm a candidate.

[woodleydem]

117. I think you are write. Clark is looking to improve his communication

skills, TV personality, and debate techniques, attributes that he needs to work on to get into that top tier of Democratic Presidential candidates. And working for Fox News will also help him attract some crossover voters. He will be a player in the 2008 primaries. (Clinton/Clark '08?)

[knowbody0]

2. i believe they will regret

bringing him on board. he's smooth, and hard for hannity to interrupt

[ClarkUSA]

126. Can't wait for him to silence HumeCo over at Fox!

:popcorn:

[militaryWife]

3. I have to say

that I was originally shocked and worried when Clark signed on at FOX- I don't like anything that gives Fox credibility. But it does sound like he held his own and made some excellent points. Maybe, he can sway some people who don't realize that Fox isn't real news it is 24hr/day commentary. Time will tell (me with fingers crossed).
mw

[WhiteTara]

6. Hi Military Wife and welcome

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

13. Welcome to DU! Well-spoken, too.

[bamademo]

28. Welcome to DU Military Wife

I work with a lot of Active Duty Personnel. I love the Army and I'm a liberal Yellow Dog Demo. Believe it or not the Army people I know is one of the most diversified and Democratic groups I've ever worked with.

[xray s]

4. I have to disagree with one point Wes made

The issue isn't how we are perceived to have treated people in Guantanamo. The issue is how we treated those people. Period.

This isn't a PR problem. It's a matter of what kind of country we are. Someone chained that prisoner to the floor and let him sit in shit and piss without food and water in extreme temperatures until he pulled the hair out of his head.

Who did it, Who told him to do it.

That is the issue.

Wes should have made the point that, while people in the military respect the Geneva Convention, some of our civilian leaders at DoD and the WH seem to be eager to find ways to get around it. Someone is giving orders contrary to the Convention, and we have to find out who.

[billbuckhead]

5. I trust Wes enough that he means the same thing

An America that tortures isn't an America I want to be a part of.

[Rowdyboy]

7. I think he has a hard time imagining that people he respects as fellow

soldiers would behave as badly as it appears some have. But, if Guantanamo was opened to international inspection, that wouldn't be a problem.

[xray s]

14. I disagree

I think Wes knows exactly how easy it would be for soldiers under the stress of combat to behave in all kinds of horrible ways.

That is why discipline in the military is so important. To keep a leash on the dogs of war.

I don't think inspectors are the answer. If torture is what Bush wants, there would still be plenty of ways to commit horrors behind their backs.

We need a change of leadership to one that is committed to the Geneva Convention and the rule of law. Nothing less.

[Texas_Kat]

8. Exactly what he meant about it being a policy issue ....

And who do you think he feels is responsible for the policy?

He's said before that policy is set at the top. And who is that? Those of us who know him well have no doubt.

Stay tuned.

[Sparkly]

9. He did say "what's really happening..."

"...we have to get a solution to what's really happening down there in Guantanamo."

And calling for openness to other countries, as well as a process for charging the detainees if they're actually suspected of something, is right in BushCo's face. They've been fighting both for years.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Hopefully by 2006,

voters will understand that "it's the policy, stupid".

[ksclematis]

79. Fox/Clark timing just right for '06

Right on, FrenchieCat!

WildcatForWes

[ClarkUSA]

94. Welcome to DU, WildcatForWes!

And you're right... Wes Clark has enough time to get the truth out for some 2006 crossover votes to break up the Diebold margin of error.

[KittyWampus]

19. Well, If It Turned Out Allegations Of Abuse At Gitmo Are Unfounded, Then

the PERCEPTION of abuse having occured is just as confounding to American Foreign Policy.

[Sparkly]

21. And the converse: Perceiving it doesn't mean it's untrue.

For example, I've often said the VietCong knew what was going on right under their noses long before they ever heard of John Kerry. They perceived what was happening -- they heard, they saw. Yet people pretended it was John Kerry's testimony that made them go, "Holy crap! You mean our fighters have been maltreated by the Americans?!? Who'd have thunk it?!"

They perceived the reality.

[Zhade]

92. Are you suggesting the allegations are untrue?

NT!

[Protagoras]

71. Exactly...time everyone stopped lying to themselves

that this is a "perception" problem and started acknowledging that this is an "action" problem.

We are doing BAD things. We Must Stop. End of Line.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Well, there were many in the media who said that

Clark wasn't ready for "primetime" and that he was an awful speaker.

They were liars; the lot of them.

I am proud that Clark cares more about this godamn country than he does about how the base will judge him for going into the Lion's Den!

For his detractors...they now have an excuse. Why? Cause he gave them one. Why? Cause he understands that personal pandering to potential primary voters is not how this country will be saved.

He knows that the Left hates Faux. He knows that this will not win him any popularity contest with those who vote in Democratic primaries. But he also knows that based on his skills, this is something that he can do to affect some change. It may not be a lot, to some....But it's really the only way that we are going to save this country....bit by bit.

Ain't no miracle about to show up at the front door of Democracy. The voting machines are not about to have paper trail added (the F*cking election is only a short year away). The Republican Majority are not about to impeach their guy. The Media is not about to become the 4th estate once again. Instead It will take the hard work of each of us using whatever talent we possess to turn this slowly sinking ship round and back to shore.

[MuseRider]

12. Good for him.

There have been an awful lot of screamers here saying some pretty hateful things and it has been very sad to see.

This could be a very good move for us, after all, anyone who can out talk and shut Hannity down is good for us. Hen in the Fox house? Well, he is no hen but you get it.

This could also be a very savy political move for Clark although I think he is more interested right now in setting the record straight about this administration.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Good for Democrats in 2006, too.

Clarkhaters give DU a bad name.

Why don't they stay in their webbed abodes? :puke:

[MuseRider]

29. Haters of all of them

give DU a bad name. I have been on that side and I try not to say much anymore. It is not productive and I don't want to do it, still get sucked in sometimes though.

Yes, it is good for Democrats. We will see what happens with this. I can't think it is bad, Clark doesn't strike me as the type at all to do something harmful to the Democrats, in fact quite the opposite.

[Jacobin]

17. WHA????

"The issue is how we are PERCEIVED?"

I'm losing respect for Clark

The issue is NOT perception. The issue is reality.

[Sparkly]

24. See my post #9. n/t

[Donna Zen]

35. To turn a perception into a reality

one would have to prove it.

To prove it, one would have to open the gates of Gitmo.

If the world (and me too) is to believe the process is not another whitewash, the thing to do would be to introduce outside investigators. Ding, ding, ding.

I get exactly what Clark is saying...and personally, I'd be horrified if a Dem. would go on fox and blame the troops.

This his appearance on MTP, when Gitmo and Abu Grabe first broke into the headlines, Clark has called for an investigation of the policy. Because policy comes not from the guard on duty, not even if that guard has a leash in their hand, but from the top.

Out of all that was said you find a point of semantics to yowl about. True, this was no Biden or Jomentum performance, but someone's got to have a spine.

[Rowdyboy]

40. Beautifully put....

The only way to bring the rest of the world to our side is to open Guantanamo and that's not gonna happen under Bush. Clark subtly gives a responsible answer to the problem that he knows Bush can't consider and Hannity is way too stupid to refute or even understand.

He was in command of the interview. Hell, he's pretty much in charge of most of his interviews, unlike others that the MSM massacre with regularity. Who else can you name that refuses to be sidetracked, punked, bullied, intimidated or talked over? Wes Clark is one of a kind.

[Donna Zen]

46. Outside the box

Lately the Dems have been calling for the closing of Gitmo, just the thought gets my juices flowing. The end of that nightmare in Cuba. Nevertheless, there is a weakness in that position, the republicans use the opening to draw the conclusion: "The Dems wanted to let crazy wacky terrorist come and slice your babies throats while they sleep."

When I heard Clark voice this solution a week ago, I scratched my head....hmmmm? why not close it?

What Clark has really offered was a solution that can be put in effect today, hell, tonight. And that is the beauty of his plan, it can be demanded because it is doable. His rationale: 1) terrorism is a worldwide problem, so the world needs to be involved 2) others can help pay for Gitmo 3) helps restore our tattered reputation. (Ed Schultz show)

That needs to be our position...because it can accomplish what we want now.

[ksclematis]

81. Don't be so quick to jump ship!

General Clark knows the meaning of the words he speaks. To my knowledge no one outside of the "Administration" has been to Gitmo to inspect what is really going on there; so, until the allegations are proven or until "our side" is allowed to inspect the situation and knows for certain what is going on, I believe "PERCEIVED" would be the proper term.


WildcatForWes

[formernaderite]

18. So Ailes managed to get all of you to watch Fox..

boy that was easy. Who they gonna hire next?

[Texas_Kat]

20. Yeah, I guess the 2 cents he made off me...

... I'll just have to donate 100 x that to a good progressive cause... Wanna guess which one?

[Sparkly]

23. I hope Mario Cuomo.

Or Michael Moore.
Or Al Franken.
Or Al Gore.

The more liberals, the better.

[flygal]

27. As much as I love Wes

I was thinking the same thing - I wish these Dems wouldn't go on these shows - it gives them the credibility they do not deserve. Hannity is NOT a journalist. He's a right wing blow hard.

That said - I think Wes is really getting tuned up for a good run in '08!!

[Rowdyboy]

34. If you ignore the shows, you ignore their viewers and not all of them

goosestep behind Bush/Rove. It makes more sense to engage the enemy than to ignore him.

[MuseRider]

30. Sounds like

for once there was some truth on that nitwit's show too. Nothing bad about educating the Hannitized.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Yes...

for the six minutes that Clark was on....if that long!

Turned the channel right afterwards.

Is that OK?

[Rowdyboy]

32. No, actually, I taped the show while watching CSI....Then I went back,

found the Clark segment, and transcribed it. Thats why the interview was from 8:30-8:35pm and my thread was posted at 9:10pm.

Nothing could make me sit through an hour of Hannity and Colmes but I do have a VCR and am capable of using it.

[QC]

39. You're still thinking like a Naderite.

Purity above all else!

Honestly, is it such an awful thing for the people who watch FoxNews to see an articulate, intelligent, combative Democrat standing up to Hannity? Like it or not, many people in this country watch Fox, and now, thanks to Clark, they might hear something other than the usual stale propaganda.

Maybe I'm just not as wonderfully idealistic as some, but I happen to think it would be a good thing to gain some voters for our party. Might be nice to start winning some elections again.

[Rowdyboy]

42. Even an "impure" majority would be welcome right now

My idealism died when a good man, Jimmy Carter, was humiliated by a total ass, Ronald Reagan. Sorry, I'd rather run the show than be politically "pure". Anyone hoping to run for national office would be an idiot to refuse a spot on the opposing party's most watched news network. It will be invaluable both to Clark and the Democratic party.

Sadly for the Republicans, he speaks in whole sentences and makes sense.

[QC]

51. Yeah, purity and a dollar won't even get a cup of coffee anymore.

I'm not much interested in it either. But then, I don't view politics as a means of self-expression, so what do I know? I'm dumb enough to think it's about getting in power so that you can do some good things for actual living, breathing human beings.

[Rowdyboy]

55. It works for me....Pragmatism fed many more babies than purism ever did

You make the best of a bad situation until you can force your way into a good situation again...It take 51 senators to run the senate, and 218 Reps to run the House. I tend not to bitch too much about Dems until we have solid majorities in both...

[QC]

58. The purity vs. pragmatism debate really is another aspect

of the class issues that mostly go unacknowledged on our side.

Here's a great description of the problem from a website every DUer needs to visit:

The Nader crowd quite proudly displayed multiple causes on their buttons and t-shirts. To these professional middle-class people, activism clearly meant individual expression of their values, and the more diversity of causes, the better. The Gore supporters had only one message: "Vote union, vote Gore," and their matching union caps and shirts made visible their "strength in numbers" unity strategy.

http://www.classmatters.org/2004_07/street_clash.php

[Rowdyboy]

59. Thanks for the link....I've never understood worrking class poor

folks or middle class government employees voting Republican. The fools are slitting their own throats. What can you say to a idiot who votes for someone who openly wants to elimate his job?

[QC]

61. They do it because the goopers speak to them while we

sit by and declare that the folks out in "Jesusland" aren't worth our efforts.

The GOP has been relentlessly propagandizing the working class for the past thirty-five years while we have been concentrating on taking over the English Department.

[windbreeze]

88. understanding the poor?

You aren't alone there....didn't GWB say he didn't understand the poor either?
windbreeze

[Rowdyboy]

90. "I've never understood working class poor folks voting Republican"

Seems rather obvious to me: Republicans care about the wealthy, Dems fight for the poor and middle class. Is this new information or do you just disagree?

[TankLV]

113. They ignore their poverty and let their bigotry and hate rule.

Especially their self-proclaimed "christian" values.

[QC]

114. Well, that's a very simplistic take on the issue. n/t

[tishaLA]

53. Hope you never watched The Simpsons

The OC, Arrested Development, American Idol, or anything else FOX offers. Otherwise those comments might be considered hypocritical.

[FourStarDemocrat]

65. First people complain that there's not enough progressives on Faux..

then they get upset when they finally start putting them on.. :shrug:

I was out last night and didn't get a chance to see it, but if I turned on the program it's not like suddenly I or any other person interested in watching would become a Faux sheeple viewer. The world is not black and white.

[eleny]

22. Hannity is not going to let him on again very soon!

Sounds like he was too good. It's hard to move Clark off message. And Hannity has no history, none whatsoever, like Clark's.

Thanks for the text!

[Rowdyboy]

37. My pleasure.... I knew he would humiliate Hannity and he did...

He totally ignored Hannity's obvious attempt to make him debate Durbin's words and turned it into a policy issue which was CERTAINLY not what Sean wanted. I've rarely seen Clark look smoother. Can't wait to see him come up against Brit Hume! Hee Hee Hee....Thats gonna be great fun!

[eleny]

52. He'll knock em all down like bowling pins

[Jai4WKC08]

83. Not true, thankfully

And to tell the truth, I'm not surprised. Clark would not have accepted contract terms he didn't consider favorable to what he is trying to accomplish... which is access to the Fox audience.

Clark has two appearances currently scheduled on Fox News Live:

June 19, 2005 (Sunday) - 6:10pm
June 21, 2005 (Tuesday) - 2:00pm

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=event

June 21st will be a busy day for the General. He'll be testifying before Congress in the morning, and attending a fundraiser for Congressional candidate Eric Massa in the evening.

[OneTwentyoNine]

112. Anyone can kick Hannitys ass IF allowed to speak.....

Actor Mike Ferrell turned his ass everyway but loose on his radio show just before Chimps ilegal invasion,it was beyond great.

[CarolNYC]

116. Hehe, would have loved to hear it.

I've seen Jerry Brown take him apart too...

[deadparrot]

25. Clark is awesome...

As of right now, he's definitely my pick for 2008.

What an amazing, open-minded, intelligent guy.

[zulchzulu]

33. So Clark is on Murdoch's payroll?

Hmmm...

Not.....







...good....


I don't watch no stinkin' Fixed Newz Channel...so I'll never know...

[FrenchieCat]

44. Good comment.

So substantial and all.

I thought you were a documentary filmaker. I'm kind of surprised that you, of all people, would not examine and comment on the content of the discussion that was had...considering that you posted in this thread.

[CitrusLib]

73. Wouldn't it be cool if

Clarke were contributing his salary to say, oh, I don't know, pick a Liberal cause of a Democratic Party fund.

I wouldn't even have a problem with Clarke putting the money in his own pocket if it's eventually going to fund his campaign. :)

Another way to look at it is that the money is not going to a fundie who would donate it to Jeb Bush's presidential election bid. :evilgrin:

[Auntie Bush]

119. And just think...Hannity /Fox are helping to finance and promote

Democrat pockets an causes. I hope every time Clark gets a paycheck he looks at Hannity...with a twinkle in his eye...and an evil grin and says, "Thanks Sean...I will put this to good use." That thought should give Hannity nightmares.

I hope he has a good solid contract with Fox because the Freepers/Christian Fundamentalist will probably threaten to boycott Fox if they don't get rid of him. Especially after they are forced to watch their precious Hannity rolled over and over again.

[drdtroit]

36. Hannity vs. Wes Clark!

Is like a paper tiger vs. a flame thrower!

[FreedomAngel82]

38. He's brave for being on that filth

[FrenchieCat]

41. Yes, braver than many.....

and so far....seems to be good at getting the message out-- "It's the policy, stupid", to Fox viewers.

Also called out Hannity on calling names. Said that it's about National Security not name calling. Meaning the next time Hannity starts calling names again, like tomorrow, some viewers might remember Wes' bit about senseless name calling.

[ClarkUSA]

123. Braver than any I've seen on Fox so far by the margin of a galaxy

Who else can we think of who has smacked them down repeatedly?

Who??

Why, no one.

:headbang:

[Donna Zen]

47. psssssst!

Just today I was telling someone that the worst part about Clark doing this (other than the mention of that fucking lying station which I've never seen and didn't watch tonight) the worst part...you know what it is?

.............

It was that the ACB would be out in full force to niggle, to weedle, to cast unhealthy entrails, for one word, to use against Clark and declare the entire interview a neo-con plot.

And behold...they came!

Oh man...How can we save ourselves from this plague? Roving meanies with keyboards? Oh yeah...

[dchill]

48. I really don't want to watch Fox News...

... but if Brit Hume's head is gonna explode ... I'm there.

[Texas_Kat]

49. The fuse is lit

eom

[Rowdyboy]

50. The vein in his forehead will start pulsing first...Then he'll start to

turn red....A thin line of drool will begin to drop from the right corner of his mouth, he'll begin tembling slightly, then more strongly, his forehead will swell, then pulse, then....

but enough of my fantasies....

[Gloria]

54. Right out of the gate, he refused to trash Durbin. A sigh of relief....

He remained on point and dignified. Colmes seemed to gain courage.

Hannity looked like an hysterical jackass. Mission accomplished.

[Rowdyboy]

56. It would have been such an easy, cheap shot, to try to explain Durbin's

comments or to denigrate them, especially with Clark's military background. Instead he stood up to Hannity, ignored his attempts to talk trash and hit him on issues. He earlier defended Dean's comments. Maybe Wes understands the importantance of Reagan's 11th commandment "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican" and applies it to his own party, unlike Biden, Lieberman, Richardson, Ford, Lieberman and various others.

Democrats should support Democrats, and that what I see coming from Clark!

[ClarkUSA]

122. He'll be defending every Democrat Fox tries to ridicule and denigrate too

Viewers will finally get some liberal Democratic truth that will oppose the GOP propaganda.

[Clarkie1]

57. Thanks for posting the extended quotes.

Also, I like the pic. He looks like he won't take shit from anybody...which, of course, he won't.

[Rowdyboy]

60. If he looks like a president, and talks like a president, and walks like

a president......he just may turn out to be a

President!

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Thank you very much for posting this Rowdyboy.

I think Wes is really going to kick some ass over there at FAUX.

[liberalla]

63. His career on Fox is gonna make Brit Hume's head explode.

His career on Fox is gonna make Brit Hume's head explode."

Now, that would be good TV!

Keep it up, General!

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Wess may be crazy ... as a fox

oh and this is training for 2008, he will run, mark my words

[Disturbed]

66. "Hannity look like the piece of intellectual trash."

Hannity intellectual? Hell no. Trash- Yeah!

[returnable]

67. I love Wes, but I have to take issue with this quote

"...whoever uses the 'Nazi' word first loses."

I heard Wes say James Dobson "was like a Nazi" in person last month.

Of course, I agree with that assessment, but just thought I'd point out the contradiction in defense of Durbin's speech :toast:

[rhett o rick]

68. Do you think the General will mind if I call Hannity a Natzi?? nt

[ArkDem]

77. What is a natzi?

[rhett o rick]

87. Sorry, fast fingers for Nazi nt

[1932]

69. What is Clark arguing?

He seems to be saying that the US needs to show the rest of the world that we're collecting good evidence from the Guantanamo prisoners and once the rest of the world sees this, they'll be OK with it. Or is he saying that we need a 'global test'? Is he saying that we should modify our treatment of prisoners to form with which the rest of the world is comfortable? It's not clear what Clark is saying -- he seems to be hedging his bets on whether Gitmo is producing good evidence, and he's seems to be relatively neutral on the issue of torture by implying that if it is producing results, and the rest of the world is cool about that, then little might have to change.

Personally, I think part of the bush foreign policy and domestic political strategy is to appear that we don't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks. Even if we were following the Geneva convention word for word, I think Bush gets domestic mileage out of the perception that he doesn't care what the rest of the world things, and I think he believes he's getting a strategic advantage from the Islamists fearing that a random arrest could lead to some really harsh time in Cuba.

I think the discussion should be about whether this is good strategy viz Islamists, and not whether it's good PR for the soldiers in the eyes of Americans and Europeans. Of course, those things are important, but I strongly suspect that average citizens' criticisms of Gitmo and Abu Graib are secondary to the Bush administration's strategic reasons for doing what they do, and they're not going to stop unless they see that the strategy not working, and they'll keep doing so long as the do think the strategy is working. And until the conservatives who like the idea of America saying fuck you to the rest of the world see that the strategy might not be working, Bush will just get domestic political mileage out of Democrats asking him for 'global tests.'

Also, what's the difference between a political issue and a policy issue? Clark seems to be saying that we shouldn't "play politics" with this issue because there are important policy concerns. But how do we arrive at the appropriate policies without playing politics? The problem isn't that the issue shouldn't be discussed in a political framework. The problem is that it should be discussed in the appropriate political framework -- and I think that political framework is whether Gitmo and Abu Graib are good military strategy.

I think the dichotomy is whether the issue is a political or military issue. If it is a military issue -- and if, like Churchill said, the truth is so important that it should travel with a bodyguard of lies -- then that's another issue in itself. What do we do in that case? If any rational military person told you that, indeed, the threat of torture (even if it's invented -- like, say, we don't torture people in Gitmo, but the perception is that we do) is helping us disrupt Al Qaeda -- then what's left to do? I guess you'd just have to make sure Bush wasn't getting domestic political mileage out of thumbing his nose to the rest of the world, because long term American safety clearly depends on us working well with others. Right? So the political discussion should bring us back around to whether it's a good long term military strategy.

Right?

[Sparkly]

70. He's not saying what you are.

Torture doesn't make people say, "Gee maybe I shouldn't strap this bomb to my body." It motivates people to hate America MORE. The "threat of torture" is NOT "helping us disrupt Al Qaeda."

Playing politics means debating who called who a Nazi when and why etc. and in his 5 minutes to talk, he wanted to talk about policy: what is actually happening in Guantanamo, what process can be established to move the detainees (out or into court), and what the benefits of opening it to international view would be.

[1932]

72. Clark doesn't seem to be saying that.

Unless I missed it (or it's not in the quotes) Clark doesn't say that torture is absolutely wrong. He leaves open the possiblity that once the rest of the world sees what evidence Gitmo is producing, they might "buy-in." And the only other alternative I see is that he's saying that there should be global test, because the only other option is that the rest of the world doesn't "buy-in" and then the US has to change its behavior so that they will buy-in.

I think we know how that sort of argument goes over at least in the domestic politics context -- it makes conservatives rally around the Republicans because the average American doesn't like global tests, especially if they truly believe that a global test is going to lead to a terrorist attack on Americans.

So, I think Clark's formulation of the problem doesn't get at the real problem.

If torture is really wrong then he should come out and say it. There'd be no way that it should continue, even if it produced results and the rest of the world bought into it. And is it wrong for moral reasons, or for military reasons? If the most important issue is whether it's good strategy to protect Americans, then let's talk about it in that context.

I think the problem here might be that talking about the issue in terms other than Clark's simplified framing might go over the heads of a lot of Americans (ie, the long and short military advantages and disadvantages). But don't we know that the "global test" framing is a non-starter for many Americans and only helps Bush achieve his domestic political ends?

Incidentally, I think Republicans want the rest of the world to hate America because that means that they fear America, and when they fear America, they're less likely to get in the way of America's foreign policy ends. That's why the US has made such a big show of force in Iraq (and Vietnam, for that matter).

[Sparkly]

74. There's no question torture is wrong.

He's said that many times, and every reference to Geneva conventions is saying that as well. (Hence Hannity's protests that the conventions don't apply.)

His recommendation that Guantanamo be opened for inspection, something BushCo has fought against, goes right in their faces. If there's nothing to hide and they're treated so well, as BushCo insists, why not let people take a look?

I'm not sure what you mean by "global test." We have international law and conventions.

I don't know why anyone would think that hating America means fearing America. They hardly seem afraid. :shrug:

[1932]

93. I'm not endorsing these opinions, but you should be aware they exist:

- The US had a policy from the beginning that they would use torture to extract evidence of, for example, plans to attack the US with nuclear weapons or other WMD. Again, Clark doesn't condemn torture in this quote, and I don't think I've ever heard him condemn torture used to get evidence of WMD attacks on the US. It seems that Clark is primarily interested in how torture makes people perceive the soldiers accused of carrying out and not the question of whether torture is wrong. If I am missing something, please provide Clark's quotes...

- I suppose your "if they have nothing to hide, then let inspectors go into Gitmo" characterization is fair (even if it sounds like its conflating a completely separate event in the "War on Terror" -- the Iraq WMD inspectors -- with Gitmo). However, I really don't see that in the quotes above. It really sounds to me like Clark is saying, let them in, show them what information we're getting, and they'll be on board with Gitmo if the evidence is good. That much is explicit. Beyond that, he seems to be implying, if they're not on board with what they see, then the US needs to adjust its policy in Gitmo to make everyone happy. That's the "global test" part -- we need to behave in a way that is acceptable to the rest of the world. Fair enough. But I think that John Kerry suffered by (unfairly) having that attitute imputed through misquoting and misrepresenting what he actually said and if that attitude were popular, then Bush wouldn't have pretended that Kerry held it.

I think Democrats are going to get more mileage out of talking not about subjecting American strategy to the supervision of the rest of the world, or by convincing the rest of the world that our extreme methods of collecting evidence are producing a few results here and there.

I think Democrats will get mileage by talking about whether the strategy is really working. We're torturing and humiliating people, yet US intelligence still has no idea what's happening -- our intelligence has sucked in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Bruce Willis were down in Gitmo torturing people and we were using the evidence to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in Central Park -- well, I don't think Clark is going to complain about that. But if that's not happening, then we need to talk about it within a different framework.

OK, I'll admit that I don't know exactly the right way to address this, but I don't think Clark has taken Democrats much farther than implying that we should act the way that Bush (misleadingly) said that Kerry wanted to act (and American voters didn't like the sound of it last fall).

- On hate and fear: as I said above, this isn't an endorsement of George Friedman, or his book America's Secret War, but on p. 333 he says:

The Iraq war at first achieved two strategic goals it had intended. First it shifted the psychology in the Islamic world, where the United States moved from being hated and held in contempt to being hated and feared -- a substantial improvement in terms of getting nations to act in accordance with U.S. wishtes. Second, it positions U.S. forces in the heart of the Middle East, putting those forces in a position to strike at will and as needed.

He gives a bunch of examples of the way Iran and Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries changed their behavior to assist the US in rooting out Al Qaeda after the Iraq invasion, which showed that the US didn't care about coalitions and was willing to take big, bold moves. Those countries didn't help the US when they didn't have fear, but just contempt of the US. Of course, those reactions are on a national level, but I think that the fear of Gitmo is meant to encourage the same behavior. (The real question, however, is the long term situation, which is almost definitely going to be bad.)

[Jai4WKC08]

103. I think you misunderstood

Clark didn't say, "let them in, show them what information we're getting, and they'll be on board with Gitmo if the evidence is good." So no, that is not "explicit."

He didn't say anything about "what information we're getting" and he's on long record for saying emphatically that torture is never justified by what information we might get from it. What he said last night concerned letting our allies see the evidence on why the prisoners are being held at GITMO and how they're being treated.

Nor was he implying that, "if they're not on board with what they see, then the US needs to adjust its policy in Gitmo to make everyone happy." He wants us to make them part of the process, not just someone who oversees what we do and gives it a thumbs up or down. But you wouldn't necessarily get that from the show last night, unless you had been listening to Clark's positions on these sorts of issues over time.

For example, I happened to hear what Clark said a couple days ago, in a different interview, that we need a formal, legal process to establish who should remain in custody and who should be let go (which is, afterall, required by the Geneva Conventions). And he said, and has long advocated, that we should internationalize process, so that when we do hold somebody, it's not just the US doing it, but the world community.

Clark has always been a proponent of taking action as part of established alliances, believing that internationalizing our efforts abroad affords legitimacy in the eyes of the world and ultimately protects US security interests. In a sense, it's what is meant by meeting a "global test." And you're right, it was not a popular concept with most Americans, but only because it got twisted around by the Republican machine to make it sound like having to get UN or European permission to protect America.

Clark does a better job, imo, of explaining it than Kerry. Or maybe his style as a Southern boy and military man just makes people more comfortable with his ideas, since so many saw Kerry as a little too cosmopolitan. But the two were never far apart in their views on the issue.

If the American people don't like that approach, then the answer is not to abandon it, but to educate them as to why it's necessary -- to "lead" them to the realization that we don't have any other choice in the modern world. It can be done. Americans at one time backed the Marshall Plan, the creation of and participation in the UN, the NATO alliance. They can be made to see that the Bush go-it-alone, with-us-or-against-us mantra is not the answer. I think they're starting to see that already, but no one has been able to show them that there are alternatives that don't endanger American security, that in fact promote our national intersts. Clark can do that, and I believe he will. I think this deal with Fox is part of his strategy.

[1932]

110. You say I misunderstand, but you don't give evidence.

"Bring 'em over, let 'em see how they're being treated, let 'em look and evaluate the evidence, figure out what's the best way to deal. Some of these people, if they were released, would attack us again. We can't let them go. Some of them, maybe they should be charged."

That's what Clark said. What does that mean to you? To me, it means, bring the international community to Cuba, let them see what we're doing to and what we're getting from these people.

And when he says, we have to get them to "buy-in," he's saying either they have to agree what we're already doing, or we have to alter treatment so that they will buy-in.

As for the ability of Americans to agree to subjecting policy to the whims of foreigners, that Wilson wanted to do that was the reason the League of Nations failed. At the end of WW2, Roosevelt made sure the US had veto power on the security council -- and he made sure that Americans knew that the UN would never force the US to do things not in its best interest -- because he knew Americans would never "buy-in" to the UN if they felt the UN had veto power over the US's best interests.

I don't think Clark is better communicator or persuader or a better political mind than Roosevelt, or any other liberal politician of the last 100 years, so he's probably not going to be the person who suddenly convinces Americans that Europeans and Asians are better judges of what America needs to do to protect itself from terrorism than Americans. He's going to have to figure out a new way to talk about Gitmo if he wants to win votes for Democrats.

[Texas_Kat]

75. Clark wasn't speaking to the Republicans who

"want the rest of the world to hate America because that means that they fear America, and when they fear America, they're less likely to get in the way of America's foreign policy ends."

Clark was speaking to casual voters sitting in their living rooms watching Fox -- my Mom, your neighbor, my friend's co-workers. I do believe that most of them are persuadable that the world has a stake in solving the terrorism problem so the world should help solve the issue of what to do with them when they are caught.

I agree that Clark's formulation of the problem may not have addressed the real problem in depth.

BUT

Clark had about 3 minutes of air time (not counting Insanity's rants and the video clips of Durbin and Sanitarium). To use that short amount of time to debate whether it was appropriate for Durbin to use "nazi" or to try to define 'torture' would have been playing right into Insanity's hands. (Believe me when I tell you Clark could have also smacked Insanity's understanding of the Geneve convention standards. He's done it many times before in other venues.)

Wes took control of the conversation and made the point he intended. He didn't let himself get baited into discussing the issues on Insanity's terms.

It's one of the many lessons he learned in the 2004 primary.

[sundancekid]

76. if only it were 1932. if only circuitous logic passed the smell test.

if only circling the wagons weren't so obvious. if only posters would really believe in sunshine laws. if only bushevik apologists weren't so transparent.

[AX10]

78. I am a proud Wes Clark man!

[vikegirl]

80. Go Clark!

Here's News Hounds take on it:

Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity.

[CarolNYC]

85. Nice comments....

thanks for the link.

[Rowdyboy]

89. Thanks for the link to News Hounds

They have the same take on Clark's appearance that I do. He totally flummoxed Hannity.

[Cell Whitman]

82. "I'm not gonna condemn him, Sean. ....

Passed that test. A+++

Part of the problem with the right today is that we have to deal with them.:puke: How many millions of people on the left do you think have been drug into all this political stuff because they know we HAVE to deal with the new right? What imho is the Moon molded right.

Having a REAL voice on FOX is important and very necessary today. 1/2 the voters in the nation are under a form of mind control rooted in information control. Via years of demonizing any and all sources of information which disagree with their political cult, their leaders effectively control what their followers see or will believe should they stray off the farm and read some extraneous thoughts. Information control is huge in mind control. We must awaken the non voter is #1 but the right's mental funk has to be penetrated also.

If there is anyone who can break through with some reality to FOX viewers it has to be someone who is smart, very, very smart.

Clark is smarter than all the "minds" at FOX put together.

[Jai4WKC08]

84. News Hounds take....

For those who seem unwilling to accept how we Clarkies saw it.

June 17, 2005
Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity

Wesley Clark, new Fox News contributor, had a chance to test his debate strategies with Hannity last night on Hannity and Colmes. Clark was on to discuss Dick Durbin's comment about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and if Hannity expected Clark to apologize for Durbin's comment, he was in for a surprise.

The segment opened with a video clip of Durbin's statement on the Senate floor. Seeing the complete statement in context with Durbin's intonations and body language gave a very different impression to viewers. Durbin described a detainee chained hand to foot, naked, on the floor covered in feces and urine for 18 to 24 hours. Durbin's point was that this scenario seems more consistant with a Nazi camp or Soviet Gulag or some other mad regime.Durbin was clearly concerned and sad that this had become U.S. policy.

Of course, Hannity called for Wesley Clark to condemn Durbin calling it "over the top, repugnant propaganda". Clark's response to Hannity was very effective.
" I'm not going to condemn Durbin. How we are percieved at Guantanamo on top of the bad press from Abu Ghraib is important. I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis but we have a policy issue here. How do we deal with it?"

After Hannity made his usual veiled accusations of treason, Clark calmly responded refusing to get defensive.He told Hannity that this should not be a political issue at all and we should all pull together and focus on the issue so we can find a solution.We need to look at the situation and evaluate. "We need a process."

Colmes then showed a clip of Rick Santorum comparing Democrats to Nazis and wondered why there was no outrage expressed over Santorum's comment. Clark dismissing the whole controversy said " Whoever uses the Nazi word first, loses. We have a national security issue here"
Clearly, he considered the bickering counter productive.

Comment: Clark's refusal to play politics sapped Hannity's power completely. In essence, Clark was saying this problem is real so stop deflecting our attention. Let's look at it and solve the problem together because it's wrong and the orders are coming from the top.
When Hannity thanked Clark for his appearance,his expression was somber and slightly sour.

Reported by deborah at June 17, 2005 09:42 AM

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php

[norml]

91. Yeah, he really took it to them when he let Hannity get away with saying

that we're not murdering anyone in our prison camps, when there HAVE been documented cases of murder.

General "taking the fight to the enemy" could only respond with broad pleasantries. He takes the fight to the enemy, like Colmes takes the fight to the enemy.

Those who really take it to Fox News, don't get invited on Fox News anymore, let alone get hired by them.

What was his message, something about how we need to have input on this policy issue? Could he have been any more vague?

I was waiting for him to say something that would make me want to cheer him on. I suppose that I should be grateful that at least he didn't go along with denouncing Durbin, even though he didn't do much to defend him.

I'll be waiting for him to say something that makes me want to support this "He'll take the Red States" hero, rather than having it be just more playing pat a cake with the right wing media whores by this newest member of the Fox Family.

[ClarkUSA]

96. What broad pleasantries are you referring to specifically?

Just curious. Please provide a credible sources for the "documented cases of murder" at Gitmo also? Thanks in advance.

Vague to a sledgehammer is music to a violin. Perhaps you prefer someone akin to a sledgehammer? Wes Clark is trying to activate some cognitive response in his audience via giving them something to think about. That is, the policies that we have now are bad and the people at the top (and by extension)those who support them in Congress) are responsible for those policies.

Trust me, Durbin must be appreciative of the fact Wes Clark refused to apologize, considering other Democrats have not been as staunch (Dean redux).

What's your agenda? I mean, besides bemoaning Clark for not getting fired. He ably defended a fellow Democrat (without getting mired in irrelevant minutae). This is as rare a quality at DU as it is in DC.

Wes Clark accomplished some subtle but effective framing within the less than three minutes of total airtime he had while neutralizing Hannity's distractive attacks on a) Durbin and b) Hannity's defense of Gitmo. What did you expect him to do? Stand up, start shouting at Hannity, get into an argument, all in less than three minutes? Hmmm, I prefer him to frame the issues, ignore the distractions, and defend Democrats.

It's just too bad that he wasn't on Fox last week so he could have defended Dean.

[snowbear]

105. Norml.. I take it you don't like the General.. and never have.

Must drive you crazy that he wins every single poll here? :o :o :o

So how did you feel about Newshounds take about how the General took it to Hannity?

Probably pretty proud of him, huh? ;)

[Rowdyboy]

107. You have a mean streak!

As a gay man, I must say that I really find that VERY attractive in a woman!

"Must drive you crazy that he wins every poll here".

Don't you just know it....!

:thumbsup:

BTW: I agreed with News Hounds assessment in every detail. Wes humiliated Sean.

[mcscajun]

97. The man understands flanking maneuvers and infiltration...

...and he's using both to subvert Fox, reach their viewers, and get broader exposure for himself and his opinions in preparation for the 2008 campaign. And he's getting paid for it. Truly marvelous. But I'm still not watching Fox. :)

[Cha]

98. Here's a link Night Owwl

gave for those who can't stomach faux..

"We watch FOX so you don't have to." :)

http://www.newshounds.us

[Frederik]

100. It's a good strategy

While doctor Dean, Durbin, Reid, Conyers etc. are saying it like it is and taking no prisoners, general Clark is the centrist "we have to pull together" moderate on Fox. It's a nice division of labor.

Personally though, I think Gitmo should be closed.

[KittyWampus]

101. Kick For All The DU'ers Who Missed An Fine Example Of Righteous

truthtelling.

[RandomUser]

104. Thank you

I'll admit I was a bit unsettled by the news that he'd signed on with Fox. I still think it's a big risk. But at least his performance here reassures me somewhat.

[Rowdyboy]

108. I honestly don't believe he would have taken the job if he didn't think

he could get his points across, even considering how Hume, Hannity etc will try to thwart him.

Faith is an odd thing. I have faith that Clark's long and "exciting" military career has prepared him to handle the pathetic twits on Faux. I have faith that he has the persuasive skills to turn the tables on vacuous talking heads and make them look like fools. I have faith that he will emerge from the Faux cesspool with his reputation intact and be followed by a small army of disaffected Republican/independent converts.

Guess you could say, I'm a believer.

[RandomUser]

109. I never doubted his intentions

nor his competency at debating rightwing propagandists. My only concern was whether he would be able to get his message across after it's been run through the editing room -- and hence the inherent risk in this maneuver. It's definitely bold, and very risky. Judging from this sample, he seems to be succeeding, and vindicating our faith in him.

This is the guy who stood up for Michael Moore during the Oscars when it was unpopular. This is the guy who defended Dean when Biden and Edwards were trying to distance themselves. Clark's good intentions were never in doubt in my mind.

And the idea that he's in it for the money is laughable. A man who spent the majority of his life making less than 50K in the military, when he had constant offers from the private sector for much more money, is not a man whose primary motivation is money.

[Swamp Rat]

106. Geaux Clark!

[FrenchieCat]

124. Wow!

Nice magazine! :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

111. He'll be defending Democrats & DNC policies on Fox when no one else will

All the while he'll be presenting the case against Bush and GOP policies.

Wes Clark will speak to power at a place where he will reach a viewership that outnumbers any of the other networks.

He will be the big X factor in bringing crossover votes to the Democratic Party in 2006. He's never been a believer in preaching to choirs. He wants us all to reach out and make people understand what is really happening in the country.

GO CLARK! Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when this decision was announced in the Fox newsroom. :rofl:

Insanity down, Hume and Kristol to go.