Wes Clark on The O'Reilly Factor at 8 PM EDT

[ClarkUSA]

June 29th: The O'Reilly Factor

Start:
June 29, 2005 - 8:00pm

Location:
Fox News Channel


General Clark will appear as a guest on The O'Reilly Factor on Wednesday, June 29th at 8:00pm EDT.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/187

[NightOwwl]

1. Thanks for the heads up! n/t

[Mark Williams]

2. Video Soon

DEMbloggers.com will post the video of Gen. Wesley Clark's comments very soon.

[NightOwwl]

3. Thanks Mark...

you guys are awesome. :hi:

[ClarkUSA]

6. Hey Mark...

:yourock:

[Goldmund]

20. Thanks so much!

[Clarkie1]

70. O'Reilly accuses Clark of "sounding like John Kerry"

Gee Bill, how low can you go? :sarcasm:

I am wondering if the demented powers at Faux News are trying now to equate Clark with Kerry in the minds of the right-wing brainwashed Faux viewers. Although Clark, America, and the Democratic Party will gain more from Clark's appearances behind enemy lines, it would seem to indicate they view Clark as a serious threat. I think Faux thinks they can manage and control the threat by having him on, when in reality it does just the opposite. It's a classic stategic blunder...underestimating the skill and stength of the enemy.

Clark made O'Reilly look completely out of his league (which of course, he was).

[CarolNYC]

72. Faux thinking they can manage the threat that is Gen Clark

You know, this may be their motivation for bringing him on...Should be interesting watching this play out.

Good thing Clark is so tough and so scary smart because I don't trust those Faux people at all....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. A dilemma...

I love Wes Clark. Hate DildO'Reilly. What to do..?

[Mark Williams]

7. haha

what a coincidence. I hate him too but I would watch the clip. :)

[NightOwwl]

8. Watch Olbermann instead...

much better for your health.

[NightOwwl]

5. I love Clark

but 30 seconds is all I can take of O'Lielly. What a tool.

:puke:

[LandOLincoln]

9. HA! O'Liely just complained that Wes was "taking over the broadcast."

And he is, of course. Wes is OWNING that bloviating bleep, despite O'Liely's best efforts to talk over him, interrupt him, hector him, and generally make an ignorant asshole of himself.

[Maccagirl]

11. Class and intelligence always beats idiocy

I refuse to watch-but I can't believe O'Really believes he can be in the same debate with the good General. What an ego!

[ClarkUSA]

14. Yes! Tell us more!

:toast:

[AUYellowDog]

10. O'Reilly and Clark

the new Hannity and Colmes?

Brandon

[Texas_Kat]

12. O'Lielly would quit first.

[tishaLA]

15. No. Colmes is a fake Dem.

Gen. Clark is not.

[tishaLA]

13. Wow Clark was really good

and called O'Really on his lack of military experience. He essentially called him a dilletante....It was maybe his best Fox appearance yet.

[PretzelWarrior]

16. r u sure? He "saw action" in central America

and he's not even counting the 50 peso ladyboy whore that one night in September...

[ClarkUSA]

19. Damn it's about time someone called the GOP on their chickenhawk bleating

And four-star General Wes Clark is just that man!

:bounce:

[Adelante]

25. Woooooooo

It sounds so good!! :D

Thank God for DemBloggers. I will get to see this.

[GR]

17. O'Reilly Is A Piece Of $hit....

He kept interrupting Clark and acting like he had more knowledge of military affairs than Clark. What a horse's ass..

I don't know why Clark signed on with these bastarda...They won't even let him speak and get his points out...

[xray s]

28. O'Reilly thinks he has more military knowledge than Clark???

Clark has shit more military knowledge than Reilly will ever know.

[ClarkUSA]

35. On his radio show this afternoon, O'Reilly was playing Patton

He was actually describing how he'd maneuver the troops in Iraq in order to better beat the "insurgency" - no, really!

It was grandiose and laughable. No wonder his ratings are nosediving.

[Totally Committed]

84. He's a disingenuous bloviator...

he has never served in the military.

Just another example of RW Extremist Chickenhawks trying to look tough and Patriotic, when they were too cowardly to go near a battlefield.

Wes is the "real thing". O'Reilly should be ashamed.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. How very interesting

O'Reilly has to handle Clark differently now that Clark has a positiion with FOX. His biggest insult was to say Clark was "like Kerry".

[Cha]

21. I would think the more Clark

has to go up against the likes of bo the better he'll get at getting his points out. And in a way that eviserates bo..politely, of course.

[CarolNYC]

23. zidzi,

Did you see it? I'm interested, if you did, in what you thought of it...

[Cha]

27. Sorry, no..

I'm just reading about it on DU..that's as close to faux as I'll get.

But, I'm pulling for General Clark!

[CarolNYC]

36. cool, thanks....

Just wondering how it looked from the viewpoint of someone who perhaps has not followed the General as closely as some of the rest of us....

I usually go to my Mom for her opinion after these things. She's a Clarkie from the primary days but she's pretty objective about Wes' appearances and doesn't mind telling me when she thinks he's not exactly "on". She's also a Faux watcher (don't ask me why) although a Democrat so she knows what those viewers are usually seeing.

She thought last night's appearance with Hume was "VERY good", BTW.

[Cha]

50. Oh good ..and you have

your mum to go to for objectivity.

I know how it is when you really like someone..might be hard to be as objective as you'd like to be.

I've liked Clark since the Dem convention..that's when I first started paying attention. I'm not a tv watcher anymore though unless I absolutely have to ..like the other night when Dean was on Jon Stewart's.:)

[CarolNYC]

73. being objective

I actually still haven't seen this...I'm on dialup at home so I'll wait to download at work today. :)

It is hard for me to know if I'm being objective when I watch one of these things. Thing is really ardent Clark watchers (and I suppose this holds true for people other than Clark also) can sometimes be overly enthusiastic OR overly criticial of an appearance, I've found. When you've watched someone very closely for months...and it was funny watching his appearances during the draft period because every move of the eyebrow, every hand gesture, every word, every expression, every everyting was analyzed in minute detail as to what it could mean regarding Clark's decision to run or not to run...it's hard, I think, to see him or her as others who haven't paid that close attention might see him.

[CarolNYC]

22. thanks guys for the running commentary...

Thanks Mark for the coming video.

This cable-less one loves you all. :)

From what I've heard, sounds like Gen Clark was kind of enjoying himself in the lion's den....That's my General! :)

[norml]

24. I wish I was there instead of him.

I'd make the case that Dubya's speech was dishonest, in that there's no intention to ever leave Iraq. Their intention is to use it as a base for operations in the region.

I'd make the case that we should just leave Iraq. Turn it over to the UN, under whatever terms they'll take it. Let them show us how it's done.

Turn it over to the local Iraqi groups. Let them rebuild and keep order in their own neighborhoods.

Most of those we're fighting in Iraq fight each other, as well as fighting any outsiders who've come into their country.

Most of those we're fighting were not just about to get on a plane to come here to kill people.

There have been places we've left where leaving turned out to be the best thing to do to restore order, and to remove the threat.

Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, these were places where there was no good reason to stay. We left these places and things worked out for the best. Would you want to reinvade any of them?

Playing America World Police comes with a cost that warrants a cost benefit analysis. There comes a time to stop throwing good money after bad, and to get out of Dodge.

[ClarkUSA]

29. After The O'Reilly Factor, maybe you could be on Hardball instead of Dean?

Maybe you could have taken John Kerry's place on the Larry King Show too?

:eyes:

[norml]

30. No, Dean did better. However few are ready to say "Just Get Out!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=135890&mesg_id=135890


Dean: Troops Deserve More Than Bush's "Discredited" Rhetoric
Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Contact: Karen Finney - 202-863-8148

Disappointingly, the President followed Karl Rove's advice last night and linked Iraq to 9/11 no fewer than five times in just over 35 minutes. He ignored the concerns that Americans have expressed about the war, and still refused to provide real answers or a clear path to success in Iraq. Even former Reagan aide David Gergen expressed that he was "offended" by the number of times President Bush mentioned 9/11.

"Despite being previously forced to back away from unfounded assertions about links between 9-11 and the war in Iraq, President Bush once again twisted a national tragedy to distract from his own failed foreign policy," said DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "Instead of offering the American people a clear path to success in Iraq, President Bush returned to the same defensive and discredited rhetoric. The American people, and most especially our troops, who are serving with great courage, deserve better than discredited, shopworn political rhetoric from their Commander-in-Chief."

See below for a new document from DNC Research:

WHITE HOUSE ONCE AGAIN LINKS IRAQ AND 9/11 ATTACKS

In the President's speech last night, he clearly linked the 9-11 attacks with the war in Iraq, implying that Saddam Hussein was involved and responsible for September 11th. However, the President himself was forced to disavow this link in September of 2003, after Secretary Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld stated there was no connection. Instead of offering the American people a clear path to success in Iraq, he returned to the same defensive and discredited rhetoric. Patriotism and love of country does not demand endless sacrifice on the part of our troops. The American people deserve honest leadership and honest answers.



snip



http://www.wisdems.org/index.php?display=ReleaseDetails&id=579990

[ClarkUSA]

32. Dean does not want us to "Just Get Out" either - never did

I am disappointed from what I have heard about Dean's appearance.

Dean did not mention that there were other 2004 candidates other than himself who were against the war when Chris Matthews said to Dean that he was the only one who did. In response to Matthews, Dean also could not name another "top Democrat" who thought the war was a mistake.
___________________

Have you signed this petition yet, since I know you must be concerned about prisoner abuse in Iraq as much as anybody?

Stop Blaming the Troops -- Investigate the Real Culprits of Abuse

The time has come to investigate the Bush Administration's role in the prisoner abuse and humiliation that has motivated our enemies in the war on terror and endangers the well-being of our fighting forces.

For generations, the United States has been a powerful voice of moral authority in the world. After World War II, we led the world in creating the Geneva Conventions and prosecuting war criminals at Nuremberg, and later became one of the first nations to ratify the Convention Against Torture. Even today, Slobodan Milosevic is being tried for war crimes thanks to a U.S.-led NATO air strike against hisÊ brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has squandered our legacy of moral leadership.

With the right leadership and accountability, couldn't the Administration have prevented the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib and the controversy at Guantanamo Bay? While some are blaming individual soldiers, doesn't at least some of the responsibility rest with the civilian leadership of our government? Don't the American people deserve the truth? Shouldn't Congress lead an investigation?
Please sign my petition urging Chairman John Warner of the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings on the Bush Administration's statements, policies, orders, and actions related to prisoner abuse.

Sincerely,
Wes Clark

http://ga4.org/campaign/prisonerabuse/

[Donna Zen]

34. Pisser

The Clintons and Biden were never against the war.

Now THAT pisses me off.

Is this Dems standing up for Dems version 2.0? It needs an upgrade.

[Adelante]

37. Here's the Dean video

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/29/175443/149

[ClarkUSA]

39. Guess Wes Clark and other "top Dems" need to be remembered by Dean...

for opposing the war.

Wes Clark stood up for Dean when Biden and others were dissing him, too.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Well ya know.....

Only Dean was against the war, right? Right, HE says!

Maybe it's just a habit from the primaries that he can't kick! :crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

54. Donna, Matthews wanted to know who else among "top Democrats"

thought the war was a "blunder" other than Dean and Dean couldn't name anyone else. :eyes:

Matthews said that the Clintons and Biden supported the war. My bad - I heard an account that was incorrect.

[CarolNYC]

74. that's too bad

that he couldn't come up with someone like Senator Kennedy or Senator Byrd or Senator Graham...or, of course, Gen Clark...but maybe they were talking Congressfolk?? I heard he kicked ass with the rest of the interview, tho. Maybe he'll brush up on the leading Dems and their stances toward the war before he does the next interview.

[Totally Committed]

78. The Clintons and Biden against the war?

Did Hillary or Joe disavow their IWR votes while I wasn't paying attention?

I didn't think so. It's all so much cock and bull. GMAFB! Howard needs to remember who got his back when he was attacked by the DLC-ers. Just my opinion.

TC

[CarolNYC]

80. no no

I believe that Tweety was saying that the Clintons and Biden hadn't said the war was a blunder....

[norml]

41. I thought that's what I just said.

Wasn't that conveyed by my use of the word "however"?

The case for just leaving Iraq is a case that's going to need to be made sooner or later, no matter how politically careful a politician might try to be.

I guess others will just have to make it for them. That's why I wish I'd been there.

[Clark2008]

68. This thread isn't about Dean.

Just wanted to remind you of that.

:eyes:

[cally]

51. Dean did an excellent job

Tweety was lambasting him, literally yelling at him, and Dean held his ground. He was excellent.

[Adelante]

55. I just watched it

I thought Dean did an excellent job, too, overall. He fell down only twice and both times it was when Matthews challenged Dean with Democratic leaders not having said Bush bungled the war. Dean needs to be defending Democrats, not just telling Tweety to have them on the show and ask them. He just didn't seem to know how to do it and, imo, it's part of his job. The rest of it, he was terrific.

[Justice]

53. Clark made several good points, but Bill is obnoxious

I taped it and replayed it.

Clark said - based on my 34 years in the military, to which Bill said, based on my experience as a political analyst, ....

That is the single stupidest comment I have ever heard from any of the talking heads. Bill is saying he knows more than Wes. Absolutely comical - and I predict, it will be pointed to by many when Bill's show is cancelled one day. It was in my view, a Tom Cruise jumping on the couch moment.

Wes said we needed to bring in Syria, check who is coming into the airports there, take pictures of them -- Bill said, I am hearing that we are doing that, I am hearing we are taking pictures, I believe we must be doing that, I just think we don't want to publicize that fact...like he is talking with the CIA -- like he knows more than Clark. It was disgusting.

Bill also quoted a Gallup poll that said something like 70% polled liked what they saw in the speech. So Bill says, the folks liked it, the left wing press continues to criticize the 9/11 Iraq connection statements.

Bill actually said, it now turns out that Iraq probably didn't have plans to harm the US, but so what, none of that matters -- all that matters is we are there and we need to be successful. Give the president a year, if things aren't better, than we say he failed.
A year!!!

My view is that this is a long tough road, and every time Clark is on, he will get one more person to listen a bit more. We are not going to break thru to people all at once.

[CarolNYC]

75. a long tough road

I believe you're right. I'm glad Gen Clark is willing to go over behind enemy lines and do some heavy lifting for us along the way...but this whole thing's not going to be easy. :(

[norml]

66. Now I'm on the list for updates from Wes Pac.

And I signed the petition. Thanks for the link.

[Clark2008]

69. Yeah!

I can be harsh, norml, but I am also the most thrilled when I hear that the olive branch has been extended.

:7

:applause:

[CarolNYC]

81. hey thanks

I heard that Randi Rhodes read Wes' complete letter on the air...and said she signed the petition too...The more sigs the better. It really is something that needs to be investigated...not that I'm optimistic it will be. :(

[Adelante]

33. Heh, Dean's not ready to say it, either nt

[norml]

47. Yes, Dean's not ready to say "Just Get Out!" either.

I never said he did. I don't know if it's politically correct for a politician to be caught saying so at this point, but it's something I think will be said more often and openly as time goes by.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Whoop!

There it is!
shakala shakala shakala shaka Boom! :headbang:

Maybe norml can be Bush too.....and end the war tomorrow!

Wish I may, wish I might.....wish on the first star I see tonight!

:rofl: :rofl:

[wicket]

62. Unfortunately O'Reilly would cut your mike before you had a chance

He can't stand well thought-out and reasoned debate. He's such a tool.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. It's still O'Reilly's home field but

Clark held his own and did not back down. I'm trying to be objective here, trying to think like a FOX viewer (headache material). O'Reilly's intended crowd pleasing lines essentially were anti coddling terrorists, and demeaning of France and Germany. O'Reilly pulled his ace out of the hold and claimed to have had a private conversation with the head of America's Afghanistan prison operations who told him that thousands of American lives were saved by using methods of coercion not allowed by the Geneva Conventions. Clark said that he didn't have that conversation in a way that I swear to God implied that therefor he couldn't accept O'Reilly's word for what was supposedly said.

Clark pointed out that it wasn't coverage of the scandals that is hurting America, it is the scandals themselves, and sometimes it takes coverage to force people to deal with it. Clark said more would be gained by the U.S. living up to international standards and gaining international support rather than condemnation than might be lost by breaking the Geneva Conventions. I will ad though that Clark was quite clear that he supports the Geneva Conventions because he believes they are right to support.

[CarolNYC]

38. Thanks Tom for the details

Sounds good....I like the stuff about the scandals and the Geneva Conventions...

[Texas_Kat]

57. He said exactly

"... and he didn't tell ME". Emphasis on the Me part. Like he didn't believe Bloviating Bill.

What a moment!

[CarolNYC]

42. Hey how was O'Reilly?

Did he get a frustrated or upset or beaten down look or anything? Or was he just his usual obnoxious self?

[FrenchieCat]

44. Saw the last two minutes, and really couldn't stand

the O'Lielly pontificating about things he knows nothing about. It was hella irritating! Truly an obnoxious dickhead!

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Normal obnoxious self, a tiny bit more restrained

which seemed to be a frustration to him but did not totally put him off his game. In a way the exact same thing can be said for Clark , except that he wasn't obnoxious, lol. They both had to be a little more restrained than usual becuase of the new roles. But Clark stuck to his guns. Logging off now, thunderstorm.

[CarolNYC]

48. cool, thanks...be safe... n/t

[dogman]

52. Would not look Clark in the eyes.

Must have been afraid of that mind control power.

[CarolNYC]

76. heh

That's the advantage of having Gen Clark there in person, I guess...more intimidating...

[CarolNYC]

43. Oh,

and Gen Clark was there in person, right?

[FrenchieCat]

45. Yep, in the studio......

Looking mighty fine.....which was in sharp contrast to that dumbass O'Lielly!

[CarolNYC]

49. no doubt...

O'Lielly's not exactly, shall we say, appealing, is he?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. Appalling. Not appealing.

DildO'Leilly is as attractive as a felafel. Or a loofah.

[ClarkUSA]

58. LOL!

<<DildO'Leilly is as attractive as a felafel. Or a loofah.>>

I vote loofah.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

59. Video link is here...

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/29/193724/901

[JHBowden]

60. Clark has worked with the Europeans before; O'Reilly has not.

O'Reilly was out of his league. The general did a good job tonight!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

61. I remember now why I never watch Pox News.

DildO'Reilly is such a pompous dick. Clark kicked his ass, though I doubt Felafel Boy even realized it.

[Texas_Kat]

63. Why thanks!

O'Reilly looked like a fool. He tried to turn it into a p*ssing match with Wes. I guess ol' Bill isn't used to having a guest stand up to him. Did you catch the line "Wesley Clark, who is taking over the broadcast".

Has anyone ever heard O'Leilly say that, or anything close? I'm really interested, 'cos I don't watch that blowhard unless I've taken the nausea meds first.

[Donna Zen]

65. Not taking the bait.

I've never seen that creep before and I hope that Wes Clark stays away from him. That show is ruinous to the world and should be off the air. Because that creep is a purveyor of "hate" speech."

O'Lielly couldn't blow up because Clark took none of the bait. That creep wants to start an argument, but WKC has sat across the table from wackier people than that, and been successful.

Clark was there primarily because he wants something done about the torture. After his last trip abroad, Clark said that speaker after speaker at the conference said horrible things about the US. He said it was awful to listen to. Clark stayed on his message. Although I noticed that he would slide the corrections into an answer when the creep couldn't respond.

His story about reading the paper in '57 about the USSR torturing people, and being proud that his country would never do that, was perfect. Everyone sitting out there had to remember that feeling. I hope that they are ashamed that they voted to disgrace this nation.

"It's called leadership."

[CarolNYC]

77. thanks JHBowden

I'm glad to hear you thought he did well....As I said, I still have to see it...

[FourStarDemocrat]

64. Jeezus Christ...--Clark RULED on O'Lielly tonight!!

Thanks to Dembloggers for putting it up. Just had a chance to watch it. O'Lielly should just give it up, he has no chance going up aginst Clark. :)

[Texas_Kat]

67. Dembloggers seems to have only caught the 2nd half of the show

The first half was even better......

:woohoo:

[FrenchieCat]

71. Yes.....

The first half was much better!

[ClarkUSA]

88. Someone noticed and asked Mike - FIRST HALF will be up today sometime

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Totally Committed]

79. Part of a really good post from another site:

I thought the author of this really hit the nail on the head! --

"Two of the important things he said which I liked were:

1) in response to O'Reilly's complaint about the NYT editorial page writing about Abu Graib fifty times - Clark: we should have a full investigation from top down so that we could put all that to rest.

2) in response to O'Reilly's comment that Clark was being too naive and sounded like Kerry, wanting to bring Germany and France in to help us and that O'Reilly wants to fight a war which instills fear in the terrorists - Clark: 'I want to fight a war that brings the full weight of every government in the world and all its people against the small number of people who are terrorists, not a war in which terrorists can get sympathy because of the way they are supposedly treated by the U.S. I've worked with France and Germany; I did diplomacy; I know what those countries have done if they're motivated the right way and can be led by the United States; I know they're doing a lot behind the scenes. What we need to do is put them in a position where they have got to come over to our side. It's leadership.'"

Props to the author for getting this just right. I couldn't agree more!

TC

[Totally Committed]

82. Post from MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/28/17033/3871

Clark is in a position to help reframe the debate and demand accountability, on Fox network, of all places.

Take the fight to your foes on their turf.

Remember how someone recently started a war of choice using such strategy?

Wes Clark can wage a persuasive campaign on the issues...

...making issues the focus of debate is what wins, when armed with the truth.

There was another tremendous point in Clark's response, I have to go on another site to get the transript and reply, armed with his talking points. (But let me say the following for now.)

He reminded everyone 9-11 and Iraq were not related, after Bush's speech. An emphatic point to be made.

Little more than a campaign gesture? Why would he when the Edwards bandwagon has blazed the trail for Ohio recounts?

They raise funds 24/7 year in and out, why should Clark not campaign for the truth to become part of the dialog? He also will provide great reinforcement for Dems at the two year mark, helping them raise funds.

Finally, he may be Gen. Clark(ret.) but he still has the sense of loyalty to soldiers and an abiding sense of obligation every citizen has to see ours are armed with the truth.

The Truth is a weapon of Justice. Our soldiers have won wars armed with it. Without the Truth our soldiers have trouble holding the high ground they need to secure the peace.

The training and dedication of these men and women can overcome a truth deficit, but the collateral damage such a situation invites upon ours is in and of itself an order we should never ask them to undertake.

Look at Wes's record in the field. Dialog and weighted response to changes in the field require a flexible approach that adapts and maintains its strategic aim, even if sees a serious shift in short term tactical objections.

Doing so with a consistent set of guidelines and a series of standard, well defined rules of engagement is an understood trademark of his command.

Wes Clark, as a soldier's soldier, speaks for the idea that we must develop a doctrine that maintains we uphold the sacred aspects of human rights. He knows such reflect upon the fate of ours in the field who befall capture.

World War Two was a tremendous example of this, America's treatment of POW from World War One and its continued holding of high ground in the Second such saw an effort to keep ours under the umbrella of Geneva.

There was a definite carry over. The respect earned in one decade was returned in the next several.This is what our soldiers know. It is why they wear the emblem with pride and uphold the best aspects of what America can mean to others.

To rob our Armed Service of its own heritage in this matter is a crime that no legal outcome can make just. They can outshine such shadows cast upon what our Country can be seen as to others, but in so doing face greater degrees of difficulty.

We work with one another to win in wars. You cannot win the peace and maintain the morale necessary to achieve this without such maintenance.

The Service members uphold their end of this at all times. Wes Clark simply asks others do the same here.

Remember-making the civilians who endorsed this action accountable will help remove some of the negative actions our soldiers may face in this and future situations.

====

TC

[Mass]

83. This was a great interview

Saw it on demblogger.com. Clark is definitively great and you see he knows what he is talking about.

[Stockholm]

85. Mr. Clark will have to toughen up

when discussing issues wíth this asshat.

It is difficult to meet one-liners and grave generalisations with a low key reasoning attitude.

IMO he was run over.

[ElectroPrincess]

86. O'Reilly's show is such a joke ...

I wish that General Clark would not give this Bully-Boy credence by appearing on this buffoon's show.

Like that of Nancy Grace (but for different reasons), I'm sick of these obnoxious, talk over all their guests, hosts, spewing vindictiveness, false hyperbole and indignation.

Don't feed the monsters, i.e., appear on these sensationistic shows.

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. Seriously, I love him but Clark isn't a huge mainstream draw,

He won't make hardly a blip either way in FOX's ratings. Clark is talking now to the people who would have tuned it in anyway plus a couple of hundred hard core political activists like me who can't always wait for the video to get posted, and I turn off Fox as soon as Clark is off. Clark isn't all over the airwaves promoting FOX and FOX isn't all over the airwaves promoting that Clark appears on FOX.

The point is more whether or not Clark is "doing anything positive there" and being of any value to Democrats, and I am of the opinion that he is. I've seen it reported that 22% of FOX viewers are Democrats. I bet a lot of them are the ones who have defected to Bush and need to be brought back into line. Dating back to before the 2004 Primaries Clark has consistently said that Democrats can not let the Right Wing Republican media go unchallenged on the air waves. If nothing else he urged that Democrats call in to the talk shows to register protests. I can find quotes if I spend enough time digging for them. Clark is being consistent here now with what he said years ago.

Clark wasn't being naive about this. He didn't say we would get a fair shake on them, and he didn't say that we don't need our own media etc. However the lack of any real dissent on Right Wing attack programs, like Rush, like FOX, gives the false impression to those who tune in, that those shows actually are speaking for America when they claim to be speaking for America. I don't know of many Democrats besides Clark who I think can hold their own, over time, in a FOX environment. Maybe Mario Cuomo is another. If Clark is able to stick to his guns and make his points and not back down he doesn't have to "win" each appearance on FOX. Everyone, the viewers too on some level, know that the playing field is rigged. But it is eye opening to many to see an expert like Clark not bowing to the Faux expertise of the Chicken Hawk FOX "news team".

[Stockholm]

89. I guess both you and electroprincess make sense

One way is for him to leave (not feeding the monsters) or the other is to stay as Tom thinks, but then I think he needs to be a little more assertive. I agree that he does not need to win every time and that he can create some dissonance for the faux people who would not otherwise be subjected to liberal ideas.

But if he decides to stay I hope he quickly sets up a defensive perimeter clearly marking what is acceptable, cause he will not have one single friendly appearance in that house of ghouls.

For example, I think that Kerry-remark was an attempt to question him as a soldier. He should have stopped right there and told him he is proud to be compared to a fine soldier and patriot like Kerry not just letting the remark slip by.

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. This is more like a Cricket match than a Soccer game

It won't be decided either by one telling blow or fatal error. As an ongoing commentator, Clark can't "go for broke/ at the throat" in every sitting, nor can the FOX ass holes treat him like a complete dog turd the way I bet many there want to. Because the ground rules are based on giving at least the appearance of working together to present the news, the sessions can not be as combative as a "Cross Fire" segment, which means that neither "side" can throw every punch they can think of. Each has to chose its moments carefully when stepping outside of being "collegial", and that can't be done constantly.

If this weren't so god damned important it would be interesting to observe, simply as a study of the media and political messaging. But my gut feeling is that FOX wins if they can pull off a Knock Out or TKO of Clark, and Clark wins if he goes the distance and the match has to be judged on points. I know that is a clumsy metaphor, but what I mean is FOX needs to make Clark look foolish to the majority of their viewers to "win", and they certainly have tools they can use to do so. Clark needs to hold his own and keep on ticking. If he does, he pierces their arrogant mystique that FOX is trying so hard to project, and that opens up the possibility for more viewers to start thinking for themselves and viewing Democrats as sincere patriots with opinions, rather than mere punching bags.

P.S. on edit. I'm betting on Clark in this match

[FrenchieCat]

93. The O'Lielly Kerry comment was nothing but "bait", and

I'm glad that Wes didn't address that issue...whether to deny or affirm that he is just like or not like John Kerry.

Sure, Wes could have said that Kerry was a fine soldier and that he, Clark was proud to be compared to Kerry. However, Wes Clark was already known as John Kerry's surrogate through the entire 2004 election. Most folks know that Wes Clark supported and still supports John Kerry, the politician.

Problem is, if Clark would have responded in the way that you prescribed, Clark would have been "off-base", because O'Lielly's comment was related to Wes' Foreign policy approach, and not to the issue of Kerry soldiering from 35 years ago. So Clark didn't need to even address this issue....which would have opened the door for O'Lielly to possibly start degrading John Kerry and the whole Vietnam thing. We've already been there, done that. It would have been a waste of time.

I'm glad that Clark knew better than to allow the conversation to be sidetracked to him having to "defend" John Kerry.
The fact that Clark didn't address the Kerry comparison remark....showed that Clark has no real problem with being compared to John Kerry....and that was a more important statement, which...mind you, was made without one word being spoken by Clark.

With only a few minutes allowed for Wes to discuss the issues, John Kerry's military service certainly was not something that needed revisiting.

Good for Wes not even taking that great big piece of bait!

[Donna Zen]

90. General Clark handled the enemy

...just fine. If one grants o'reilly the floor by taking the bait, o'reilly, in love with his own voice, goes into his usual screamfest of "I'm right and you're a know-nothing." In each case of o'reilly's outrageous attempts to skew the issues, Clark returned with a rejoinder along the lines of "Let me tell you what I think..." General Clark stayed in control of the interview, but after spending a year negotiating with the likes of Milosevic, this was child's play.

"It's leadership."

~Eat the elephant one bite at a time.

[CarolNYC]

98. so, I finally watched this....

Yes, I think that Gen Clark stayed in control which I could never have done in that situation...I think I would have gotten up and walked off in a huff. I guess that's why he's on Faux and I'm not.

Goodness, O'Reilly is hard to take though....First of all, he talked too damn much. And the stuff he was saying! Oi! Did you hear him try to get Gen Clark to agree that the soldiers believe in Bush's war? Ugh!

I did think Clark did well, God bless him. It couldn't have been easy. You're right, Bill was baiting and baiting him and Clark wouldn't take the bait. Must have been highly frustrating for O'Reilly. Clark just kept getting his points in and sounding so calm and rational and itelligent in doing it. I know some of us would love to see him get confrontational with idiots like O'Reilly but that would undermine the whole reason for Clark being there.

I still don't trust FAUX but, if anyone can outfox them, it's the General....Boy, he's tough one, huh? Fearless too.

Oh, and what's up with that weird camera angle where you see the back of Clark's head anyway? Do they do that with all of his guests?

Also, it seemed at times as if Wes was on the verge of bursting out laughing at some of the ridiculousness pouring out of O'Reilly's mouth.

[Totally Committed]

92. Stephanie Miller loves General Clark!

I was just traveling home in the car, and was listening to Stephanie Miller on Boston Progressive Talk 1200AM.

The discussion turned to just whom the Democrats should be listening to on Foreign Policy, and her exact quote was: "I think everyone should listen to whatever Wesley Clark has to say." Later on in the conversation, she again gave him a very positive mention, saying that Bush should be calling Wes and doing whatever he said about Iraq.

This is not the first time Stephanie has give General Clark a positive mention on her show. And, she has a portion of her show where she talks about what happened on FOX the night before -- "I watch FOX so you don't have to" -- it is usually hilarious, but she has been talking Wes up a lot.

People are starting to notice!

TC

[tishaLA]

94. She *blistered* O'Reilly on the Clark interview

For presuming to know more about how to pursue a military action than Clark. She wouldn't let go of Bill's faux masculinity.

[Totally Committed]

95. It was outstanding!

I love Stephanie Miller!

TC

[CarolNYC]

96. ahh,

this is good to hear, TC. I'm glad, too, that people are starting to notice what a gift the General is to this party and this country.

[Totally Committed]

97. I'm told Randi Rhodes...

riffed on him rather sweetly yesterday as well.. Talked up his online Prisoner Abuse petition and even gave te WesPAC address out, so people could go sign it!

So, Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes are giving on-air props to Wes. Sweet!

TC

[CarolNYC]

99. yeah,

I heard she actually read the whole letter of Wes' on the air. Randi does like Wes a lot, I think.

[Totally Committed]

100. She's former military...

she was in the Air Force.

TC

[ClarkUSA]

101. FIRST HALF OF INTERVIEW now at Dembloggers.com

Mark Williams has posted a link to the first half of Wes' FOX appearance in the comments:

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/30/123132/892

Thanks, Mark.

:headbang:

[Sparkly]

102. Thanks, and thanks for the video link, Dembloggers!

I just got back from a 3-day trip and missed the Chimp speech, the Clark remarks, everything. So this was great to see.

I can't get over O'Reilly's sheer arrogance!! "Here's what I know as a political analyst." What a jerk!! He was lecturing the General on military procedure, foreign policy, and even Europe -- hellooo?!?

I liked the way Clark didn't take the bait of his questions (he's learned so much about the games in politics) but instead said, "Here's what I think," or "Here's what I'd like to see," or "Here's what I'd do." Very, very smart.

[ClarkUSA]

103. Yes, O'Reilly is a political analyst while Clark is a mere 4-star General

So of course, O'Reilly has a better background than Wes Clark with which to discuss military war strategy, international foreign policy, as well as national security. :eyes:

That was the most ridiculous exchange of the interview. :silly:

You have to wonder if there were people out in the Fox hearing public who laughed out loud.