Clarkies - Yesterday confirmed my longheld beliefs re CNN and Gen. Grange

[blm]

Grange, CNN's military analyst, was giving full backup to Rumsfeld and BushInc. yesterday. I want to share with you why I distrust this man.

When Clark was the military analyst for CNN, he gave off an attractive warmth and trustworthiness that you rarely see in what should be cold hard analysis.

When he left, and started speaking out on other issues that aligned him with the left and Democrats, I believe that CNN and BushInc put Grange in there to CONFUSE the casual viewer.

I don't believe it was coincidence that Grange had just enough of Clark's looks and demeanor that the average viewer would be unlikely to catch on that it was a different analyst who was far more generous to the administration and harsher on its critics.

Grange was so deferential to Rumsfeld, Bush, and their military strategy yesterday that there is no way he wasn't put in that position intentionally. No honest military analyst could spout so much high praise for such obviously failed strategies. He then dutifully attacked the generals who spoke out, saying they had ample opportunity to speak out earlier, completely sidestepping the obvious point that those who did were punished and silenced.

I expect that once Clark starts to show up more often in the media, Grange will be put into heavier rotation by CNN as a confusing counter.

Don't ever believe in "coincidence" when it comes to BushInc. Be alert.

[Totally Committed]

1. We Clarkies are very aware of the situation of which you speak,

and we know that CNN has done everything in its power to undermine General Clark whenever possible.

Thanks for noticing.

TC

[blm]

2. I noticed it when they first hired Grange.

Yesterday was just absolute confirmation for me.

[Cosmocat]

12. I didn't notice this ... BUT ...

Blitzer took some ham handed shot at Clark that I thought was odd ...

There was some discussion that centered on the admin and how they had a thing for going after Iran, and the guest mentioned some Ds were interested, too ...

Wolf out of the blue said, like Wes Clark ...

The guest made a point of saying that in fact Clark had long ago came out for the kind of diplomatic outreaches he was suggesting ... But, it struck me at the time, that while I don't think he is the sharpest tool in the shed, that my knowing Clark's position on it, that it was pretty astounding that Blitzer would go out of his way to throw Clarks name out and clearly not know what he was saying ...

[riona]

15. Was I imagining things

or did the press (during the presidential primaries) seem to go out of their way to give as little respect as possible to Clark's substantial qualifications for president? I felt all I was seeing were clips showing him as an inept campaigner.

[Donna Zen]

16. Respect?

CNN went 19 days without mentioning Wes Clark's name, and at the time on a state by state basis, he was either in first place, tied with Dean for first, or in second place. 19 days. How do I know? Because I kept track. It was probably longer since until it became obvious, I wasn't counting.

[riona]

17. Thanks

I hope the Dem candidates realize the importance of the internet in the next presidential campaign. No question we'll have a superior candidate and no question how he'll be portrayed by the msm. Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the populataion that puts their faith in the msm and do not bother to research the info they are fed. That we have W in the White House now tells me that we had a clueless electorate.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[riona]

28. It is sad

we are stuck with media that thinks charisma is a qualification to run the country. Facts and figures must be obtained elsewhere because they're to busy showing campaigning gaffs, clothes, and haircuts. . I could have torn my hair out by the time the primary rolled around - it was already a done deal for Kerry and he was not my choice.

[atreides1]

3. Here You Go

General David L Grange

Director at
Pharmaceutical Products Developments Service Company
Wilmington, North Carolina
HEALTHCARE / MEDICAL LABORATORIES & RESEARCH
Director since 2003

Track This Person

57 years old

General David L. Grange has served since November 1999 as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation, a charitable grantmaking organization that supports work in journalism, communities, citizenship and education. General Grange joined the Foundation after thirty years in the U.S. Army with his final position as Commanding General of the First Infantry Division, know as the "Big Red One." During his military career, General Grange served as a Ranger, Green Beret, Aviator, Infantryman, and as a member of Delta Force. General Grange also serves as a National Security Analyst for CNN, WGN-TV, WGN Radio and CLTV.

The man was a grunt, what the hell does a grunt know about Pharmaceutical products?????

[blm]

13. Thanks for that - I think we need to expose this creep.

.

[xchrom]

4. marketing and packaging are strategic parts

of controling the population.

[CarolNYC]

5. you're right, blm....

the media sucks. Thanks for keeping that issue out front as you do.

Have you read David Brock's "Republican Noise Machine?" I read it recently and, boy, is it aggravating and depressing all at once....

[blm]

6. And to think the GOP controls even more media now than when Brock wrote

his book.

[CarolNYC]

7. The scary part is

that they've been working on this for like the last 30-40 years....Even if we start to seriously try to combat them, they've got this massive head start on us. It's more than just the media, it's the "think tanks", the fake research places, all of the money they have, all of the stuff they own...Ack! I hate to think of it!

[blm]

9. We hate to think of it - but we HAVE to. News media is BushInc's frontline

against Democrats. They act as front line DEFENSE and front line OFFENSE against Dems. They cannot be ignored, as every other issue still goes through them first.

Dems HAVE to expose the GOP control of the broadcast media.

[CarolNYC]

25. Yep...and not just Bush....

but all of those right wingers...They've been working for a while to get such control of the media....

I hate to say it but money is such a big thing in all of this...

Gen Clark brought this up at the Chris Heinz thing last year...He talked about how these young, bright minds fresh out of college, with no set ideology, are lured into these right wing think tanks and such because, when faced with a choice between working somewhere where they can maybe do some good but make little money and working at one of these Republican think tanks with promises of much wealth and quick advancement to even greater wealth, it's hard for a lot of these kids not to choose the wealth...Then they get into these organizations and are indoctrinated into that ideology and we end up losing some of the best and the brightest to that side...Something along those lines....

We need people with money on our side, people with money who are willing to spend it to advance liberal ideology or whatever you want to call it. George Soros, who BTW is hosting a fundraiser for WesPAC next week here in the city that I think I'm going to be able to attend, is a good one with lots of money. I don't know where exactly Donald Trump's loyalties lie, other than to himself...but he did host a fundraiser with Charlie Rangel a little while back for Charlie's PAC. For all of his faults (and I am not exactly a Trump fan), he is someone who knows how to make things happen....I've seen him do so in the city and I do give him credit for that...I wouldn't want to be married to him but I wouldn't mind having him on my side....

We just need some people with the big bucks willing to spend it to further our cause....I don't know the whole answer....Most times it just seems hopeless to me...but it can't be or we're really screwed....

[Totally Committed]

8. Those of us who supported General Clark in the last Primaries

were well aware that CNN would rarely (and never, if they could get away with it) even say Wes Clark's name... even if the story was about him. He was systematically shout out of coverage on that network as long as he remained a candidate. To this day, I boycott them for that reason alone.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

10. You are right.......and apart from the fact that Grange is nothing but a

Shill and apologist for the Bush Admin....

BUT Grange is missing A FEW stars on his shoulders to be confused with Gen. Clark.

Grange = Brigadeer General = 1 star

Clark = General = 4 stars

That's a three star difference!.......


That's like comparing a Mayor to the President....in reference to their duties, experience, and knowledge! But CNN doesn't care...cause that's something they will never mention....the lack of stars on Grange's old uniform.

Please know that in copy (written text), CNN is forced to note Grange's title as a Brigadeer General......but in "Title" they can just call him "General" and hope no one notices that vast ass difference! :eyes:

[blm]

11. Casual viewers will never notice crucial differences that we do.

Unfortunately, WE are the minority in this country, so we have to increase our volume on issues like this.

[Jai4WKC08]

18. I thought Grange was a one-star (brigadeer) too

But the bio above says he commanded 1st Infantry Division. That means he HAD to be a two-star -- all division commanders are two-stars, without exception. Oh, I guess it's possible that he was the assistant commander and the primary was relieved or died or something, and he took over until the replacement was identified, but I find that highly unlikely.

Either 1) Grange was a two-star and got demoted, 2) that bio is for his dad, who was also a general, or 3) he's padding his resume.

Grange was a lieutenant in the cavalry troop my brother commanded, back in the early seventies. He was a doofus then and he's a doofus now. He only made his star riding daddy's coattails.

[Donna Zen]

14. Yesterday's Grange Report

Grange said yesterday that generals give comfort to the enemy.

Ya know...Grange is Delta Force. One think he would harbor some animosity, some desire for accountabilty, against the man whose micromanagement sent 12 of his comrades to their death at Tora Bora.

In one interview during the primaries Grange dissed Clark with vague innuendos regarding Shelton's smear. When asked if Clark could handle the domestic/governing part of being the president; Grange answered "Of course." But Grange was quick to point out that he wouldn't vote for Clark because he belonged to the "other" party.

I have plenty to say about Gen. Things-are-fine-in-Iraq Grange, but will end here with an observation: If one ever doubted the presence of lizard DNA among the neocons, please explain the David Grange's mouth.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Share your distrust. Grange always comes off as he is being paid by the

Pentagon. Makes you wonder what his ties really are. He would fit right in at Faux News. Hope Wes Clark would return to CNN as their military analyst when his contract with Faux runs out. Of course, he may well be running for the Democratic nominaion for President by then.

[Totally Committed]

20. They'll never take him back...

They bounced his butt for being a truth-teller, and I don't see that changing about Wes, even if he doesn't end up running for Pres... But hopefully, he'll run. Of course, they'll probably do that "never say his name" thing again, but...

TC

[Pithy Cherub]

21. IIRC, Grange's son is a current general.

That in no way excuses Grange Sr.'s valentines to Rumsfeld. Grange is also on because Dobbs had a hissy fit about Clark and some of his perspectives. On CNN, Clark called it as he saw it - as a reality-based patriotic Four Star General.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Yes....and that was at a time when Dobbs was carrying water for an Iraq

Invasion.....when he felt that it was his "duty" not to have anyone speak ill of our preparations for it.

Guess that Dobbs was for it before he was against it. Does that make him a Flip Flopper? Well, maybe not...but it makes him a Johnny come Lately, for sure!


Ironic how time changes everything for so many....and I know that they hope we forget where they were before they got here!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[JI7]

26. i agree with you about Grange

he doesn't come off as a right winger based on his tone or even what he might say. at least not in the way someone who is openly Republican or those on Fox would.

but just listen to what he says and he comes off in a grandfather/teacher type manner instructing you to follow the administration line.

so in a way it's worse than those nut cases you see in Fox.

someone like myself who follows this can see through it. but the non partisan, independent type would fall for it.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

27. I totally agree.

That's a great analysis. He is indeed very implicit in his support of the Pentagon/Bushie line.

[blm]

29. That's EXACTLY why I had to post about it - It's MORE dangerous than the

regular media moves against Dems, because it comes off as sincere and moderate. And I am certain it is a DELIBERATE move to counter Clark and neutralize any impact he might have.

[Sparkly]

30. Another one: Tom McInerney

They were discussing the infamous "six" generals on Faux, and McInerney used it as an occasion to bash General Clark. (With lies, by the way.)

LT. GENERAL TOM MCINERNEY: ...First, let me say I don't agree with it is their right. The difference I would say is General Clark moved into the political arena so I can criticize his views which I don't agree before except Iran that he stated. The others have not moved into the political arena officially yet but they're now part of it. I don't believe that's the role of retired generals and I don't think it helps our will as a nation. Now there's no way we can lose the war in Iraq with the US military. It can only be lost back here and when you have retired generals being politically manipulated and, of course in General Clark's position, when the democratic party elected to oppose the war after voting for it and General Clark and I were both testifying in front of the House Armed Services Committee, he did not say that before the war.... (BLAZING PANTS ALERT!!)

Full transcript: http://securingamerica.com/node/862

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Sure doesn't square with what Kennedy said last night about Clark

During his interview on Larry King:

"KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee."

And I believe Paul Wellstone said something very similar about the impact of Wes Clark's testimony.

Of course lying about Wes Clark is a constant part of the Republican battle plan.

[blm]

33. And there are too many faux lefties working to help them.

Sounds like the typical pattern for GOP operatives that they've employed for 4 decades now.

[butterfly77]

31. I agree ...

I was waiting for him to show up in the last few weeks he hasn't disappointed me I have always watched CNN bring him on as they did when clark would comment on the war in the beginning.When he speaks you can tell that he is seething with anger underneath when someone disagrees about the war. These people are ridiculous like the women they had on hannity last week or earlier this week. This woman said her husband was killed and they put her out there to counteract cindy sheenan. They seem to think that one death is more important than others and that if you are against the war shut up.