War Study shows Gen. Clark DID NOT support the Iraq War

[cosmokramer]

For the naysayers that believe General Clark supported the war, this is additional proof he DID NOT agree with or support the war. The article goes on to list those who did...

http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html

Excerpt:

Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent
FAIR study finds democracy poorly served by war coverage

By Steve Rendall & Tara Broughel

Since the invasion of Iraq began in March, official voices have dominated U.S. network newscasts, while opponents of the war have been notably underrepresented, according to a study by FAIR.

Starting the day after the bombing of Iraq began on March 19, the three-week study (3/20/03-4/9/03) looked at 1,617 on-camera sources appearing in stories about Iraq on the evening newscasts of six television networks and news channels. The news programs studied were ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.*

Sources were coded by name, occupation, nationality, position on the war and the network on which they appeared. Sources were categorized as having a position on the war if they expressed a policy opinion on the news shows studied, were currently affiliated with governments or institutions that took a position on the war, or otherwise took a prominent stance. For instance, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a hired military analyst for CNN, was not categorized as pro-war; we could find no evidence he endorsed the invasion or was affiliated with a group supporting the war. However, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC analyst, was classified as pro-war as a board member of the Committee for a Free Iraq, a pro-war group.

[wellstone_democrat]

1. Because he is *sane* that is why

I can't believe there are still questions about this. Disgusting.

I still wish I could vote Clark in November...

[cosmokramer]

2. Yes, he is sane.

...if we can't 'vote' for General Clark in November, perhaps we can vote for a Kerry/Clark TICKET in November?

[AP]

3. That's not really what it says.

It says that, according to FAIR, Clark (1) didn't express a policy opinion on the news shows studied, (2) wasn't currently affiliated with governments or institutions that took a position on the war, and (3) didn't otherwise take a prominent stance on the war.

Clark took heat not because he took a prominent stance on the war, but because he wrote those opinion pieces for that London paper which seemed ambiguos. I don't think he was ever (legitimately or convincingly) accused of being pro-war. But I think he was legitimately called on having an opinion that seemed to range from very opposed to complimentary, and he had to expend some political capital distinguishing between his criticism of Bush for entering the war, and his praise for the execution of the war (IIRC).

[cosmokramer]

9. Dean accused him of supporting the decision to go to war...

...as did many in the media and in the democratic party. It simply is not true that he supported the war...he did NOT support this war.

[AP]

11. My understanding is that he didn't like the reasons for getting into it,

but, when it looked like it was going well, he liked the execution of it.

[cosmokramer]

14. The sweep in to Bagdad by the military...

...was praise-worthy and fairly well executed. Clark totally disagreed with the policy, and with the 'what to do next'.

[AP]

20. And going on CNN and praising it at a time when Americans probably

deserved a different kind of discussion about what was going on might not have been all that helpful to American's understanding of this war -- which is what FAIR is criticizing.

I have no problem with what Clark believes. But I have a big problem with CNN and the rest of the media using beliefs like that as the way to present the news at the time that they did.

It was still propaganda for militarism even if, at other times (and not on CNN) Clark voiced opinions about why the war shouldn't have started and why Bush was fuck up.

[cosmokramer]

41. Good grief...

So your problem should be with the media, and not the General...he did nothing to promote militarism.

In fact, EDWARDS has done more to promote militarism. Have you read the No Child Left Behind Act? Schools will be ineligible for federal funding if they refuse to provide student contact data to military recruiters...talk about militarization...

:mad:

[AP]

48. NCLB has the recruitment provision? You sure about that?

NCLB is based on a NC program that worked because it was funded. I believe everyone agrees that NCLB is a problem because it was unfunded, and not because it's philosophically misguided.

And if there's a provision in it about recruitment, I'm just gonna have to say it's clearly not the core of the program, and not why Edwards voted for it.

And I've said from the beginning that my problem was with the media and not with the General. But I think your own article suggests that Clark isn't exactly a media hero. It calls him a cheerleader for the war.

[cosmokramer]

51. You didn't know about the military provisions of NCLBt?

Check it out...

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14716

"No Child Left Behind by Military Recruiters"


You can read the entire act here:

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg112.html

SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.

(a) POLICY-

(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.


-----------------------

It doesn't matter whether or not it is the 'core' of the program. Edwards supported it. Period. He didn't fight to have it removed.

The issue is that NO ONE in the lay community knew about this provision until is garnered a little bit of media attention. This act is a cheerleading of militarization that has far greater reach than any effort by the General to 'praise the troops'.

[AP]

52. What was the vote on that bill. Question mark.

How do you know Edwards didn't vote to have it removed. Question mark.

[AP]

53. JRE: "I will fix adn fund No Child Left Behind"

"When I am president, I will fix and fund No Child Left Behind. But I will go beyond anger at President Bush's failures. I will address the most fundamental problems in our schools today--by making a new commitment to teachers, by fixing our high schools, and by committing to afterschool programs near every school. Together, we will eliminate the two school systems in America - one for those who live in an affluent community and another for everybody else - and give every child the educational opportunity they deserve."

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=494

That's a problem?

By the way, I heard David Axelrod on Tavis Smiley talking about how dumb George Bush's "Kerry is soft on defense" adds are. He said that bills are loaded with all sorts of provisions. They're the product of compromise. He says there is not "kevlar vests for soldiers" bill. But there are big bills that have lots of good things in them and they might have one stupid little provision that a Republican put in there and it's ignorant for people to then use that one provision to try to burn a guy who voted for the whole bill.

[cosmokramer]

55. What??????????

"and they might have one stupid little provision that a Republican put in there and it's ignorant for people to then use that one provision to try to burn a guy who voted for the whole bill."

You call military recruitment in SCHOOLS a 'stupid' provision?

8. H.AMDT.50 to H.R.1 An amendment numbered 8 printed in House Report 107-69 to require those secondary education institutions that accept federal funds to allow military recruiters to visit the school.
Sponsor: Rep Vitter, David (introduced 5/22/2001) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/22/2001 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Vitter amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 366 - 57 (Roll no. 133). HOUSE VOTE

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d107:./temp/~bdabNDg:1<1-28>(Amendments_For_H.R.1)&./temp/~bdTsTT

Final roll call (in case you want to check out your congressperson's vote)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll133.xml

And according to the official record, Edwards never spoke out about the issue. You can also check out the Government Printing Office and Thomas.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi%2Dbin/bdquery/z%3Fd107:H.R.1:

[AP]

57. Who did speak out on the issue.

If you had a bill that promissed to spend millions to fix schools, would you hall it back for that one provision?

[cosmokramer]

63. For THAT provision...

Hell yes!

Militarization of schools is one step closer to Reichstag politics...it is bullshit.

In addition, NCLB provided little funding for special education. I don't know your personal life or the issues important to you, but I have a son who is in High School that will be the subject of this recruitment, and an austistic spectrum disorder son who is in 1st grade.

[AP]

65. Which Dems were willing to hold back a billion in public school funding

because of that provision?

I find it very hard to believe that if, say, Wellston or Feingold had the deciding vote they would have voted against a chance at a billion in funding for public schools over that one provision.

They would have voted for the bill, and then would have started passing bills to reform NCLB immediately, which, psst, is what's happening.

Now, how about that John Kerry voting against Kevlar vests for the troops! </sarcasm>

[cosmokramer]

67. It is important to me.

"They would have voted for the bill, and then would have started passing bills to reform NCLB immediately, which, psst, is what's happening."...

...and there is no one who is addressing the military recruitment portion in this great reform...and there definitely should be.

[AP]

69. It's a shitty bargain, but if I were a democratic congressperson, I would

trade this one provision for 1 billion dollars for public education. The costs and benefits are way too obvious. If I were a parent, I'd rather have the money for the school and battle it out with the recruiters, than committ my child to a crappy, underfunded school which leaves him no career opportunities other than the military, regardless of whether the school is giving his name away to the army.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the trade off that Republicans imagined: "well, if we're going to fund their schools and give them options other than the military, at least we'll want this provision so that we can try to sell them on the military."

Having said that, I respect any congressperson who sensed that Bush wasn't going to pay up, and felt that there'd be a chance for a better bill down the road. But I really doubt anyone voted against the bill ONLY becuase of that provision.

[cosmokramer]

70. It isn't quite as black and white.

My son's school district is the second wealthiest school in my state. It is not 'dependant' nearly as much on federal funding as many schools.

A GOOD government will fund schools without militarization of those schools. They will fund schools because it is the right thing to do. A good government would not financially penalize a school for refusing access to military recruiters.

In fact, the government should NOT get to 'bargain' on this...afterall, it is OUR MONEY with which they are playing, not theirs.

This is a big deal. OUR tax dollars are being withheld to those schools who do not comply with this provision. That's bullshit. Period.

Take a google with the phrase "No Child Left Behind Military Recruitment" and see just how big a deal this is.

[AP]

72. You're in a privileged postion. Your school didn't need the money, so you

see this as exposing your son without getting something in return.

Well, lots of Democrats who voted for that bill represent constituents who live in districts where they desperately need federal funding so their kids can have a future with more opportunities than signing up to be cannon fodder.

Think about what this bill ment for the less privileged.

The BIGGEST problem with NCLB is that it was unfunded.

Your kid will probably have a future that's brighter than 99% of your fellow Americans if you're fortunate enough to live in the second wealthiest school district in the state.

Think about what lifes like for people in school districts that are cutting programs (and destroying hope and opporunity for their students) because of underfunding.

[cosmokramer]

73. No, I expect nothing in return...

...for the privilege of my children attending a well funded district other than the education for which my incredibly expensive tax bill provides. I don't feel they are 'exposing' my son without getting something in return--our district DOES get some federal funding. I do count my blessings that we are able to live is such a great school district, but that does not diminish my empathy for children who do not.

For the underpriviledged children in less wealthy, or downright dirt-poor school districts, they should get the funding regardless of military recruiter policies.

I agree that the GOOD parts of the bill are underfunded. However, the government, with this military recruitment amendment, takes advantage MOST of the less priviledged schools. They are forced to submit to the recruitment policies or lose their funding, which no average school district can afford to do. No lists, no money, and it should not be that way in America, no matter how 'great' the rest of the bill as a whole is supposed to be. Military recruitment, whether it exists in schools or does not exist in schools, is NOT an 'educational' issue and should not be in such a bill.

Think about it: Who are the people most likely to subject themselves to military service? Typically, it is not the 'priviledged', but the poor and middle class. Instead of funding schools so students get a better education and go to college, the military way is being shoved down their throats simultaneously. It is nothing less than government extortion of public schools, especially the poor:

"Give us the list to recruit students in to the military, or we will stop funding their education".

The bottom line is that militarization of schools through LEGISLATION in the wrapper of a Public Education Funding Bill is just wrong, and all democratic Senators and Congresspersons should have put a stop to it.

[AP]

75. If the trade-off was that one provision for 1 billion in aid to public...

...schools -- and I mean if this bill finally comes out of committe and it has 1 billion worth of spending for public schools in need and it has that provision -- are you saying that you'd tell a congresspereson in poor district to turn down the money because of that provision?

Like I said, that funding could mean the difference for a lot of your constituents in having a choice OTHER THAN JOINING THE MILITARY.

[cosmokramer]

78. I absolutely WOULD ask that it be turned down on that basis alone.

For the simple reason of the militarization of our youth. It doesn't HAVE to be an "if you allow us in we give you money" or "if you don't let us in, we won't give you money"...that's crap! And if the Dems would have had the balls to stand up against that provision, the bill would have been amended and passed without that provision...the GOP wanted it to pass that badly.

Equate that NCLB Amendment with the Patriot Act (another terrible bill many Dems supported at the expense of our liberties). Do you think it is an okay to lose some of our liberties in the name of security?

I don't.

Neither did Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

And this:

H. L. Mencken

"I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."


And this, which is most appropriate: Samuel Adams

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

It is the same scenario, AP. Our students give up privacy to the military recruiters and are subjected to the constant recruiter influx in exchange for a supposed better FREE public education? No, it should not be.

[cosmokramer]

79. I absolutely WOULD ask that it be turned down on that basis alone.

For the simple reason of the militarization of our youth. It doesn't HAVE to be an "if you allow us in we give you money" or "if you don't let us in, we won't give you money"...that's crap! And if the Dems would have had the balls to stand up against that provision, the bill would have been amended and passed without that provision...the GOP wanted it to pass that badly and would have let it go through without the military amendment.

Equate that NCLB Amendment with the Patriot Act (another terrible bill many Dems supported at the expense of our liberties). Do you think it is an okay to lose some of our liberties in the name of security?

I don't.

Neither did Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"


It is the same scenario, AP. Our students give up privacy to the military recruiters and are subjected to the constant recruiter influx in exchange for a supposed better FREE public education? No, it should not be. And the democrats need to grow some nads and stand up to this kind of BS.

[AP]

81. Easy for you to say, living in 2d wealthiest district in your state.

Not so easy for students who won't have any future without funding for their schools.

[cosmokramer]

82. They shouldn't have to sacrifice privacy for their education. Period.

[AP]

84. When it came down to vote, I understand why they did.

[cosmokramer]

85. We can agree to disagree.

[cosmokramer]

56. Rumsfeld's order on military recruitment, etc.

http://www.aasa.org/government_relations/esea/Rumsfeld_Paige_Ltr.pdf

Rumsfeld's order on military recruitment in schools.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/action/ongoing-actions/no-child/no-child_fact-sheet.pdf

More on recruitment...THIS IS NO 'SMALL' PROVISION.

I find it astounding that you are so critical of 'militarization' as presented in the context of praising the troops in the media, but you see this as a 'small' issue. COME ON! Admit, in the spirit of positive debate, that this IS a big deal and it should have been taken much more seriously by Edwards, and all the other Dem Senators and Reps that voted for it.

[AP]

58. Who did speak out on it? Who was willing to turn a Federal bill back which

promissed to spend millions on public schools because of this provision?

[cosmokramer]

62. TEN--including Jeffords, Dayton, Feingold, Wellstone...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:16:./temp/~r107VeHfUh:e504861:

NAYS--10--To the act itself, for a variety of reasons...more to follow.

Bennett

Dayton

Feingold

Hagel

Hollings

Jeffords

Leahy

Nelson (NE)

Voinovich

Wellstone

Transcripts and findings can be viewed : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:30:./temp/~r107IDmCSr:e1464687:

SEC. 1024. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE ACCESS OF ARMED FORCES RECRUITERS TO STUDENT DIRECTORY INFORMATION.

And conference reports here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

THERE is also another Congressional website that listed a "pro military" vs. "anti-military" recruiting policy letter for the debate. Edwards did not sign the letter. I am searching for the link...

[AP]

64. None of your links work. Link straight to the page and not to your search

results.

[cosmokramer]

66. Crap....

...go to http://www.senate.gov

I did link the pages, except for the query return page that listed all documents and resources. Apparently, the links 'time out'.

ON the Senate site, search in the 107th Congress, keyword "military recruiters" then get the December 17th and 18th transcript of proceedings. Specifically, the roll call vote is in the last section of the proceedings for the 18th.

ALTERNATIVELY, you can access all the data here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

The bill adopted by the Senate was the House bill HR.1, December 18, 2001.

If you need any more direction to the sites, I will do the my best to help.

[Kahuna]

49. Clark's opening statementm before the House Armed Services Comm..

On 9/26/02... Oh ye of little faith read Clark's own words and position giving during the lead up to the war before congress..

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

[BootinUp]

71. Are you confused about the difference between

1. a decision to go to war

and

2. the tactical execution of a war?

Just wonderin cause it appears you are trying to say one can't have a separate and legitimate opinion on these two completely different things.

[AP]

4. Did you read the whole article? It criticizes Clark:

Former military personnel, who often appeared in longer-format, in-studio interviews, rather than in soundbites, characteristically offered technical commentary supportive of U.S. military efforts. In a typical comment, retired general (and CNN consultant) Wesley Clark told Wolf Blitzer on April 6: “Well, the United States has very, very important technological advantages. Unlike previous efforts in urban combat, we control the skies.” Analysis by these paid military commentators often blended into cheerleading, as with Clark’s comment from the same interview: “First of all, I think the troops and all the people over there, the commanders, have done an absolutely superb job, a sensational job. And I think the results speak for themselves.”

[Jai4WKC08]

6. That's not criticism

What's wrong with praising the troops? Besides, it's just a true statement that they did a superb job, militarily. It's the politicians who have let them down. According to Clark, by sending them there in the first place. According to just about everybody (including Clark), by not planning for what they would do after Baghdad fell.

[cosmokramer]

7. Yes, I did read the whole article.

Clark's remarks offered "technical commentary supportive of U.S. MILITARY efforts.

That commentary was not in regard to supporting the WAR, but supporting the TROOPS and military command.

In my original heading I also stated "additional" proof that General Clark was NOT a war supporter.

[AP]

10. I read another FAIR report which commented on his cheerleading militarism

IIRC, it was CNN coverage of troops embarking for Iraq from a Florida camp.

So, FAIR doesn't label Clark pro-war, but they have called him pro-military and a cheerleader for military action.

Also notice that Clark isn't included as one of the (only) four anti-war politicians who got time on any of the media the report studied.

Like I said in the other post, I don't think there was ever any serious criticism of Clark being pro-war. But I do think there are legitimate questions about what the distinction is between cheerleading for militarism in this war and being pro this war.

[cosmokramer]

12. I disagree with the idea that there is a distinction...

...to be made.

A 4-star supporting the troops, as ALL commentators DID, or a war advocate?

The distinction is crystal clear.

[AP]

17. When you're on CNN forming people's opinions, praising the troops the

way he did takes on a significance that shouldn't be dismissed. Afterall, this FAIR article thinks it's worth mentioning.

It is cheerleading, and a lot of viewers pick up on that as indicating that this is OK.

I remember when Fox had that show about life aboard an aircraft carrier about the time the war started. I was sitting next to a friend who saw that commercial and said that that's what they do in fascist countries to normalize militarism. They have shows that talk about the military likes it's a little, praiseworthy community, rather than discuss it on its real terms: that it's an instrument of imperialism.

I have no doubt that Clark really feels that soldiers are good and this war was started for the wrong reasons.

But I think you, and many viewers who saw Clark on CNN and perhaps even Clark himself don't understand that role that going on CNN and praising the masculinity and nobility of soldiers and praising the execution of this war plays.

FAIR apparently does, and that's why they're criticizing it.

[cosmokramer]

22. Oh, come on!

Clark was the most prominent voice of reason during the war coverage, playing it straight and keeping his emotional views at a level that pissed off the White House. Do you not remember the criticism from the Bush Administration about the 'anti-war arm chair Generals'?

And frankly, I find this remark by you insulting:

"But I think you, and many viewers who saw Clark on CNN and perhaps even Clark himself don't understand that role that going on CNN and praising the masculinity and nobility of soldiers and praising the execution of this war plays."

I understand perfectly well.

[AP]

24. A voice of reason? I think FAIR is suggesting that a reasonable...

...presentation of the war would have included more than only four critics (and Clark isn't listed as one of the four).

No insult was intended. But it seems clear that your not very receptive to the point that FAIR is making about war coverage. They are criticizing Clark's commentary on the war and you seem to completely disagree with them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. After all the railing we do about News being slanted...

You should understand the difference between being an unpaid guest on a news show, getting air time BECAUSE you express strong opinions, and being a paid member of the journalistic staff. Clark was working for CNN at the time, and not as an on air columnist hired to express over arching opinions. Clark expressed those opinions when he testified in front of Congress, where he was a major critic of the Bush Administration. FAIR's report obviously was not meant to focus on Wesley Clark or any other individual. The fact that only four out right critics of the War got air time during that period is meaningful. The fact that Clark was not listed among that group is not meaningful. The fact that Clark managed to inject enough critical comments into his media commentary to become the archetype of the "Arm Chair General" blasted by the White House is meaningful. This was when the invasion was "succeeding". Very few military men had anything other than positive things to say. Clark stood out as an exception.

[returnable]

26. Don't get too worked up

Remember, AP's man, Edwards, supported AND cheerled the Iraq War :hi:

[AP]

28. So what's the difference between Clark and Edwards, then?

Here you have a Clark supporter citing an article in support of Clark's position on the war which literally calls Clark a cheerleader for militarism.

Folks this isn't so much about these candidates as it is about the reality of politics and the media.

CNN would not put Clark on the air in such a promient role if he were a critic of the war. The fact is, by only cheerleading militarism and not Bush himself, he wasn't enough of a cheerleader for CNN's taste (apparently -- I'm assuming this based on cosmokramer's post below).

And NO politicians in going to get elected president in America by saying they wouldn't do everythign necessary to protect Americans. Clark is a general and can get a little leeway that the other candidates don't have: he can make assumptions about evidence and criticize Bush directly. But not too directly, as this FAIR report suggests.

Edwards and Kerry did exactly what you'd expect a politician who wants to get Bush out of office would do. They said they voted on evidence they had no reason to disbelieve. Now they say that they don't know what to believe, based on facts that have since come to light. Now they want a full investigation of the supporting evidence with which they were presented.

So, what's the difference between Clark and Edwards? Not much. Clark wasn't in the Senate. He didn't see the classified information and he didn't have to vote. He also was in the military so he can lean a little farther to the left before a lot of voters whould start thinking that he doesn't care about their safety.

These are the realities of Democrats running for office that have existed for almost 90 years now. Why do we pretend to be naive about them now?

And to repeat for emphasis: the proof of what I'm saying is that the OP in this thread is citing an article saying Clark was a war cheerleader to prove that he wasn't a supporter of the war. Do you need any more evidence that candidates have to walk on eggshells on this issue of criticizing the war?

[returnable]

34. "...which literally calls Clark a cheerleader for militarism."

Uh, no. That's not what it said.

Please show me where the article states Clark cheerled "militarism."

What it says is some of his remarks could be construed as cheerleading the troops. I have no problem with that.

But that's a far cry from endorsing "militarism" in my book. You obviously have a different interpretation.

The article also states, quite clearly, that they found no evidence that Clark ever endorsed the invasion, or was associated with any pro-war organizations.

How much clearer can it be stated?

I don't really care to make this a contest between the respective positions of Edwards and Clark on Iraq. To me, it's old hat. I think Edwards was on the wrong side of this issue (as was Kerry) and that's one of the reasons I backed Clark. But it's all pretty irrelevent now.

I just found it ironic that an Edwards supporter would take the time to criticize Clark as being a tool of pro-war "propaganda" when the senator enabled, endorsed and cheerled this war from the get-go.

[AP]

38. FAIR calls him a cheerleader. You fill in the next word.

What do you think they're saying he's a cheerleader for.

"The troops"? Right. What does that mean, being a cheerleader for the troops?

I thought I was being charitable by not suggesting they were calling him a cheerleader for the war. But maybe that's what it is, eh?

[sparrowhawk]

76. He wasn't a cheerleader for the war ...

just the on-ground-personnel. That was the reason I watched him on CNN to begin with. He was different from the cheerleaders on Fox, etc.

[AP]

77. I'm glad we had a diverse range of cheerleading from the media.

The point of the FAIR report is that there was too much cheerleading, and not enough honest discussion of the situation on the ground and the potential consequences.

[cosmokramer]

40. You get an "Amen" from the choir!

:toast:

[Scoopie]

61. CK, AP can't agree with you

because he/she cannot see past the billowy smile of his/her Edwards.
For example, AP cannot understand that going to the Bilderberg event is a BAD thing - even IF Clinton and Kerry did it years before. I don't know who attended in the past, but this year it's chalked full of neo-conservatives.
In any case, it's elitist and not inclusive, which doesn't hold to Democratic Party principles. However, AP thinks it's "cool" that Edwards went - the Edwards, of course, who speaks of two Americas - the haves and the have nots.
AP also cannot understand that this report only solidifies the more important point: one can be against the Iraqi war, as Clark was, but still want the troops to do a superb job, as Clark wanted them to do. You and I and other Clark fans understand it prima facia because we all feel the same way. War=bad, troops=good.
AP also cannot get past the fact that the media is heralding the gains in the economy (even if it doesn't mention the fact that most of the new jobs pay horribly) and that people are going to start belieiving that by November; however, we'll still have troops in Iraq, June 30 transition or not, and it still will be a bone of contention as more and more light is shed on the faulty reasons Bush went to war, Bush's changing the U.S. Constitution to shield himself from the abuses at Iraqi prisons and future planned attacks on Iran and Syria with a waning military. All this renders Edwards expendable - but not Clark (or Graham or Biden, who kicked Ashcroft's butt today).
I hope Vilsack and Edwards do well in the future, but I hope it's a future I don't necessarily have to put up with unless I move to North Carolina or Iowa.

[girl gone mad]

33. Ordinarily, I might agree with you.

But Clark just isn't that kind of a General. Clark had a reputation for promoting minorities, and he has been outspoken against that machismo attitude within the military.

Once we resign ourselves to the belief that all millitarists are Napoleonic by nature and that supporting our troops is akin to promoting the torture of prisoners, then I think we've essentially given the imperialists just what they want. They want us to believe that the millitary can only function properly as a big corrupt killing machine populated by Rambos.

[AP]

39. I'm not sure how promoting minorities is mutually exclusive with being

a war cheerleader.

Clark is definitely a good guy, but I wouldn't say that he really took advanatage of his time on CNN to help inform people about the facts of the war.

[Justice]

15. Now FAIR report words Are Getting Spun

Clark was a supporter of the troops, the men and women on the ground. He is pro-the people of the military.

He is not a cheerleader for military action. He is not pro-military in the sense you use it - which is really pro-war.

[Jai4WKC08]

21. Of course he's "pro-military" LOL

He's a general, for gods' sake. You think he'd be anti-military???

But there's a BIG difference between "military" and "militarism." Is the distinction only lost on people who want to bash Clark? Like his opponents in the primaries--Dean and Lieberman, as I recall.

And you have to be joking that there wasn't "any serious criticism of Clark being pro-war." Heck, by some on the left, and MANY here on DU, there was "serious criticism" that Clark was a war criminal. We still see that from time to time.

Here's a little photo that was taken during a commercial after Dean said that Clark supported the war. It's one of my favorites.

[Adelante]

54. I missed it and always wondered what Dean had said

to bring on the Smackdown response. :D

"He's a general, for gods' sake. You think he'd be anti-military???"

[sparrowhawk]

16. He was right to praise the troops ...

it was the WH and Pentagon civilian planners that he took issue with.

[AP]

23. Not so much a question of whether, but when.

At the time, it probably wasn't exactly the most helpful commentary on the war.

That's what FAIR is criticizing. They're saying the media was either for the war, or were cheerleaders for militarism, and that there was almost no criticism of it even though many people were critical of it (and certianly, events have unfolded in a way that suggests there was lots of missed opportunity to discuss a range of possible outcomes including the one we've had).

[sparrowhawk]

27. I watched him on CNN during the war ...

and he did offer criticism of the planning (one of the few who did during that time) Rumsfield even called him a few names because he was upset with him.

[AP]

29. You have to admit that that's pretty milquetoasty criticism. It just...

...proves what fascists CNN and the Bush administration are if they can't even tolerate a tiny bit of questioning about planning from a person to whom they give more than just a sentence of commentary.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. Remember what Delay called him?

Something about a "blow-dried Napolean"?

Clark told Wolf Blitzer who played the tape for him,

"Well, first of all, I'd be happy to compare my hair with Tom DeLay's. We'll see who's got the blow-dried hair.

"But beyond that, Wolf, he's got it exactly backward. It's upside down. I am saying what I believe. And I'm being drawn into the political process because of what I believe and what I've said about it. So it's precisely the opposite of a man like Tom DeLay, who is only motivated by politics and says whatever he needs to say to get the political purpose. And so, you know, it couldn't be more diametrically opposed, and I couldn't be more opposed than I am to Tom DeLay.

"You know, Wolf, when our airmen were flying over Kosovo, Tom DeLay led the House Republicans to vote not to support their activities, when American troops were in combat. To me, that's a real indicator of a man who is motivated not by patriotism or support for the troops, but for partisan political purposes."

Smack-down.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. You're still mischaracterizing it

There's no "criticism" in the FAIR report, just an observation. Nor do they call it cheerleading for "militarism." In fact, the word "militarism" appears nowhere in the FAIR report. That's YOUR spin on what Clark said.

[Jai4WKC08]

5. Was there any real doubt?

Nice to see Clark's stand acknowledged. And documented. Too bad they didn't see fit to mention that he was fired from CNN for precisely that stand. I wouldn't expect them to admit that CNN fired him at the request of the White House, since that can't be proven (yet), but there's no doubt about the why.

[cosmokramer]

8. He wasn't fired from CNN.

He quit.

[Jai4WKC08]

13. Ummm, that's not the way I remember it

But since I'm not willing to look for the source, I'll take your word for it. Perhaps he was asked to quit? You know how those things go. I do remember his talking to Tim Russert about the White House's involvement, so it's not like he just got tired of working for 'em. I also remember a whole lot of speculation on who the source was he refused to betray.

I also seem to recall Lou Dobbs banned him from his show for essentially the same reason. Altho that was just a rumor reported by US News & World Report, it's true he hasn't been on Dobbs since.

[Justice]

18. You Remember It Wrong

My patience is being tried here, since this has been rehashed so many times, but a google search just now reveals mention of Clark being barred from Dobbs on a RW chat forum, and how Clark is now suspicious because he supports Kerry -- so not only is the post incorrect about Clark's reason for leaving CNN (he quit), now I am concerned about the motives for the post.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. The motives for MY post?

Care to explain that? What motive(s) are you ascribing to me?

[Justice]

44. Explanation

My concern was about the Dobbs reference and CNN reference - both of which were not stated accurately.

I take Incapsulated at his/her word that you are true supporter of Clark, and apparently just need to brush up on some older facts.

[incapsulated]

30. You're barkin' up the wrong tree, here

If you are insinuating some negative motives toward Clark from jai.

If you only knew, lol.

This woman is a certifiable, crawl on her hands and knees over glass for Clark kinda Clarkie, my friend.

Plus she's retired military, so watch your step. :)

[Justice]

45. Ah,

I appreciate your support of your friend, and take you at your word.

But what in heck does "watch your step" mean? Not sure you want to invoke images of lurking ex military types.

[incapsulated]

46. Twas a joke

Meaning: don't mess with a woman with military training, heh.

Especially a Lieutenant Colonel.

:hi:

[Justice]

50. Exactly

yes, I understood what you said, but questioned why the heck you would say it.

Suggesting that one cannot question another post if the poster has military training doesn't look so good, particularly after the prison abuse scandal. Not sure you want to perpetuate the notion that those in the military use their "training" in ways that are inappropriate.

[incapsulated]

83. Either you still don't get it...

Or you are dangerously humor-impaired.

"Suggesting that one cannot question another post if the poster has military training doesn't look so good, particularly after the prison abuse scandal. Not sure you want to perpetuate the notion that those in the military use their "training" in ways that are inappropriate."

Jesus tapdancing Chirst!

A "joke" means you are not being serious. It's a fucking JOKE. Do you really think that I am suggesting that my friend is going to torture you (through the computer, I assume) because she has military training and that you can't question her? WTF???

If you are so politically correct that this sort of silly humor about a friend who I'm basically saying "can karate chop you, so watch out, hehe!" then I pity you, honestly.

[cosmokramer]

19. I have more info...

In the Russert interview, he talked about how the White House TRIED to get him fired, but he was not fired. Dobbs did not want him on his show because the General was critical of the administration (which Dobbs largely supports). But he was never fired.

The General told CNN that he would resign in the event he was going to consider running for President, and that is exactly what he did. There was an interview where he stated this, and I am trying to look for it.

:-)

[Jai4WKC08]

32. Ok, like I said...

I take your word for it--no need to look further. I must have misunderstood, or assumed something that made me interpret later stuff wrong. Funny that I'd hold that misinterpretation for so long. It's not like I haven't been around the Clark boards much. As just about anyone can testify to.

[cosmokramer]

42. No problem at all!

The last 9 months are such a blur to most of us...glad I can still type after all these months!

:-)

[Scoopie]

68. Yes he has

He was on Dobbs' show in late December/early January, shortly after the Milosovich testimony.
Just to clarify.

[KittyWampus]

36. Clark Testified To CONGRESS Against The War. Even PERLE Admitted It

after HE testified later on the same day IN REBUTTAL TO CLARK.

Case Closed.

[cosmokramer]

43. Exactly.

When will people set aside their prejudices?

[MontecitoDem]

47. When hell freezes over

this is just chapter 3689 in the Edwards/Clark slugfest.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. What difference does it make?

The primary is over. It has been over for weeks. Clark is not going to be the nominee, so bashing him or praising him isn't going accomplish much.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. It makes a difference

When any Democratic activist is fixated on tearing down one of the Democratic Party's leading spokespersons, whether or not he or she is on the National ticket.

[robbedvoter]

74. Fair .org reverses thenselves re: Clark? Sweet, And a bit late too

When he was building momentum, right after anouncement Fair launced a wide smear campaign right out og the RNC book. The Nation spread it to all its subscribers. So did Truthout. Congratulations, all.

[cosmokramer]

80. Don't you just want to spit...

...on the tangled web they weave...

:mad: