Gen Clark tries valiantly to stem the bloodlust on Fox

[CarolNYC]

I missed it but apparently Wes Clark was on Fox’s Dayside show yesterday. Fortunately, Newshounds recounts the appearance and provides a link to you tube video of at least some of the appearance. Poor Wes seemed a bit exasperated at that nut with the “gun to the head” comment.

First of all, these Fox people are nuts. Secondly, Wes is a good, brave man. God bless him for all he’s doing to try to save this country and the world. It's so so underappreciated by so many.


Fox Undercuts Wesley Clark's Sane Words
Reported by Judy - July 24, 2006

Clark, who is a Fox News military analyst, has been a rare guest on "Dayside." The "Dayside" crew is unlikely to invite him back after Clark delivered an articulate, well-thought-out appeal for an approach to the Israeli-Lebanese crisis that reduces civilian casualties, avoids direct U.S. ground troop involvement, and tries to permanently remove Hezbollah from the area along Israel's border. Clark was callling for a NATO force of 10,000 non-U.S. troops that would have the authority to police the area.
....
Later, a member of the audience challenged Clark and said she agreed with Gillerman that the world is in World War III. "We simply don't appreciate or fear the threat we have from radical Islam. They want to destroy us," she said.

Clark was well-prepared to respond. "I think we have to be careful of labeling things World War III," he said. "We're not in the same position of Israel. ...We don't want to get drawn into a head-to-head conflict if we can avoid it. That's why we should be talking to people."

Huddy did her dirty work again, interrupting Clark, "Can we talk to people like Syria and Iran? How?"
"Yes you can," insisted Clark. "And here’s the thing. You cannot occupy those countries, you cannot simply declare World War III unless you want to raise an army of 12 million men and march into the Middle East and occupy it, and we’ve already seen the example of Iraq. This is very, very difficult. So this is not like World War II with Germany and Japan. This is entirely different. We should use the military sparingly, as a last resort."

Again Huddy, who rarely challenges a conservative guest, asked Clark how the U.S. could "have diplomacy ... with countries like Syria and Iran. ... These are countries that have been on the record saying let's destroy the United States."

"If you agree with people, the diplomacy is different. When you don’t agree with people, it’s even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve,. Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

More…
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php

You tube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N79-4cyqfl0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewshounds%2Eus%2F2006%2F07%2F24%2Ffox%5Fundercuts%5Fwesley%5Fclarks%5Fsane%5Fwords%2Ephp

[Ilsa]

1. This is why I've been glad that Clark has the courage to take on

the idiots at Faux news. He has to pin them down and show how absurd they are, and in the process, he might make sense to about 50% of their viewers. I refuse to believe that 100% of them are rabid. Clark's approach is less aobut military and beating people up and being a bully. He's showing the viewers what bullies the neocons are.

Sorry to be so inarticulate this morning. My brain is working on too many things right now.

[indie_voter]

2. He is a brave man to take on the Faux faithful. Somebody needs to do it!

I'm glad it's him. He is brilliant and articulate.

[YOY]

16. They see the uniform/title and shit themselves

US General? Liberal? Military Man? Democrat? Peacemaker?

I think it makes them shit themselves...

[ksclematis]

104. General Clark is the best Demo to take on FAUX

Wes Clark is brilliant, knows the subject matter better than anyone else (yes, even better than our "Experts" like Rice, Rummy, Cheney, et al) stays on top of ALL the newest happenings, is excellent strategist, and is very disciplined (Re: West Point, 4-star Gen, Rhodes scholar, NATO Allied Commander, etc.). He's totally experienced in all aspects of leadership and qualified to be POTUS!

Yes, I'm a Wes "Clarkie".

[C_U_L8R]

3. Good point...

if you wanna see your children spend the
rest of their (shortened) lives in uniform...
then go ahead .. vote Republican

[Dhalgren]

4. And here's the hard slap of reality to the fascist

"couch gauleiters" of the right-wing/Fox News/"'W' - The President" crowd.

"Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

If this "war" suddenly got all "personal", like every male in your family between the ages of 18 and 40 were drafted and sent to catch IEDs in some squalid Mideastern ghetto, the view from the couch would change and change quick. I cannot comprehend the mentality so callous, so unfeeling, as to support any of the current right-wing wars taking place in the Mideast. We are all in danger of ceasing to be Human, in any recognizable way...

[Red Knight]

124. Great point!

So true.

If these cheerleaders had to send their sons and daughters to die for some ghostchase they'd wake up quick. They proclaim patriotism and support for the troops when in reality these troops mean nothing to them.

And to so misunderstand the situation and how this 9/11 attack by al-qaeda has expanded to include the entire Middle East as a threat is beyond unbelieveable. These are dangerous people fueled by a dangerous network--and this stupid station is on at most restaurants I visit, and doctor's offices. That's a shame.

Bravo Wes Clark!!!

It's too bad common sense means nothing to the fanatics.

[snowbear]

5. The General said last year his Faux gig was up the end of May '06

Does anyone who participates in the chats he holds ever ask him what the deal is.. why he's STILL there?

I just can't stand the restrictions Faux put on him..

I wonder sometimes if they keep him there, just so they can limit his television exposure.

[Adelante]

7. He will be where he feels he is needed most

You know that.

[CarolNYC]

40. Yep, he's a true, selfless patriot....

They are so rare these days, people can't comprehend one when they see one....

[mtnester]

108. Yes - his job is nearly insurmountable, however

If he can get Faux News listeners to hear snippets of the TRUTH, if he can change the mind of ONE person, I know he would be delighted.

How many people do you know who would go into the Lion's Den voluntarily to try to change the mindset of people?

It takes a brave, courageous person totally confident in the truth of their words to do what he does on Fox.

[Donna Zen]

109. Good Point

And reminds me of something Clark once said. He believes that you must know what you believe and then stand up and tell the truth.

If one is conditioned by politicians, you could brush that off as just another well "crafted" sound-bite. But I have listened to Clark for several years now, and that is exactly what he has done even when he has said things that don't make him popular. And that is why these videos are so important: every once in a while, it's good to hear the truth. So rare.

[gratuitous]

6. Like shouting into the whirlwind

But good on Clark for trying, at least. Not a one of these people thinks for a second that any of their bellicose posturing will come back to them in the least way. Now, the overrich, overpampered rattleheads at Fox are surely right about that. Their reckoning, protected as they are by the grace and charity of their opponents, will never come as it should. I no more want to line up clowns such as Gillerman or Huddy against the wall and shoot them as I want to do that to anyone. Knowing this, they're free to spout incredible bullshit about wanting to blow up every last enemy.

But the audience members are in a far different position. As Clark so gently reminded them, it would be they and their children thrown into the hellstorm of the rattleheads' bloodlust. But they don't see it, and they don't appreciate it. "How can you negotiate with people who've stated they want to destroy you?" they whine. "We have to destroy them!" And not for a second does it cross their febrile little minds that their statements are giving rise to the exact same sentiments to people on the so-called other side.

Violence cannot drive out violence. Darkness cannot overcome darkness.

[CarolNYC]

41. Aren't they idiots, though?

It is a point that the Democrats should be drivng home again and again....If they insist on conquering and occupying the world, these nuts are going to have to start giving up their children to do it.

[bigmonkey]

62. Bring back exile, if they want to be all Roman Empire.

Send them to a small island, or Antarctica. No harm to anyone, and no influence on the rest of humanity for them.

[Clark2008]

8. THAT'S the Clark I know.

Not the statements from the other day.

Bravo, General. :applause:

[Adelante]

10. His statements from the other day were presented in snippets

We should always hold our fire on Clark for his fuller thoughts and not accept as truth what is reported until we have the context. That thread was sure depressing, though.

[Clark2008]

11. I didn't "fire."

I just said I didn't agree on this one issue. And I wouldn't have dumped him as my favorite candidate over ONE issue.

I know others said worse. I just want to make it clear that I wasn't one of them.

[Adelante]

15. I was speaking generally, (not personally about you)

But he almost always comes through when given the chance, doesn't he? I don't agree with every last thing he says or does, either, but I know I can trust him. That's what keeps me around.

[oberliner]

19. Snippets?

Can we not all agree, as Clark does, that it is important to drive Hezbollah back, to give Israel a greater sense of security, and to resist Iran's encroachment into the region?

Clark rightfully does not want US troops involved. Clark rightly expresses the need for diplomacy.

Clark also rightly believes that Hezbollah must be permanently removed from the area alongside Israel's border.

He condems the Bush administration for doing nothing about Hezbollah. For not making a big enough deal about the fact that they should have long been disarmed by now.

He also rightly argues that Israel was attacked unprovoked and without cause. That Israel has a right to defend itself. That they are trying to force Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon. And that the US should let the Israelis do what they can on the ground right now.

Pretending that Clark's stance on the conflict does not include these positions is disingenuous.

I am a strong supporter of General Clark and I am a strong supporter of his position on the Middle East.

I think it is encumbent about those who also support General Clark to be honest about what exactly his stance on this conflict is and agree or disagree with that stance as one sees fit.

[Adelante]

24. Huh?

The thread I referenced responded to "snippets" - this one is a fuller representation of Clark's position. If you think this is a dishonest judgment, okay, then, but it's mine.

I would certainly agree that "it is encumbent about those who also support General Clark to be honest about what exactly his stance on this conflict is and agree or disagree with that stance as one sees fit." Which is about what I said.

[oberliner]

25. not the right thread

I didn't realize which thread you were referencing. I had posted a link to Clark's appearance on Hannity/Colmes yesterday with the first paragraph excerpted earlier.

His answer to the first question expressed the points I raised above, i.e. that Clark supports driving Hezbollah back, giving Israel a greater sense of security, and resisting Iran's encroachment into the region.

He also states that in addition to pursuing a strategy of diplomacy we should allow the Israelis to do what they can on the ground right now, while also calling for the US to work with the government of Lebanon.

He goes on to critize the Bush administration for not making a bigger deal about Hezbollah's refusal to disarm earlier and talks about why US forces should not be involved.

I think that a very full picture of General Clark's position on the conflict comes through in that appearance and I think incidentally that his analysis of the conflict is right on the money.

Here are the first few paragraphs and a link to the transcript:

Alan Colmes: Welcome back to a special edition of Hannity & Colmes. Joining us now with more on the threat from Iran, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Fox News Military Analyst, General Wesley Clark. General Clark, welcome to Hannity & Colmes, a special Sunday night edition.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

Alan Colmes: Should we be seen rushing bombs to the area?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think that what you've got to do is succeed in this against Hezbollah, to drive Hezbollah back and to give Israel a greater sense of security and to resist Iran's encroachment in the region. I think you've got to have a strategy of diplomacy as well as letting the Israelis do what they can on the ground right now. So that means that the United States should be in there working with the government of Lebanon.

I've heard this administration take a lot of credit for the democracy in Lebanon; I didn't hear much discussion of Hezbollah's role in it. And I don't recall the administration ever, in advance, saying that Hezbollah hadn't been disarmed and making a big deal of it. Now, it was a mistake. This administration's got a critical role to play now. This administration in Washington is the leader of the free world. They've got to go in there, talk to the government of Lebanon, support them and help bring regional diplomacy to push Hezbollah out - either disarm it or get it out of the government. I think it shouldn't be in the government. I think the people who lead it should be indicted as criminals and arrested by the Lebanese government.

source: http://securingamerica.com/node/1249

[AtomicKitten]

36. since you've directed traffic here ...

Maybe, just maybe others are capabable of still admiring the General but wish he and others would call for an immediate ceasefire.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2741312

[AtomicKitten]

39. I guess I'm not privvy to the secret handshake here.

Which is pretty funny since I supported General Clark in 2004 and will do so again if Gore doesn't run in 2008.

I must say its rather breathtaking to stumble upon such disdain for independent thinking.

[CarolNYC]

42. Wow...You keep on finding disdain....

everywhere but where it actually is....Nope, no secret handshake for you when you keep doing that. :P

[AtomicKitten]

45. It's coming from you and those that choose partisanship

over humanitarianism. People are dying, one-third of them children.

I'm not into hero-worship. I know what's right and what's wrong. I will not blindly pledge allegiance to any of our leaders, particularly a potential presidential candidate who has the leverage to call for an immediate ceasefire. I disagree with him on this issue and, you know what? That's okay. Even if you don't think so.

So, you know what, I really don't want to belong to your club. I gravitate to thinkers and people with good hearts.

Wait, I think that's your mom bringing you kids kool-aid and graham crackers. Enjoy.

[CarolNYC]

47. Nice way to respond to anyone

who you think doesn't agree with you hook line and sinker...Too bad. Have a good night, OK...even if you don't want to....

[Clark2008]

48. Part of gravitating to thinkers and people with good hearts

is also to learn that these same people are oft quoted in sound bites to make them look less thoughtful and kind-hearted.

That's what our corporate media most fears: a president with no "angle."

It's not hero-worship. It's trust.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Secret handshake?

Is there some sort of conspiracy going on to post on this thread or something? I made use of the "hide thread" feature for that lovely little train wreck of a thread that you started earlier. It's not that I don't have my disagreements with Clark over this issue, I've been extremely critical of Israel. It's the massive double standard that Clark always gets subjected to on this board that truly sickens me.

For the record, on this particular issue, Dennis Kucinich most closely represents my views.

Signed,
Another member of the Clarkie conspiracy.

[AtomicKitten]

64. Yes, I started the thread of which you speak.

But I didn't make it a train wreck. I posted a news article, the first I encountered that gave a clue about General Clark's position on the ME fiasco. I posted it without comment.

And I was summarily trashed by, as you say, "The Clarkies" for posting it. DU Clarkies were called to arms to "defend" the good General against his own statement.

This is a discussion board. I want to know where our leaders stand. All of them.

Clark's views are no different than anyone else's (with subtle nuances), specifically no one is calling for an immediate ceasefire. That I have a problem with. That is my prerogative, but I have made ZERO disparaging remarks about him.

And, in the usual style of those that can't have a discussion respectfully, my punishment for having the audacity to post that news article, as respectful as I was throughout the thread, was to be treated like shit by "The Clarkies."

And as much as I like General Clark, and even though I supported him in the last presidential election, the behavior of some of his fan club here at DU has put me off his potential candidacy in a big way. I wouldn't want to be on the same side as people who aren't grown up enough to tolerate discussion, regardless of how respectful that is, if it deviates from their hero worship in the slightest.

Signed,
a grownup

[CarolNYC]

65. You might want to step back a bit and re-read

your posts on these threads...It seems to me the posts most intolerant of any discussion or disagreement have been yours.

[AtomicKitten]

75. you're wrong

Here are all my statements. Not a single one describes what you have alleged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2736384#2736595
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2736517
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2736536
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2736841
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2736602
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2741251
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2736847
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2737655
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2737668
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2737686
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2737738
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2737839
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2737806
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2737868
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2738242
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2739104
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2736384&mesg_id=2741312

No worries, I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology. It's easier for people to summarily dismiss others as you have me based on an impression and not actually taking the time to listen. That's what people do when they are on a mission.

AK

[CarolNYC]

83. Well, see, here's the problem...

I actually think your post and list of links actually supports what I'm saying and obviously you do not. Perhaps you also think your response to my daring to suggest that you're finding disdain in places where I don't think it exists was totally respectful toward me. I'd have to disagree with you there too.

I could ask you again to take a step back, maybe this time taking a deep breath, and re-read these threads again but I suspect it would serve no purpose. We'd just keep going around in circles and I'm sure we both have much better things to do with our time than that.

So, throw some more insults at me if you wish....I wish you peace, sincerely.

Carol

[AtomicKitten]

91. here's the real problem

Most people consider sarcasm - an example http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2740587&mesg_id=2742334
- not particularly conducive toward civility. You jump in and answer posts that weren't directed to you and make snide cracks at my expense to your tag-team on the side. You can pretend all you like, but that kind of passive-aggressive behavior is nowhere in the ballpark of "peace, sincerely."

You might want to refer to WesDem's genuinely civilized response http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2740587#2742457 as an example of what you pretend to be.

We're done.

[CarolNYC]

66. Yes, you see....

I was called out by the secret cabal to post this story...which Newshounds was called out by the secret cabal to write....I bet some of you didn't know that Newshounds was a part of this whole web conspiracy too, eh?

[Adelante]

76. No "secret handshake"

I seem to have offended you, AtomicKitten. It was not my intention and I apologize, because I have always respected you and still do. If you think my thinking is not independent, but based on some imagined "secret handshake" - well, I would be surprised if that's your judgment of me.

The OP in your thread was a severely limited presentation of Clark's thinking and this is a fuller one. That was all. Independent thinking I certainly value, including yours, whether I agree or not. Was I saddened to see several Clark supporters or former Clark supporters reacting to "snippets" instead of looking at the broader context - yes. However, I did not argue against your call for immediate ceasefire, which you have every right to make. In essence a call for UN intervention, such as Clark encourages, will bring a ceasefire in with it by effect. You're not happy enough unless the word is articulated, I get that, and it all happens now. But Clark didn't just start talking about the Middle East yesterday, as you know, so we're talking about one word out of tens of thousands on the subject, and that's what was disheartening to me in your thread.

He's talked about a coming regional war there for years, particularly expanding from our Iraq presence (then imminent absence), and Iran's taking advantage of the opening for regional power, with Syria's more ambiguous involvement. He is always against war and for diplomacy wherever possible, but he is also pragmatic and analyzes any situation from where it is now, its goepolitical realities, not tomorrow's or yesterday's. Clark wants negotiations with the Iranians and Syrians, where results could come sooner, and on a potentially more permanent basis, he thinks, with pressure from regional powers and facilitating by the other nations and the UN. He's talked about this with great foresight and consistently since 2003-2004, not only publicly in the US, but with members of the governments themselves and says he knows they want it, even some high in Iran's government, only Bush is too stupid to take the advantage.

But there is no productive negotiating with Israel or Hizbollah in the situation as it stands now. You don't really think Israel is going to say, "Okay, Hizbollah, you stay right where you are, we trust you," without the Iranians and Syrians ensuring against future attacks and the Lebanese taking back the borderlands with its own government troops, along with some type of international assistance force. Not going to happpen. That's just reality. What Clark proposes is to assist the Lebanese government to reduce dependency on Hizbollah for social services, and to avert a humanitarian disaster, and have the government regain at least a semblance of control of its own border. It's not as simple as that, nothing is, but it's a piece without which Hizbollah holds the ground and Israel cannot stand down, even if it wanted to.

So, while I respect your position and right to promote it, AtomicKitten, and even may envy it, I don't see it happening anytime soon without a coordinated diplomatic and assistance plan in operation.

[AtomicKitten]

84. thank you for your courtesy

It is much appreciated here and always at DU.

Indeed my position is idealistic, but it is strongly heartfelt and transcends all other considerations for me. While I don't get too emotional on subjects like Hillary and the DLC, both invoke a "feh" response from me which in turn has caused me to be accused of being pro-DLC and a Hillary apologist (I am neither), I am overwhelmed by the violence in the ME particularly in the context of knowing the PNAC boys are loving every minute of it. BushCo clearly has no intention of making any effort to stop it. And it is extremely frustrating that someone in leadership isn't screaming from the rooftops calling for an immediate ceasefire.

But that's me.

We all have deal-breakers; this is mine. It's fascinating to watch where people come down on issues. Those seeming to butt heads on one issue are simpatico on others. If people could only realize, believe, be okay with, and, hell, celebrate our differing points of view, that would go a long way toward a bit more harmony here at DU. Live and let live. Instead, people choose up sides and form cliques, tag teams so to speak, calling in reinforcements on threads. I found myself on the defensive for simply posting a piece of news that crossed my path.

I will reiterate and just so you know, if and when Al Gore comes out with a similar statement without calling for an immediate ceasefire, I will feel exactly the same. Yes, we Gore fans are just as effusive in our praise of him as the "Clarkies" and the "Kerryites," etc., but on this particular issue I remain steadfast in my convictions.

In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I am fine with the opinions of others, and I wish they would find enough room in their head to be okay with mine. I love nothing more than engaging in a respectful discussion with someone with a different point of view. It is enlightening. I don't like people second-guessing my intentions particularly when they don't have a clue who I am. If they gave me the time of day, they would realize I'm a pretty open and decent person.

Again, thank you for your kindness and consideration, something I value above all else here at DU and something I will not forget.

Best regards,
AK

[Dinger]

9. How Does He Keep His Cool? I'd Never Last On Any Faux Show

Can you imagine?


Huddy: Does anyone who disagrees with the General have anything to say?

Dinger (in audience): I disagree, but not with the General, bitch.

Huddy: Uh . . . uh . . .

[Clark2008]

12. He's been in battle, Dinger.

I mean, Faux is bad, but I'd say commanding troops out of harm's way after getting shot four times is worse, particularly when one of the shots was very close to the baby-maker.

:hi:

[Dinger]

13. How'd You Find That Out?

Just curious:blush:

[Clark2008]

14. He talks about it American Son.

He was shot in the buttocks and mentions that when they told him he had the million dollar injury (the get out of Nam injury), he, at first thought they'd shot, um, well... but it was more his thighish/rearish area.

[Cocoa]

18. he has negotiated with Slobodan Milosevic

I think he can hold his own with O'Reilly, et al.

[KittyWampus]

31. Clark lost his cool once or twice during the Primary and learned

really fast. That's why I like him even more (is that possible?) now.

He figured out how to ignore the mediawhores attempts to distract him and stays on target using short, easily grasped answers that cover complex issues.

[goclark]

17. Thank you for posting this ~ I heard that he was

ready for WWIII and that didn't sound like the Wes Clark that I know.
That is why my DU name is Go CLARK!

[CarolNYC]

43. you're welcome n/t

[Donna Zen]

20. Tapping my foot

If one had been keeping up over the past 3+ years with the General's over all philosophy, they would have placed his snipped comments from other day into the appropriate context. It's clearly impossible for the reader/listener to make sense of complex thinking on a serious subject by the content of three sentences.

As for those who denied their negative intent, or decided to turn on posters who didn't agree with their interruptation of 3 sentences, I doubt that we'll see them here unless they can corrupt the meaning of these statements as well.

Carol, I didn't mean to indulge my personal feelings in what is an important and interesting thread. Thank you for posting this. If you like I will delete this from thread, but the absolute horror of that last thread has me steaming. Just PM me.

Yes, General Clark goes on these shows and tells it like is. I don't know other Dems that dare to do this. Some of them avoid anything but scripted comments fearing that any honesty would come back to haunt them. Besides, I'm sure his number is based on Pentagon ratios, and thus, can't be ridiculed.

He is very much against what he fears will be the next neocon moves.

[CarolNYC]

44. No worries Donna...

I certainly share your frustration.

As for telling it like it is, I have found over these past few years of being politically involved finally that the biggest lie of all is that people want honesty from their political figures. The last thing on earth they want is honesty. They want to be told want they want to hear...it is why leaders are not rewarded and panderers are. :(

[FrenchieCat]

63. and actually, many a leader are held up as heroes if they keep their

mouths shut and don't tell anyone what they think......it's the "Don't ask, Don't tell" strategy that many politicians who are not leaders employ.

The ones that stand when the others are sitting waiting to figure out which way the wind are blowing, have stones thrown at them for speaking.

and the ones that stand wrong....for years...can later say they were sorry ...and possibly be rewarded with the Presidency for being wrong for so long!

Fucking amazing, isn't it?

[CarolNYC]

67. Yep, what was it Samantha Power said about Wes....

"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing"? That's Wes....and he's tough enough to take the hits for it.

People don't want honesty and they don't want leadership...I don't know. it must scare them or something.

[Fermezlabush]

21. Always doing battle where it's the hardest - and most effective.

I am sure that every day, a few knuckleheads scratch their thick heads after watching this "what if? is it possible?"

[burythehatchet]

22. I have to question the wisdom of Clark

to believe that he can walk into the monkey exhibit at the zoo an try to discuss middle east politics. And no offense intended to monkeys, I would much rather have a beer with a monkey than a fox-bot

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I have to question the wisdom of Democrats who think...

...that we can continue to ceed the territory that the Right oriented media has seized uncontested. That has a whole lot to do with how this nation got so badly off track as it is today. Once was a time that even your average Republican voter didn't subscribe to many of the current wacko political positions of the Right that they passed off as "popilism". The people haven't changed, the propaganda system has.

Granted not many Democrats are equipped with the background and abilities that General Clark has to take on the Right behind enemy lines, but Thank God he is.

[burythehatchet]

26. The purpose of Fox is to shell shock the public

so that they think that CNN is objective.

[FrenchieCat]

27. And of course, CNN is NOT Objective....meaning,

that watching Television to get your news is a dangerous endeavor.

However, still....all in all, too many voters do exactly that. To ignore them is at our peril. Too many car washes, doctor's offices, gyms and other gathering places have Fox on (in particular in the south) for us to fools ourselves into thinking that all Fox watchers are a lost cause. Not only is that not true, but we need these voters and we would be foolish not to think so!

[burythehatchet]

28. Whenever I see a public TV on Fox, I ask that the channel

be changed to Comedy Central, the most trusted name in news.

[annabanana]

30. "Comedy Central, the most trusted name in news."

I like it!

[Jai4WKC08]

32. How often does the management comply?

Asking out of curiosity. We entered the smoking section of a restaurant a few months ago where Fox was playing. We were the only folks there and asked the waitress to change the channel. She said she couldn't without asking her manager first. We were all set to leave when she came back and changed it, saying he'd said she could. But as we were leaving, it was changed right back (by someone else). Ok, fair enough -- it's their TV. If there had been more patrons in the area, I doubt the manager would have changed it. Fox has the highest ratings of any 24/7 news channel.

In any case, I'd bet not many people bother to ask. And I'd bet when they do, they don't always get their way. And that when they do, it doesn't last.

Fox is a GOP propaganda tool. But way too many people watch it anyway, either because they don't know or don't care. Believe it or not, some of them are Democrats, and many more are independents. We cannot afford to ignore them.

[burythehatchet]

33. My first act is to look for a remote and change it myself

otherwise, if the TV is within reach I will change it on the TV

most of the time people other people will not say anthing because they don't want to confront a wild eyed unhinged liberal

if nothing works and they won't/can't change it I'll just say something like "OK, let me disenage my brain and I'll be fine". Usually gets a laugh and a agreeable smile.

Its almost always successful.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. Well, if more people did that

You wouldn't find the tv tuned to Fox when you walk in. Because it wouldn't been changed before you got there, at least occassionally.

I still say you're the exception to the rule. Kudos.

But that still does not address the issue of how to reach the rest.

[TacticalPeek]

50. "The people haven't changed, the propaganda system has."

Totally gerrymandered, like the House.

[CarolNYC]

46. And I have to question the wisdom of those who would

write off such large segments of the population without a second thought. I'm currently reading Steve Jarding and Mudcat Sanders' "Foxes in the Henhouse" in which they take the Dems to task for abandoning whole areas of the country to the Republicans. Clark and Dean have it right. All of the people in this country deserve good representation. We have to fight for every seat, every vote, everywhere.

Sometimes it's hard not to get the impression that there is a segment of the Democratic Party that gets off on being the victimized minority and really really doesn't want to let that identity go. Sad state of affairs, if you ask me....because in the meantime the world's going to hell in a handbasket and taking every one of us with it. :(

[slestak]

29. "I don’t think your viewers want all their children to . . .

spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

Brilliant. Hit 'em where it hurts. It's much easier for people to badmouth critics when they have no personal stake in the war.

I wasn't a big fan of Clark's in '04, but the more I see him and listen to what he's saying, I think he may be my favorite among Dem contenders.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. It amazes me that more Democrats don't point this out

Are people in this country looking forward to a non ending high casualty half a million men army American occupation of several Middle Eastern nations simultaneously? Do they really think, especially now after what happened with Iraq, that all the United States has to do is "act tough" and all of our current and new enemies will just give up? Has that worked so for Israel?

Israel perhaps may believe it has no choice but to be on constant military footing, with mandatory enrollment of all young Israeli's into the armed forces, because they are surrounded in an Islamic sea. They seem to accept that burden. But is that what Americans want for their children? Because if we attack another Islamic nation that is what is coming. The day may indeed arrive when a war is unavoidable, but these people are standing on the sidelines cheering on policies that would make one inevitable, while ridiculing diplomatic approaches that could make war unnecessary.

[AtomicKitten]

37. their viewers' children don't serve .... they get deferments

it's traditional

[Jai4WKC08]

49. I think the point Clark was trying to make

Is that the all volunteer military is not capable of providing the forces necessary to wage WWIII in the ME. It can only be done with a draft, and that will (and must) mean their children will be in uniform for a very long time. No deferments for the privileged this time around.

He may have been too subtle for them. Seems likely to me the folks who line-up for the Fox in-studio audience are the worst of the worst among Fox viewers.

[Clark2008]

38. Belated welcome to DU, slestak!

:hi:

If you need info on Wes, feel free to ask. I know the links and Frenchie up there knows where EVERYTHING is. :7

[calmblueocean]

51. Damn straight! The sad thing is...

.. there are a lot of wingers so filled with fear and hate that they would sacrifice their (and our!) children this way. They'd support a full-fledged invasion and occupation of the Middle East, no matter how many millions it took, no matter how much death and suffering it caused, because in a twisted way, the death and suffering makes them feel secure. The fact that Clark is one of the few leaders speaking out intelligently on the subject and trying to keep the peace just shows how crazy this country has become. A "bad peace" is nearly always preferable to a "good war", but try telling that to a Republican and watch the look on their face.

[pacalo]

52. OMG...

Woman in audience: "I disagree with you, General, and agree with (Faux Newsreader) Juliette."

I doubt Faux News viewers are well-informed about Wes Clark's background (top of his class at West Point, Supreme Allied Commander for NATO), other than the fact that he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. That woman's statement was the epitome of stupidity & arrogance or, more probably, she was reading a statement given to her by Faux News.

[CarolNYC]

53. Wasn't that lady just....just...

....I don't even know if I can find a word for it. I never watch that show...I wonder if all of the audience members are as numb as that one....Just goes to show you that there are some people that are truly hopeless....

Hmmm...I wonder if they'd let me into one of the their studio audiences with my Wes Clark securingamerica.com shirt on?

[mia]

55. securingamerica.com shirt ? I want one.

Maybe you'd better settle for a 4-star pin with the Fox crowd.

Thanks for posting this thread. I would have missed seeing Clark do what he does best. If only our country had such a leader.

[CarolNYC]

68. Got it at Cafe Press

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/clark+securing+america/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_7481919/opt_/fpt_/hlv_t

Yeah, they'd have no clue what the 4 star pin was about....

[Strelnikov_]

54. Man, That Last Sentence Was Brilliant

Gets them thinking about little Bobby and Betty Lou coming home in a body bag.

[Dr Fate]

60. It's a top-notch talking point. Pass it on. n/t

n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

56. Well, there goes my support for THAT warmonger.

I should have known never to trust a General.:sarcasm:

[imlost]

61. :):) n/t

[Dinger]

100. Crunchy, You're Being Naughty (Cool)

:evilgrin:

[Crunchy Frog]

103. I'll be naughty for Clark anytime.

[saltpoint]

57. Didn't see this program. Can't stand FOX. But a tip of the hat to Wes

Clark if he tried to slap some sense into their thick heads.

My first thought on Clark on FOX was, "Here's a guy who has earned better questions than whatever they ask him on that network."

[CarolNYC]

70. video is here

I didn't see the program either but there's a link to video of it on you tube in the OP.

Get ready to be amazed by the stupidity of the audience if you watch it though...Boy, those Fox people are really trying to ram home to "fear" message...We have to kill everyone before they kill us. :eyes:

[Clark2008]

106. I know. That floored us as well.

My husband and I sat here dumbfounded that people would agree with a news READER over a general on issues of national security.

I don't always agree with every general, but I wouldn't say that I agree with a news READER before I would a general. Jebus Effing Ke-Rist! At least I would give said general the benefit of the doubt and phrase my concerns better than agreeing with a news READER!

It was a window into the minds of the fearful... into the minds of the truly unthinking. It was just plain weird.

[CarolNYC]

107. The host was one thing...

I expect that shit from the Fox hosts...but those audience members were really scary.

It's obvious the whole Fox thing now is to keep people as scared as possible...'There are all these really really bad guys out to get us (who are all good, of course) so we better hurry up and start killing more people! We're not killing enough people because we don't take the threat seriously enough!' Sheesh!

Well, as Newshounds says, every stupid, asinine thing they come up with on that segment, Wes had a good, reasoned answer for. Hopefully, some of the less indoctrinated, less brainless people both at home and in the live audience were able to see the contrast between the hysteria of the Foxies and the reasoned calm and intelligence of our General.

[Dr Fate]

59. Clark is cool as a cucumber- good for him! n/t

n/t

[ShortnFiery]

69. Clark is JUST a man, a Retired General -

I'm disquieted by those of you who elevate him to "rock star" status. :(

[CarolNYC]

72. Which part of that elevated anyone to "rock star" status?

"cool as a cucumber"? Or "good for him"?

[ShortnFiery]

73. I can sense the gushing ...

I've served in the military and the oohs and ah hhs are sadly misplaced because, like all general officers, Clark is a Master of the PR Spin.

I respect him somewhat, but I do NOT trust him. I've learned that from my service and the advice given to me from friends and family members of retired military.

Time will show you ... nothing I type here will be accepted.

However, all this gushing truly creeps me out! :hi:

[CarolNYC]

74. Still curious...

Which part was the gushing...."cool as a cucumber" or "good for him"?

[Sparkly]

77. Crowds at Elvis concerts always cheered, "Good for him! Good for him!"

Tiger Beat magazine headline: "Elvis: Cool as a Cucumber!!"

:eyes:

[CarolNYC]

82. Ah, so that's it...

I never did attend an Elvis concert so I missed the crowds chanting "Good for him!"...Totally forgot about the Tiger Beat magazine headline. No wonder SnF sensed the gushing.... :eyes:

[Sparkly]

85. Oh yeah, and the REALLY crazed fans would say things like,

"I agree with him." :wow:

[CarolNYC]

86. Geez, what a bunch of hero worshippers!

I bet they had a secret handshake too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr Fate]

90. I know- and I clearly have a Kerry icon...

...I guess the concept of supporting ALL solid Democrats is new to some folks.

I would proudly support a Wes Clark ticket.

[Crunchy Frog]

93. Well, if you say something positive about Clark

you're clearly "gushing" over with "hero worship". People can't simply admire Clark or support his activities the way they would Kerry or Gore or Fiengold. With Clark it always amounts to "gushing".

You are some hormone crazed teenage girl aren't you?;)

[Adelante]

78. You can sense the gushing?

Try a Gore thread sometime ;)

All that "gushing" really creeps me out :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Ah WesDem, you know this hits a nerve with me, don't you?

This is a constant sniping theme against people who like Wes Clark. "Gushing", "Swooning", Worshiping" "Dazzled", Clark supporters have been tarred by this mean spirited caricature by a cult of critics on DU since late 2003. And it usually happens on threads where those of us who respect and admire (those words I accept) Wes Clark are involved in a substantiative discussion of something substantiative that Wes Clark has said or done (like this thread), not just an "Isn't Wes Clark Great!" emotive thread.

The thing is, this charge is leveled at Clark supporters almost exclusively, not at those who respect and admire some other Democrat, be that John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore or anyone else. Only "Clarkies" are routinely accused of gushing and worshiping. It plays into a meme some tried to instill that Clark supporters want a Big strong military man to follow orders from. God it sounds trite in typing this, but the attempt to drill in that negative meme was a very real one, though I have seen less of it lately.

On this thread this poster who reacted this time I am sure had a sincere spontaneous negative reaction, but we have all noted the repeat critics who only have eyes for Clark(ies) and fail to look in their own back yard at those who support Democrats that they like, who go well beyond whatever "gushing"(usually with real comments) that Clark supporters may do, frequently restricting their entire commentary to Ooohs and Aaaahs for their own man.

It so pissed me off one day that a few weeks ago I started collecting examples of "Gore" hero worshiping on DU, I could have picked someone else instead by Gore was the hot ticket at the time. I didn't truncate posts to edit out lots of thoughtful commentary, I saved them intact, and I by no means did this full time! Fortunately I came to my senses after a few days and stopped saving them. I even forgot that I did that, but it is still on my hard drive. The frightening thing is that this very dig against Clark supporters is so predictable that I immediately knew I would find a use for this when I first saved this shit, even if I later forgot I did it. So now I finally get a chance to use this for instructive purposes! I bring you, from May of this year, GORE GUSHING, Ta Da!:

From the thread: "Al Gore Might Yet Join 2008 Contenders!!!!!!!!!" (May 8th)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2612456&mesg_id=2612456

"He's a giant! A visionary!
Be sure to read the article--it's a good one."

AND

"It would be the thrill of my lifetime.
a righteous reckoning that would put the world back on its axis."


From the Thread: " If the 'new' Al Gore runs, he'll win. Period." (May 10th)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2615426&mesg_id=2615426

"He is the ONLY VIABLE OPTION.
The sooner we all realize that, the better. Sorry,I'm not moving on this.
I see Edwards or Clarke as VP; not so sure on that.I'd love Edwards;but I don't know if that's winnable."

AND

"I would venture to say
Al Gore would kick the every lovin' shit out any opponent for a myriad of reasons. Dems are dying for a leader, and Al Gore's strong, outspoken, populist move to the left over the last several years is the medicine that will heal America.

RE-ELECT GORE 2008"


From the Thread: "Huff Post: The Truth About the War in Iraq and Al Gore" (May 8th)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2613407&mesg_id=2613407

(Written in reply to a post about how Gore would have been one of our best Presidents if he won the White House in 2000):
"Washington, Lincoln, Gore.
Washington: 1) crossing the Delaware (& Valley Forge); and 2) declining to be king when elected the first president.

Lincoln: 1) emancipation; and 2) saving the union.

Gore: 1) advancing the development of the Internet by perhaps decades (biggest thing since Gutenberg); and 2) leading the world on climate change (i.e. saving civilization as we know it).

JFK & RFK get honorable mention for the Cuban missile crisis.

FDR gets honorable mention for the New Deal and Lend Lease.

Teddy Roosevelt gets honorable mention for saving the buffalo from extinction and trust busting."


Then there was this Thread ('nuff said):
Clintons (both), Kerry, Clark, Dean - all (D)s should back GORE now! (May 15th)
"Lets get on one page and back the man who should be and will be the president of the US!!!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2626875


And also from this Thread: "President Al Gore" (May 15th)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1201299&mesg_id=1201299

"We need him Now"!

AND

"Agreed - it's going to take a visionary, a man with impeccable character..
...to resurrect the US from the basement. Someone who has been outside the cesspool of the beltway long enough to see things clearly.

That man is Albert Gore, Jr."

AND

"What a man, a gentleman, a statesman, that Al Gore is
Makes me tear up when I think about the world we would be leaving our children instead of the one we will be leaving them now. I don't like the word 'hate' but today I feel it for a certain impostor manipulated chimp who claims to be above the law."


I just realized t had a brief lapse in June when I saw this thread, and saved it too, how could I not? I think this thread qualifies as Gushing: "I would totally have Al Gore's love child."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1464596&mesg_id=1464596

There's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about Al Gore or any other Democrat. I just wish people would stop with the "hero worshiping gushers" put downs of Clark supporters if they are going to turn a blind eye on everything else that gets posted on DU. Clark supporters like Clark, granted, but our threads usually involve a real discussion of issues also.

OK I think I got that out of my system now, I know I got it off my hard drive, lol.

[Adelante]

81. That's not "gushing"

That's a show of respect :crazy:

[AtomicKitten]

92. while I'll give you snaps for drama

... you are being just a teensy (!) bit over the top in your 'woe is me' response that only Clarkies suffer the slings and arrows of accusations of hero-worship and you surely did dish it back.

I used the term in the specific sense that although I really admire General Clark, I do not agree with his stance on the ME. There are unfortunately people who go along with anything and everything their candidate of choice says or does. My position is further bolstered by the fact that I would feel exactly the same way should Gore not call for an immediate ceasefire; he has not yet and I do. I realize that flies in the face of the kneejerk response of blame your adversary's candidate repartee that goes on, but there it is nonetheless.

You quoted some of my responses above; I'm flattered you chose them, although I realize you meant to slam me by posting them.

"It would be the thrill of my lifetime, a righteous reckoning that would put the world back on its axis."

"I would venture to say Al Gore would kick the every lovin' shit out any opponent for a myriad of reasons. Dems are dying for a leader, and Al Gore's strong, outspoken, populist move to the left over the last several years is the medicine that will heal America."

Of course, you probably aren't interested in the tiny detail that because the 2000 election was stolen (also 2002 and 2004), a Gore victory in 2008 would be an in-your-face to the Republicans. Also I don't think many would argue with the fact that his speeches since then have been pretty aggressive confrontations of BushCo.

But, again, I am not the type to dispense blanket approval for every statement he utters. So, in spite of the fact that you chose to ridicule me in particular, your criticism is pretty cowardly in that you do it peripherally and not directly. Not that that will stop your attack on me, but this is my response nonetheless.

It's unfortunate that people cannot just accept the fact that we don't all think the same way and that choosing up sides like this is not only juvenile but is a waste of energy. It really is okay to have a difference of opinion and preference for this candidate or that.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I want an immediate ceasefire in the ME, the genesis of all this bullshit.

[Dr Fate]

94. Come on guys- Gore, Kerry AND Clark are ALL good, solid DEMS.

Why are we splitting hairs over this nonsense?

When a good Democrat holds a good postition, we should all support it.

Same goes for DEMs who screw up- they should have their feet held to the fire (Lieberman, for example)

This is the same crap that hold us up in congress- certain DEMS wont support perfectly good measures, just becuase they have to run against author at some point...

[AtomicKitten]

95. my sentiments exactly

just responding to a not-too-direct attack on me

[Adelante]

102. No, no, no

It had nothing to do with you whatsoever. I wasn't thinking of you and I'm sure Tom wasn't, either. Truly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Honestly Atomic Kitty, I in no way meant to slam you

I don't have a problem at all with you having expressed those sentiments. And you really don't need to defend Gore to me. I think if you reread my post you will find that I said nothing negative about him. In a way my situation is much like yours in a reversed type of way. Of course I voted for Gore in 2000 also, and now, were Wes Clark not to run again in 2008, Russ Feingold and Al Gore are the two other Democrats who I would be most enthusiastic about backing instead. I'm not saying that here for the first time, I've felt this way for awhile. I think Al Gore would make a very fine President, he has the seasoning that I think is needed in today's world. I think his independence from traditional Democratic Power brokers increased during his years spend out of the lime light of daily National Politics. I greatly respect his commitment to our environment, and much more.

I was not trying to ridicule anybody, and that's one reason why I didn't list any posters names from those prior Gore threads, with the possible exception of the Gore's Love child comment which I know was said tongue in cheek (in terms of a committment to follow through anyway, lol), there was precious little to ridicule in any of those comments. Are they full of enthusiasm and excitement for backing Al Gore? Hell yeah, but what's wrong with that? Nothing. Clark supporters have done the same, we all have, all of us who deeply respect and admire a leading Democrat. And that really was the only point that I was trying to make, don't single out Clark supporters for respecting a person we have trust in, and I made it on this thread because yet again Clark supporters were accused of "gushing" over Wes Clark in a tone that suggested we were engaged in some type of illicit sexual act. I saw "This Is Spinal Tap". I know all about cucumbers, lol.

We probably disagree with the point of my exercise because you report not having noticed a specific pattern of Clark supporters continually being accused of worshiping Wes Clark's shiny gold stars and uniform buttons, while other candidate supporters were left alone regarding their expressed enthusiasm for a candidate. The simple fact that I was moved to save those posts is evidence that I had been through this snarkiness all too frequently before, from a select small group of posters who repeatedly used to talk about cult like Clarkies swarming on threads, following the General's marching orders, because we were so "enthralled" by a big strong military man. Honest, AT, it became so very predictable. Back in January/ February 05 Clark supporters started getting harassed every time there were more than two threads running on DU at the same time about Wes Clark. We were continuously accused of "swooning" over him, and worshiping him at the same time, and it never let up. Like I said, the most recent time I got pissed over it before today was this May.

Dean supporters used to get this type treatment frequently at DU also, in late 2003 and early 2004, (young cultists who drank the cool aid and will follow Dean anywhere type shit) but after Dean got elected DNC Chair it receded and rarely comes up at all now. Dean takes hits from time to time, sure, but rarely supporters of Dean simply because they are supporters of Dean, not anymore, not like they used to. But Clark supporters still get it, most recently on this thread for the case in point. "Clarkies" equal "Gushers", trust me, this isn't new. All the leading Democrats come in for attacks here of course, Clark isn't unique; Gore certainly takes hits as does Kerry and Edwards and Warner et. etc. But it is not a well worn theme to attack their supporters for adoring and worshiping those Democrats inappropriately, while it is a meme used regularly against Clark supporters. That's my experience anyway, it honestly is, though I am glad to say that I am not so obsessed with it that I bothered to save all the threads where that happened. It is just the blatant double standard applied that bothers me, not the fact that supporters of Clark and Gore and Edwards and Kerry etc. are excited to have someone they can trust and believe in. I don't think that I am any different than you in that regard, I am sorry if you thought I was trying to ridicule you.

[AtomicKitten]

99. lo and behold we are in agreement after all

I will only support for president (or at least vote for in the primary) a candidate who did not vote "yes" on the IWR or support in any way the Iraq war, the very same contenders you mention.

And I am aware of the kneejerk reaction against General Clark, although my tenure here begins after the 2004 election, so I can only imagine what it was like here. In fact, I argued his case to many of those who refused to look beyond the uniform. He is the most exquisite of conundrums (as I told a buddy of mine recently here) - a humanitarian military man. Plus he's wicked cute.

The problem here began when it was assumed when I posted the news release that I meant it in some derogatory fashion whereas most people that know me even a little bit realize it was just news to me. I have explained this deal-breaker issue for me, no politician goes unscathed from my tsk-tsking that doesn't call for an immediate ceasefire, but that horse has already left the barn, so it's really a moot issue at this point.

No worries about those here that launch slurs against General Clark, because I feel it too. (I just feel Gore has more experience plus I'm fully into a retaliatory up-yours to the Republicans for having pulled the rug out from under him in 2000.) Gore gets slammed pretty good by people who are just too silly to understand what they are saying. The truth is I think there are some here that hate all Democrats and that's a pretty tough hurdle to overcome in a discussion.

My nerves are shot with the current state of affairs in our country and I get defensive pretty easily. But it doesn't surprise me when we smooth our ruffled feathers and withdraw the talons that we find we really have more in common than not. Life's funny like that.

Best regards.
AK

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. Best regards to you too AK...

...maybe sometimes folks have trouble seeing our common ground because we're already standing on it together! I wish us both luck, it will be a real disappointment to me if one of these guys doesn't get the nomination. But then I'm sure I would get past it and throw my support to whoever does win it.

[janx]

120. Please don't bring me into this or ridicule me, Tom.

I have nothing to do with what one poster decided to write in this discussion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. That was never my intent janx, but if you feel it happened I apologize

The best explanation I am capable of for what I did intend is what I wrote to Atomic Kitten in post number 96. I don't think those threads and/or posts have anything to apologize for, and neither do enthusiastic comments made by some Clark supporters from time to time on some threads at DU Or by Kerry supporters. Or by Edwards supporters, etc. I'm sorry if the way I made the point that I was trying to make left you or anyone else feeling ridiculed. We all have more than a right to enthusiastically support anyone we want here, and you in particular have always been a fair and thuoghtful poster (as much as it is possible for any of us to say that about any of us anyway, myself included).

[janx]

122. If someone makes a comment that you don't like...

then please address that poster, period. There's no need to bring other people into it who have nothing to do with the situation.

"Supporters" of X or "supporters" of Y have nothing to do with a problem you might be having with any person on this board. Every person who posts here is an individual, not a member of some provincial camp, and each individual who posts here should be accountable as such.

GROWL! :grr:

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. It is almost as simple as you say but not quite.

After a string of individuals who share a certain specific adversarial view point each claim that ONLY supporters of Clark on DU act in a certain manner that is defined as negative by them, it is hard to effectively counter that accusation without pointing to evidence to the contrary that establishs that the premise of that accusation is faulty. This has in fact been an ongoing problem.

I don't want to labor this point. I would rather leave this with my apology to you. I also prefer the form of discourse that you are advocating, and don't want to suggest otherwise. That is the gold standard janx, I will never argue against it as the ideal we should strive for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. Yeah, look out for them general officers alright, can't trust a one of 'em

They are not at all like career politicians who are all innocent as new born babes and as pure as the driven snow. Those general officers are the masters of PR Spin alright. They don't need to produce real results in battles the way politicians have to deliver policy platforms to run on. If your troops lose a battle and have to abandon a position, that can easily be spun to hide what really happened, but a politician on the other hand is accountable to rigid standards of truth. No way on earth they can spin abandoning one position for another, yeah you got that right. Straight shooters those career pols, every one of them. That's because most of them graduated from Law Schools where they were taught ethics. Either that or they got fabulously wealthy in business before moving into politics, and we all know that no one gets fabulously wealthy in business in America who doesn't always level with the American public.

[Jai4WKC08]

88. One question about your military service

How many general officers did you get to know personally?

Not that it really matters. If you'd known dozens, even hundreds, of generals, and they were each and every one a prick, it still wouldn't mean Wes Clark is.

But I gotta ask. Because I'm a retired Lt Colonel, my husband is a retired chief warrant officer, each of us has over 20 years of service (some of it at the highest echelons), and we've only known a very few well enough to say with confidence whether they could be trusted on a personal level. And, fwiw, of those few, not one about whom could I say for a fact that they couldn't be trusted. Altho I have no doubt that there are many generals who fall in that catagory, as much as with any other profession... not the least of which being politicians.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Not that I expect any of this to change your mind. Bigotry can seldom be changed by appealing to reason. But I do have hope that reasonable people will not take your silly-ass opinion seriously.

[Schema Thing]

105. Just curious, are you bothered by rock stars too?

cuz the good General certainly has worked harder and more honorably than any rock star I'm aware of. He's even, like a rock star, applied great talent to get to his current station.

[Dr Fate]

79. I just suggested he was composed, and had a good answer.

But hey, Rock & Roll aint what it used to be.

[CarolNYC]

71. He was good, wasn't he?

I don't know how he keeps his cool with some of those idiots....I know I could not even begin to.

[butterfly77]

89. These foxbots go around the world trying to tell everyone else ..

what to do and then get angry when they push back. They are going to keep it up until there will be no choice but to start a draft, then they will be shipping their sons and daughters overseas or somewhere to hide, I hope if they do they can't hide anywhere in this world. They reap what they sow and you can run but you can't hide.

[high density]

97. It's kind of amazing how defensive Fox News idiots can be against non-GOP

guests.

Thanks once again General for taking a sane approach in front of an audience of blood thirsty nutjobs.

[Gloria]

98. I hope he erases the last few FOX appearances...

[IndianaGreen]

110. Why doesn't Clark just leave Faux?

The Faux audience is beyond help or redemption.

[Dinger]

111. Never Give Up Hope, Never

Gotta keep on keepin' on.

[CarolNYC]

112. Because they're not ALL beyond help or redemption....

...although I'll grant you there is NO doubt that some of them are....and the task before us, to take back our country from the lunatics in charge now, is just too important to just throw up our hands in disgust or resignation when we encounter the idiots along the way. Wes is out there doing the dirty work, bless him. I couldn't do it. Thank goodness there's someone who can.

[Donna Zen]

113. His advice

He believes it is our duty to call in rightwing talk shows including fox. He got was driving somewhere in the car one day when Hannity was bashing Democrats on the radio, and he, Clark called in. He said, that we need to do this until fox hangs up on us. Don't let the lie stand.

That is the way he sees it.

Quite frankly having Blitzer on CNN is just as bad as anything fox has been up to. Sometimes I think its worse, because many a good Democrat wrongly believes that CNN is the most trusted name in news. Just this morning I was thinking about the now retired Judy Woodruff. Does she think she can actually wash that blood off her hands?
CNN is every bit as useful a tool for bush as fox. Everytime I hear Zahn, I remember her glee about "shock and awe."

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Clark being on FOX is the most any one person can do to stop an Iran war

The most anyone not part of the Bush inner circle can do anyway. In order to attack Iran, given the current unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Bush needs to scare up a semblance of public agreement that Iran is a REAL enemy, a scary dangerous nation ruled by mad men who will come looking for us soon with nukes if we don't attack them first. Far too many Democrats are helping Bush make that case, playing along with all the war talk on Iran. But at the very least Bush must rally his base to attack Iran, he needs their support his push for war, specially if Bush wants to take on Iran before the November elections, which is what Clark suspects. War, rather than retaining a last faint shred of Peace instead, may be hanging in the balance. Every time that Clark gets air time on FOX to deflate the gung ho war talk with a whiff of reality, it is a very very good thing for all of us. Right now, more than ever before, I am extremely glad Clark is still being beamed to FOX viewers.

[citizen snips]

115. I agree

You can't convince any of them because they are all closed minded.

[abburdlen]

116. I've heard that before

"We can't deal with those people, they'll never change..."

It's strange how this administration gets so much flak (rightly so) for not even considering dialog with our adversaries. The 'my way or the highway' mentality has been a total disaster of foreign policy. We all see that.
But when it come to dealing with those who disagree with us in American politics there are so many that will just write them off - screw 'em, they're heartless bushbot lying scum. Hey, I agree there are some out there that are just evil and no amount of discussion will change that but how is charging everyone who watches Fox is beyond redemption any different from those that say every Muslim is a terrorist?

[Tom Rinaldo]

117. I disagree with that

In my mind that is a dangerously narrow minded opinion. I will never write off tens of millions of Americans that way. Did you know that over 20% of FOX viewers are self identified as Democrats, not even Independents, but Democrats? I saw FOX just two days ago playing in a Doctor's waiting room, does that make me "close minded"? I guarantee you, at least when Clark makes a day time appearance on FOX, that he is viewed in a hell of a lot of Doctor's waiting rooms, Airport Club lounges, restaurants and the like. And what about couples watching TV? If one half is a FOX news Junkie, and the other is much less news or politics oriented but ends up watching some FOX tho make his or her partner happy, does that make the non FOX person "closed minded".

But my problem with saying that you can't convince any of them because they are all closed minded goes deeper than that. All Republicans are not closed minded, do you disagree with that? Two of our leading left of center bloggers today, Arianna Huffington and Kos, are former Republicans for example. And one should never assume for an instant that everyone who turns on FOX news agrees with everything told them by FOX News talking heads, that certainly isn't true for CCN which I sometimes watch. Hell I don't ALWAYS agree with EVERYTHING that Keith Oberman says. And there are more and more Republicans like Lou Dobbs. I know he is on CNN, but that's not the point. Dobbs still shows his Republican stripes with some frequency, but he is less and less a dependable voice for today's Republican Conservatism. Some FOX viewers went to FOX because they were sold a bill of goods that CNN was "too Liberal", but that doesn't prove that each and everyone of those FOX viewers can't be convinced of the merits of a sane course of action because they are "all close minded."

Yes there has been a cult of right wing populism that spread for the last twenty years over our public airwaves. A lot of these people who were calling themselves "Ditto Heads" a few years ago at the height of Rush's popularity have peeled away from him somewhat since then, but my point is that the majority of them didn't hold such nutty views a decade or two ago, they got caught up in a self perpetuating self reinforcing whirl wind of rightist media spin with very little outside reality intruding on them with contrary viewpoints. That bubble HAS TO BE DISTURBED, and Clark is the best man to do that. He scrambles their programming, they are supposed to listen to and RESPECT GENERALS, remember? Our military stands for what is honorable about America, against the weirdo peace niks, and all that crap. So Clark is turning that around against the Right using their own network to reach and deprogram some of their followers, beginning the process of peeling them back away from the madness. Thank God for that! Taking back the American working and middle classes from the clutches of corporate media hack pseudo rightist "populists" is a critical step in taking back America, just like taking back our flag.

[citizen snips]

118. I should have stated my position more clearly

I don't believe all their audience is closed minded but a lot of their hosts are closed minded.

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. Now THAT, I fully agree with! Thanks for the clarification n/t

[UncleNoel]

125. Thanks for the post, Carol...

Not to hog the blog:

What he said (80, 96 Tom)

What she said (99).

Just a few words though. Stars, like Rock stars, come and go. The flash onto the scene and then are superceded soon enough. But this four star General has been around consistentlya and persistenly for about 40 years now. He was doing good before he retired, and now he just keeps going on. He won't hear of talk about '08 now since he is entirely focused on taking back Congress in '06. This short-term objective is essential to any long-term strategy. We have to take this Hill before we can draw up a battle plan for taking back the White House. Does the military analogy bother anyone. Well, I am an army brat, USAF Korean war era vet, and a civil servant working for Air University for about 4 years. Yet I opposed Vietnam and resigned my civil service commission over the the ABM initiative (a pre-star wars effort). My Dad was a career officer and NCO and a life-long Democrat. The plus 60 Fighting Dems running for Congress remind me of my DAd. Hell, General Clark reminds me of my Dad. I don't agree with all Gen. Clark says, but I believe in his leadership and integrity. I agree enough to prefer him to anyone else in the field for president. I never worshipped a rock star. I never got googoo over a politician. But I support Gen. Clark and Eric Massa and all the Fighting Dems because they are, as Bernie Quigley says, the vanguard of the New Dems that Kos and Mydd were talking about in Crashing the Gate. The have experience, integrity, American values and are sincere progressives.

Noel Schutz
http://www.fighting-dems.com