I heard Wes Clark on Bill Press this morning and I've gotta tell you...

[UnyieldingHierophant]

that man has a firm grip on reality. His analysis seemed spot on to me...I was impressed. Don't know what his domestic views are, but man he seems to have a great foreign policy take on things. Kinda wish he'd get in the race.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. I agree--he speaks with clarity and wisdom

And he supports Clinton. I hope he is somehow a decision maker in the next administration.

[William769]

2. In essence, he has.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

3. Yea, I guess he has

[durrrty libby]

5. Smart guy, he was not thrilled with the MoveOn ad, and thought they were blaming the wrong person,

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Yes, but he never blasted Move On

He called the use of the "betrayed us" distracting, which obscured the substantitive content of that ad giving Republicans a chance to close ranks and go on the offensive. In his mind that was "a mistake", we need to keep the blame on the civilian chain of command where it belongs. This is George Bush's war, not General Petraeus' war. Bush sets the policy, not Petraeus AND Bush is the guy American's now love to hate, not Patraeus. Bush WANTS the focus put on Petraeus, not him. It serves his purpose. Clark knows that.

[durrrty libby]

12. I agreed with Clark 100%. His explanation was very reasonable

[madfloridian]

22. Here is what he said.

""Wes Clark: Well, I think for Chuck Hagel, who's a sitting Senator who wants to criticize a General, that's fine. That's his right to do so. As far as Admiral Fallon was concerned, if he's got a personal quarrel with Petraeus, you know, that's between the two of them. Petraeus works for him, obviously he feels cut out and to some extent I've known situations like that, but, um, as for Moveon.org, it was a mistake.

Matt Stoller: But why can a sitting Senator criticize a General and millions of grassroots activists not do that? That's really what Moveon is, it's not like it's an entity.

Wes Clark: Moveon's an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator's trying to have."

See, what if our senators don't have the dialogue...or they vote against Moveon as they did yesterday. I wonder if he thinks we as the populace shouldn't criticize the military?

Edit for link:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1467

[Tinksrival]

26. Wow. Talk about cherry picking and using General Clark for pinata de’jour for the day.

Did you all read the whole interview? Here let me cherry pick also:

Matt Stoller: You recently called the Moveon ad criticizing Petraeus a ‘big mistake’. Why is it a big mistake?

Wes Clark: Because it distracted attention from focusing on the failures of the policy and let the other side play a game of personal attack again and you know sort of outrage at that. That’s a mistake. It distracted us from the dialogue we needed.

Matt Stoller: So your argument is…

Wes Clark: It gave something that Republicans could all agree on.

MS: So your argument is not that it was inaccurate in any way.

Wes Clark: No, I’d say it was a mistake tactically.

Wes Clark: I think that you’ve got to hold the political leadership accountable for that. Why let Bush get away with hiding behind his general? Why not just attack Bush directly?

Matt Stoller: Ok, but David Petraeus claims that violence is down, and his report is the outlier. The Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the GAO, all say that violence remains high. I don’t understand why Petraeus should be above criticism for representing information that isn’t credible.

Wes Clark: He shouldn’t be above criticism. You should quarrel with the information, don’t quarrel with his character.

Wes Clark: Moveon’s an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator’s trying to have. Frankly, I think the better course of action is to bring out all the statistics and challenge Petraeus directly to explain how he can say that in the face of all these statistics. Did we do that? Did Moveon do that? Did they lay out the statistics and say ‘Petraeus says this, here’s the other fact he doesn’t tell you, General Petraeus come back to us and explain to us.

Matt Stoller: Absolutely they did that. That’s what the ad was, was there anything in the ad that was factually inaccurate?

Wes Clark: What instead came out was the play on his name, and that’s all that came out. And that was the mistake. If it was a serious ad, did it ask those serious questions, no one could have objected to it.

Matt Stoller: Ok so let’s go back to the Petraeus ad. In particular you said that truth is relative, so truth is sort of malleable, can you go into that concept a little bit more?

Wes Clark: Well I’ve got about two minutes Matt before I’ve got to get on. Petraeus set up his criteria, I’m sure he’s trying to project progress, he’s using those statistics to guide the performance of his forces out there, and I’m sure that’s what he sees, an effort to move towards progress. And yet, the fact is there’s not a lot of progress, and people need to see both sides and that’s what the dialogue’s about but I don’t think you advance the dialogue by name-calling and that’s the Republican side. I’ve been called a lot of names by Rush Limbaugh and I don’t appreciate it and I don’t think we advance our own efforts by making a pun off his name. Let other people do that.

Matt Stoller: So how do the millions of people who feel lied to by General Petraeus express themselves? What’s the appropriate way to express themselves?

Wes Clark: Send emails, write editorials, call Senators, write Op-Eds, letters to the editors, but make them substantive, serious letters. If you feel like he has lied to you say so, but don’t make the pun on his name. Show it with facts and let people draw the conclusion. It’s inflammatory rhetoric to hurl out accusations of lying, that’s a conclusion that has to be drawn by a careful review and examination of the evidence and it has to be used with great circumspection. That kind of reckless language, especially the use of puns and so forth, people don’t like it, it doesn’t change peoples’ minds, it alienates support, and this is a democracy. We’ve got to convince moderate middle of the road Americans to come our way. We won’t do it with those kinds of ads.

Matt Stoller: Ok, thanks a..

Wes Clark: I’m sorry, you’re asking my straight up opinion, I know there are a lot of people who will disagree, but I’m gonna tell it to you straight, that’s what I feel.

Matt Stoller: I appreciate that.

………………..I think you totally misrepresented the whole interview
Wes Clark disagreed with the name calling tactic and he is RIGHT!

TACTICAL ERROR!!! Nothing but Repub CHUM.

[madfloridian]

28. Bottom line, he did not think MoveOn should have made the ad.

I posted more it in my other post. I did not expect to be called so many names in this one or I would have broken the rules and gone over the 4 paragraphs.

I don't think our Democratic leaders, no matter who they are, are right to criticize an ad paid for by members....

because there was not one thing the GOP has done for 6 years that they have voted to condemn. Clark knows the lay of the land. He knows the other side has been attacking us for 6 years.

Now we are attacking our own.

It is almost a mindless thing that keeps going....they are all so afraid of criticism from the right that they will eat the rest of us alive.

Now how about a few more insults this fine sunny day...the day after our Senate BETRAYED us.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I have seen Clark repeatedly defend "Move On" against the right before

He has done so live on FOX against the worst of the right wing hit men (some of those clips are still in SecuringAmerica.com's archives). Clark never lets them get away with it, he says Move On has a legitimate place in the national debate with legitimate points to make. One of the reasons why Wes Clark did not come in a stronger thrird in the New Hampshire Primary in 2004 was because he refused to disavow Micheal Moore's free speach when the the Republican Party, the media, and much of the Democratic Party heatedly insisted that he should disassociate himself from Michael Moore's comments about Bush going A.W.O.L. and kept hammering him for refusing to do so then.

Were you there watching General Clark's back on that one at the time? I was,but too few others did also. Clark took a hard hit for refusing to condemn Michael Moore when he was the Right wing target of the day. Clark does not deserve to be singled out now as someone who does not defend the netroots right to speak their mind. He always has, and if anyone spends any time at the blogging area of Clark's own web site that immediately will be obvious there as well. Clark was asked a direct question about his view of the effectiveness of the Ad that Move On put out. He was pressed not to give a simple vague sound bite that could annoy no one, he was asked to share what he really thought about it and so he did. I think it was an entirely honorable of Wes Clark to be frank, as he always is.

[madfloridian]

33. Thanks, Tom.

I appreciate your responses and the fact that you did not call me names. You are usually most thoughtful.

I feel others are not speaking out at all, so at least Clark was honest.

Others have either been hushed or hushed themselves, and it is quite painful.

I think all of us are hurting and confused about our party. I am not even going to vote in the Florida primary until the leaders here try to compromise, which some are trying to do.

The campaign season is really quite painful, as it is mostly just sham. I won't support anyone because it hurts too much to care and know it never matters because decisions are made far earlier.

We may disagree, but I have always respected you.

[Tinksrival]

34. It is a fine sunny day and I did not insult you or call you names.

So, can we stay on topic.

Wes Clark has been trying in vane to help with framing the message.
It's the policy's not the troops.
It's Bush.... not the Generals he's hiding behind.
Did you read the whole article? Please understand this is a serious question. I don't always read a whole interview but in this instance I think it would be helpful.
You said above:

I wonder if he thinks we as the populace shouldn't criticize the military?

Here is more from the interview:

Wes Clark: Well I've got about two minutes Matt before I've got to get on. Petraeus set up his criteria, I'm sure he's trying to project progress, he's using those statistics to guide the performance of his forces out there, and I'm sure that's what he sees, an effort to move towards progress. And yet, the fact is there's not a lot of progress, and people need to see both sides and that's what the dialogue's about but I don't think you advance the dialogue by name-calling and that's the Republican side. I've been called a lot of names by Rush Limbaugh and I don't appreciate it and I don't think we advance our own efforts by making a pun off his name. Let other people do that.

Matt Stoller: So how do the millions of people who feel lied to by General Petraeus express themselves? What's the appropriate way to express themselves?

Wes Clark: Send emails, write editorials, call Senators, write Op-Eds, letters to the editors, but make them substantive, serious letters. If you feel like he has lied to you say so, but don't make the pun on his name. Show it with facts and let people draw the conclusion. It's inflammatory rhetoric to hurl out accusations of lying, that's a conclusion that has to be drawn by a careful review and examination of the evidence and it has to be used with great circumspection. That kind of reckless language, especially the use of puns and so forth, people don't like it, it doesn't change peoples'
minds, it alienates support, and this is a democracy. We've got to convince moderate middle of the road Americans to come our way. We won't do it with those kinds of ads.
>>>>>

Wes Clark: Moveon's an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator's trying to have. Frankly, I think the better course of action is to bring out all the statistics and challenge Petraeus directly to explain how he can say that in the face of all these statistics. Did we do that? Did Moveon do that? Did they lay out the statistics and say 'Petraeus says this, here's the other fact he doesn't tell you, General Petraeus come back to us and explain to us.

Matt Stoller: Absolutely they did that. That's what the ad was, was there anything in the ad that was factually inaccurate?

Wes Clark: What instead came out was the play on his name, and that's all that came out. And that was the mistake. If it was a serious ad, did it ask those serious questions, no one could have objected to it.

[madfloridian]

36. With all due respect....the right wing has said far far worse to us for 6 years..

going on 7 years.

And we take it and take it and lie down for more. And yet when the right wingers tell us to condemn MoveOn....our leaders say yes, thank you we will.

They treated Kerry far far worse than anything in this ad. The stupid purple bandaids...the lies about the war.

They got away with it. So pardon my outrage.

[Tinksrival]

38. I agree with you completely.

I just felt you misrepresented Clark's position. Just to be clear, this interview was conducted before that stupid vote.....which was ridiculous!

[madfloridian]

40. The 20th was yesterday. I thought it was after.

It would make a difference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Understandable confusion

But the actual interview preceded the Senate resolution, Matt had to transcribe the whole interview first befoe posting (which he notes that he did) and the whole interview is pretty long and will be continued in further diaries by him. Given how tenacious Matt was in his questioning, you can bet Matt would have brought up that Senate vote had it already been taken, in order to get Clark's reaction to it, but Matt never even mentions the resolution. I strongly suspect it had not even been introduced yet when this interview was held. That was one fast breaking piece of so called legislation.

[Cameron27]

35. Bottom line, he never condemned the ad,

he said it was a tactical error because it distracted attention away from the problem.

Wes Clark: "Moveon’s an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator’s trying to have. Frankly, I think the better course of action is to bring out all the statistics and challenge Petraeus directly to explain how he can say that in the face of all these statistics. Did we do that? Did Moveon do that? Did they lay out the statistics and say ‘Petraeus says this, here’s the other fact he doesn’t tell you, General Petraeus come back to us and explain to us."

Did you watch the hearings, because I did, and that's exactly what happened. The republicans used that ad to defend Petraeus before he even opened his mouth. They continue to use it every chance they get, for exactly that reason.

Clark was absolutely right...again.

[madfloridian]

37. Here are the words of the ad.

It is in pdf format, here is the link at MoveOn. I think probably it tells a little too much truth in the ad part....and the attacks on the title are meant to discredit the rest of it. It is painful truth in the ad. You can read it and make your own decision.

I think since the people themselves, the members, paid of it...that it does not set well for it to be thought light of by our leaders.

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that
those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops
will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

[Cameron27]

46. Mad, I'm not against the ad at all,

I'm just saying that it proved to be a distraction which was unfortunate. The gop's attacks against move on are reprehensible.

[durrrty libby]

30. "TACTICAL ERROR!!! Nothing but Repub CHUM."

Exactly. I heard him explain it at least 3 times

He was right and reasonable

Most people here enjoyed the MoveOn gut punch.

I didn't

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Clark clearly stated the populous can and should criticize the military when called for

He did not at any time say that Move On should not have taken out an ad challenging the testimony given by Patraeus. On the contrary, Clark supported fact based political ads, Op-Eds, phone calls to elected officials, letters to the editor etc. Clark's comments were specific to that specific ad and how that specific ad framed the debate, not on the public's right to have that debate with military and/or civilain leadership.

So that is the context of this segment of a larger interview held with Clark, in which Clark was directly asked to explain his views on this specific ad, and asked to comment in detail through repeated follow up questions. You take from that interview this part of their exchange:

"Matt Stoller: But why can a sitting Senator criticize a General and millions of grassroots activists not do that? That's really what Moveon is, it's not like it's an entity.

Wes Clark: Moveon's an organization, and when it does that it distracts from the dialogue that the Senator's trying to have."

Out of full context it may appear that Clark says activists shouldn't criticize a General, but that is very misleading and fundementally inaccurate, as other portions of the same interview show. When Clark said "and when it does that it distracts" the "that" Clark was referring to was very narrowly focused on the aspects of the Move On Ad that could be potentially construed as a PERSONAL attack on the PERSONAL character of Patraeus. Clark acknowledges that Move On is a political movement, so how it choses to frame the public debate in one of it's higher profile national ads automatically becomes a focal point for political debate, either positive or negative or both.

That simply is predictable and Move On wouldn't want it any other way. With that ad the public debate shifted to an extent to a debate about Move On. Was that what Move On wanted to achieve, and if not, did they contribute to that happening more so than could reasonably be avoided without sacrificing principles through the choice of words that they used to highlight their position? I am going to copy here from some of a post I just left on one of your threads, MF, because I think it fits into the discussion here as well:


All of us can and should think it through and reach our own conclusions on whether or not Clark is correct in his appraisal about the effectiveness of the Move On Ad. There is room for honest debate on that, and Clark was directly asked his opinion on that debate in that interview and he gave it when asked. I don't think it fair to fualt him for having his opinion on the issue of effectiveness. A lot of people are (and should be) mulling that over. In Clark's mind Move On made "a mistake". Others think that ad was the best thing since sliced bread. Opinions will differ.

The key aspect of caution that Clark urges when being critical of the military is not to allow the civilian leadership to shift the glare of the spot light off of them, when it is civilian leadership that is driving the options the military is being ordered to implement. I note and appreciate MF, that you did claim that Clark says the military should not come in for criticism. He supported challenging the conclusions that Patraeus reached in his testimony with facts. But the core political message Clark is stressing here, since we are debating how to be politically effective afterall since that is the bottom line motivation of Move On, is that we need to keep the primary blame for the disasterous war in Iraq on the civilian chain of command where it belongs. This is George Bush's war, not General Petraeus' war. Bush sets the policy, not Petraeus, AND Bush is the guy American's now love to hate, not Patraeus.

Bush WANTS the focus put on Petraeus, not himself. It serves his purpose. Clark knows that. That is why he continually has accused George Bush of trying to hide behind Generals, of not taking responsibility for setting the policies that the Armed Forces are ordered to implement, for not providing the diplomatic support to the military in the region that would lesson the hostilities that they are tasked to confront, not fuel them as is currently the case. Clark is furious at Bush for not owning up to the fact that this is his war, that Bush keeps shopping for Generals with skill sets that compliment the policies Bush has already determined he will push, and then stepping back and saying I am only following the advice of my Generals. The Bush Administration is extremely unpopular now with the public, our military is not. Politically if Bush is able to shift the political framing so that it appears as if Democrats are battling military brass rather than him, it breathes new life into his policies because the public is more likely to support a General in the field than this Commander in Chief. Clark thinks it is a political mistake if Demorats play right into Bush's hand on this, and for that reason he called that aspect of the Move On Ad, not the factual case that it made, a mistake.

[madfloridian]

4. Of course he is in the race for VP

So are the other candidates, trying to stay viable to be Hillary's VP.

Edwards and Obama have worked their butts off and campaigned hard. Others just pop in whenever.

It seems a strange and useless season of campaigning. And very tiring to think about the fact that it is happening just like it did another time.

:shrug:

[durrrty libby]

8. Big difference between working hard and working smart.

I'll take smart

[madfloridian]

9. Really doesn't matter.

It happened before and did not matter then.

Obama and Edwards are fine and good men. Most see what is happening.

It is called steamrolling.

[durrrty libby]

10. A truly bitter and ugly statement

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

15. Or a truthteller

who sees how things keep happening over and over and over.

Spinster? No, just a conscientious granny type.

You really are acting rude.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I agree. That was a rude comment. n/t

[durrrty libby]

17. Truthteller??? hahahaha

More like delusions of grandeur

[UnyieldingHierophant]

18. Damn, didn't mean to start a war, I was just impressed with Clark's views of the middle-east?

[durrrty libby]

21. No war. MF loves to toss around coy Hillary Hate. 99% of the

time I ignore it. This time I didn't feel like ignoring the pig slop

[madfloridian]

23. Actually I respect Hillary very much. What's with the "pig slop" remark?

Isn't that over the line?

"This time I didn't feel like ignoring the pig slop"

[durrrty libby]

25. No it's not

The sewage flung at the Democratic front runner on this board

is what's over the line.

[madfloridian]

27. I do not "fling sewage" at Hillary or anyone. No "pig slop" from me.

.

[madfloridian]

39. Since you called me out on that. personally....please find proof.

Please find the attacks and "pig slop" on Hillary.

Otherwise it is a personal attack.

I will be watching and waiting, as I don't like to be lied about.

[madfloridian]

41. Perhaps I should defend myself, but I won't.

If you take the charges in this post against me seriously, I guess you can make your own decision.

[madfloridian]

20. It's ok. I get called everything. But grandeur?? Ain't got none of that.

I just see things as they are and have been. Nothing bitter, just realistic.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Can you say new influx?

[Adelante]

24. There is no call to personally insult Madfloridian

Disagree, fine, but on issues.

[calteacherguy]

48. Actaully, it's called We the People will decide.

The People's choice may or may not be your first choice, or mine.

And just because someone "works their butt off" doesn't mean they are credible, or have earned anything.

[Cameron27]

31. He just endorsed her,

along with hundreds of other political figures. It's only your opinion that he's in the race for VP, but why make the "just pop in" remark? Did you expect him not to publicly endorse anyone at all during this race?

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. His domestic views are progressive

Clark would make a fantastic President. Hillary Clinton seems genuinely to respect him, I saw them together in NYC. Perhaps that is a ticket in the making now.

[Ilsa]

7. Clark is awesome. And really, really smart. His academic

resume is lengthy and impressive. He speak several languages. He cares about people and even when he was in the military, gender and sexual orientation were not reasons for discrimination. I worked for him when he got into the 2004 campaign too late to get his message out.

[Bitwit1234]

13. I don't know if you all listened to Bill Clinton

when he was on Larry King. But the man is brillant when it comes to political procedures. He was telling Larry King that then only way bush could have settled this conflict in Iraq was thru negotations. And a lot of other stuff. No damn wonder he won a Rhodes scholarship.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Yep....that's why both Bill Clinton AND Wesley Clark were Rhodes scholars!

and yes, Bill knows his way around, that is for sure! I thoroughly his appearance on TDS last night.

Wes was on C-Span early this morning talking about his book and taking calls.

One questioner told Clark that he would have wanted him to endorse Obama. Clark said that he liked and respect Obama, but then went on to make the case as to why he endorsed Hillary....and I've got to say, he certainly made a compelling case for her.

[Auntie Bush]

45. Damn, I wish I hadn't missed all those Clinton and Clark interviews.

It's tough being too busy to keep up these days. I hope someone will post if either of them will be on repeats. Although, I don't need to see or hear them anymore to KNOW how special, important, understanding of the world and brilliant they are. What a team!

[rhett o rick]

43. I was with him all the way until he sold out to the DLC and supports HRC. nm

[jenmarie]

44. Wes was also on

Morning Joe this morning. Ruth at CCN posted the link at CCN. It's very clear he is not slamming MoveOn's intent, only their method, which of course the radical regressives used as distraction to the real problem.

You can listen here:

http://www.ptnine.com/092107.WMV

[Cameron27]

47. I missed every single one,

including TDS. x(