Clarke Asks Moveon.org To Pull Its Ad

Clarke Asks Anti-Bush Group to Pull TV Ads
58 minutes ago

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s former counterterrorism adviser objected Wednesday to the use of his name and critical comments about Bush in a new broadcast advertisement from a political group supporting Democratic candidate John Kerry

Richard Clarke said he instructed his lawyer to ask the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to stop broadcasting the ad, which Clarke said was created without his knowledge or permission. The group said it wouldn't pull the ad, and one outside legal expert said the ad was clearly permissible under U.S. copyright laws.

"I just don't want to be used," Clarke told The Associated Press. "I don't want to be part of what looks like a political TV ad. I'm trying hard to make this not a partisan thing but a discussion of how we stop terrorism from happening in the future, keep this on a policy issue. I don't want this to become any more emotional or personal than it has already."

"This is a public statement that Clarke had made," Pariser said. "We think it's important to get what Clarke has to say out there."

</snip>

link here: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040331/ap_on_el_pr/terrorism_adviser_4

I think I'm going have to side with Clarke. With Moveon.org using his voice and his words, it makes him look like he's a part of the Democratic attack against Bush. Clarke's words and his testimony need to stand by itself without any partisan ties.

:(

he may have a point. They Bush the Bushes have been able to attack Clarke is to insinuate that he is a partisan hack who wants to sell a book

:shrug:

but I do believe we should honor it.

It is true, he did not authorize the ad, but that is no reason to pull it. the world will acknowledge that he didn't authorize it and it will only call more attention to the substance. It would be impossible for the wingnuts to claim anything about it -look at their ads! who uses everything and anything for political reasons?. people need to quit bending over just because they complain. They tried to claim Kerry hi-jacked Jesus last weekend and they seem to have backed off that (too much could be said about them. The more they squeal, the more incompetent they look because they ARE.

His testimony is public record.

is not a really good way to do that.

He won't take anybody's side. and if he's on the side of the truth, he should have no problem with the Move On ad. And if he feels it was out of context, he can say so with no love lost between him & our side.

Clarke can keep doing what he's doing, but let MWO do their job. Everybody's real eager to censor them for some reason and it pissing me off. Move On is a grassroots organization of which I am a contributor. I'm rucky and I approved that message.

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

think Bush will use in commercials??

The minute I heard about the ad, it was clear to me that what Moveon was doing was wrong. The best way to go about this is to keep it non-partisan. MoveOn already has a horrid reputation amongst many Americans, and this will only further drag Clarke's name into "not credible" territory in their eyes.

Clarke should stand on his own.
MoveOn and Kerry's campaign have tons of other issues and people to use in their ads.

organization, and as we all know, "liberal" is a dirty word.

much less formed a negative opinion about it.

How should I know? Ask the people who despise it. Ask the news organizations who always seem to portray it in a negative light.

Its obviously a great organization, but not everyone will agree. It just doesn't have a good reputation, I don't think.

They'd despise MoveOn if it put out ads featuring fluffy bunny rabbits.

I don't get a good feeling watching it. It plays into the "this is partisan politics" game, just like he says. I don't like the ad. I've loved all the other ones. This one doesn't work.

There's a better way to corrobate Clarke's testimony, is to bring in quotes from other people who said the same thing without involving Clarke.

For example, take words out of Woodward's book where Bush said that terrorism wasn't an urgent issue for him and then put that in the ad.

nt

though...just don't like this one and if RC doesn't either, they should shut it off.
JMO

Republicans currently controll all branches of government. Government is run by politicians. Republican politicians were responsible for defending the nation from attack. Republicans failed to defend the nation from attack. Republicans need to be removed because they failed...a failure which cost this country the lives of 3000 civilians 600+ soldiers. It cost the nation of Iraq the lives of 20,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians. What's not political about this?

To hell with this Non-partison crap. It is Partison...the decisions made with regards to protecting this nation were partison and the resolution to the resultant travesty will be partison. When you live by partisonism you shall die by partisonism....you can't change the rules half way through the game.

RC

... (and my partner and I have made a contribution to MoveOn) I do think they should respect Mr Clarke's wishes. To make Clarke's testimony appear partisan may undercut the legitimacy of his testimony in the eyes of many and will certainly be used by the corporate media to discredit his impartiality.

I can't find one on their website.

nt

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

Even if it is public and legally usable audio, they should have asked him first.

Do you think that Democrats will have to ask Bush's permission to use his image or footage of him in an ad? Nope.

It was a public statement by a public figure in a public forum. Not illegal.

respect his wishes. Not to do so will just make them look bad and alienate a lot of people. They need to talk to him and apologize, then ask him if they can still use it. And if he still says no, they need to go along with it. I'm sorry. You don't do that. Clarke is supposed to be an asset and a friend; it's not like quoting Bush.

I just don't think it's 'illegal'.

not illegal - Sheesh - think the GOP would back down? We keep backing down on shit and we will be be bitch-slapped back to oblivion.

Memo to Dick Clarke - moveon.org is not the enemy here.

Clarke is down for the record as saying he asked them to remove it, meanwhile moveon.org still runs the ad. Everybody wins, except Hannity.

And for the people who are saying "oh but Hannity will attack Clarke because he's featured in the ad!"

uh, as if they weren't attacking Clarke ANYWAY.

sorry Dick, but I'm hanging w/ moveon.org on this one -

The good news is "he asked" to be removed which makes him look like a good guy and moveon.org gets their ad. Clarke sells more books, moveon.org gets publicity... Win, win...

...even though I thought they should have asked him. But I like the way you think!
:yourock:

- NO LIBERAL WIMP THINK TANKS ALLOWED!

It's true - that saying about publicity. Bad is better than none. I don't consider this bad however.

No-:yourock:

clarke did this country a great service,we should respect him for his bravery. after seeing him on john stewart it`s clear he`s still a guy who believes in the united states and it`s freedoms.out of respect, moveon they should have asked him...

into their hands....it should be pulled, esp since he didn't approve it and it runs counter to his whole attempt to be non-partisan.

MoveOn is making a big mistake on this one if it persists....it will undermine Clarke.

You can get the same message across with a Democrat with strong credentials. Wes Clark said all this even before Clarke came out...

as if they weren't calling him all kinds of names beforethe ad ran!

Whether he likes it or not he has made statements under oath that have made the Bush* Administration look bad on their first nine months on terrorism. Moveon.org as far as I know has not directly associated themselves with the Democratic Party. Only their great desire to rid America of this Cabal and if they can use the words of an insider to further their goals I say good for them. Not all who oppose Bush* are Democrats. Me for example.

I liked the Ad but, that's not really representative of the impact on the masses. Though MoveOn isn't tied to the Democratic party, it definitely does fuel the idea that the entire thing is part of a partisan attack as opposed to an attempt to get at the truth and point out legitimate deficiencies in the current Admin. MoveOn certainly has every right to keep running it, but Clarke is wise to distance himself.

Clarke is a class act. He said he didn't want get involved in all the politicking going on and I believe him.

on MoveOn.org's part to not discuss it with him before hand. :-(

They should pull it.

It plays in to the RNC ploy to discredit Clarke. It allows the right wing loons to dismiss the real issues and continue to paint Clarke as a tool of the DNC.

Perception is 99% of the game these days and we don't need to give the Bushies help in defining Clarke.

MHO of course

.

agree, especially after seeing how pissed off he looked talking about it on Hardball tonight. He's not happy about it at all.

Damn.

He just wants to do his job and not be a water carrier.

"Richard Clarke said he instructed his lawyer to ask the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to stop broadcasting the ad, which Clarke said was created without his knowledge or permission. The group said it wouldn't pull the ad,"

Why didn't MoveOn ask him first?

And then there's this further down

"The point is not whether they're acting illegally, but I certainly want everyone to understand they are acting without my permission and distorting my message," Clarke said.

I think MoveOn should tread lightly here. It's one thing to use material, another to piss the guy off you took material from who is helping your case of his own accord.

Also I hope CBS is smart about this:

"CBS News was unaware that MoveOn.org was using CBS News copyrighted material without permission and to advocate a point of view," spokesman Kevin Tedesco said. "We are exploring our options."

the quotes are in the public domain. so long as they reference the source, they can use them however they like.

whether it's good strategy or not... i don't know. i think it's fine that they use them, and it's fine for clarke to register his complaint. that way, both sides get what they want. he gets to credibly deny partisanship (shouldn't be hard, being a bush-voter and republican) and they get a good sound-bite (or word-bite?) for an ad.

EDIT: ack. someone already said the same above.

and not that agree or disagree with any thing that this insider / slash / spook has done or not done. He has taken the thing slightly out of partisan hands and put the matter flat in the hands of the people who where supposed to be doing their job but didn't.

Everything I can see about this guy I disagree with, but the point is he saw that he could not function at the area he was working and moved out.
Showing the respect he is asking for seems presumptuous, but burning your bridges because you are angry and want to lash out can be counter productive for others who also might have concern in these matters

I am sure anyone who has suffered tragic loss of family members in any country as a result of 9/11 would find any joy in politicizing that loss.

you say publically, but once said, you can't stop people from quoting you.

He knows this. His request is meant to forestall criticism by the b* camp.

These folks are Dems with real cojones - and we need all of those we can get!

been something said IN PUBLIC by Kerry or anyone else that the Pubs thought would help Bush, they'd use it!

I hate to say this again, but we have to become tougher and meaner or we'll be crushed just like McCain, Clelland and Dean were.

Sorry Richard, if you would have said good things about Bush, they'd be running that too.

The MoveOn ad needs to be shown. And Clarke has said not to so they can't blame him for the ad.

There's going to be a lot of shit flying around in the next few months.

... to his request that MoveOn pull the ad. This ad MUST run until millions have seen it many times. The only good reason for pulling it is that there's an even better ad to replace it.

This way, Clarke can say he had nothing to do with it, and MoveOn can get more publicity every time Clarke gets asked about the ad.

Why should MoveOn stop running its BEST material? The INCREASE in Dubya's poll numbers since Clarke's attack began shows that brainwashed Bush supporters have got to be reprogrammed with months of repetitions of truth-squad ads.

He deserves the respect after putting himself on the line.

This is the kind of straight play we need.

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

When an ad can cause one to look very partisan..It serves neither the supporters of the org. or the organization for the good. AD needs to be pulled ! Not only will Clarke lose credibility but Move on is asking for more troule too and we need them.

Even though Bush is a crook, his supporters are still blinded by the Reich. Only by presenting evidence from REPUBLICANs who've seen what's going on can convince most of the great brainwashed GOP mass.

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

So far, what he's saying helps my side. Clarke's testimony, book and public appearances support the idea that Gov. George W Bush is a moron. As commander-in-chief, he's been a disaster. At best he is a criminally incompetent idiot; most likely, he is a sociopathic traitor.

Regarding "with us or against us": That's exactly what Bush said after 9-11. In so doing, he divided the country. That's very Rovian. Let's try and do better. If we can "mine" the middle by introducing the shocking truth about the Little Turd from Crawford to them, they may find the transition to "our side" much easier.

Clear?



Courtesy of the Bartcop Collection

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU, Posinegativeman!

Clarke spoke publicly and for the record. He doesn't 'own' the rights to his words anymore than Nixon owned his "I am not a crook" moment or Clinton owned his "I did not have sex with that woman" assertion. I'm sure that many who've spoken on the public record would love to have their words be protected from news programs, political campaigns and late night comedians.

People who speak publicly and for the record have to accept that their words and images are public in a free society and they've very little input or control over how they will be used. If the statements are not proprietary (and they're not), protected under a secrets act or court order (and they're not), or untrue and slanderous (and we've no reason to believe they're anything of the kind) - then they're public and in the public domain.

Regardless of how I may empathise and sympathise with Clarke, I do not in any way concur that he has a right to more than the public expression of his disappointment. Which he's made.

Courts all over the country have upheld the right of public media to use the statements and film footage of even private citizens based on the public's right to know. This is campaign footage, but is not substantially different. It certainly isn't mudslinging, and I applaud MoveOn for at least keeping it to within the realm of calling attention to fact rather than the dirty pool and outrageous lies not uncommon in politicking.

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

One of their goals in spinning Clark is to make him sound partisan, to poltiicize the controversy, as a way of discrediting him.

This was reported in the NYT back on Friday or Saturday.

This would be a tough one. Richard Clarke is a great man who has served his country honorably. I just believe it is too important right now to get this message out to comply.

...without being prompted by Matthews. He doesnt look to pleased about this.....

....hes already being gigged for having a partisan agenda, so this hurts his credibilty.

...because they wouldn't have imagined he'd object. I wouldn't have thought he would, since it gets the word out, and I thought he wanted to get the word out. His reaction might have come as a total surprise. But, be that as it may - his reasoning may or may not make sense, but I agree that his wish should be honored. This isn't Dubya who is fair game - this is someone who risked a lot to come forward with the truth. The information can surely be used without using Clarke's name and face?

the election....but now, there's a good chance he will try to pull back. He's gone through a week of being hatcheted...he expected it, but it's always worse when it hits.

Also, now that he's been put into a political ad...you can bet the Bushitas will come back and hatchet him in a more disgraceful manner if they feel it will work to their advantage. They were going to dispense with him now....but now they have even more fuel to add to the fire...

That's probably his best response until something is worked out with MoveOn.

MoveOn should have asked. This was essentially using Clarke soley as the attack mechanism, which is something I think Clarke should have final say on.

I think they should probably have used samples of Clarke's testimony mixed in with sound bites and voiceovers from others.

I have asked on several threads, and no one responds? Clarke should distance himself, MoveOn should run the ad. I guarantee you the GOP would do it gladly.

I don't see a difference.

and not nearly in so responsible a way as MoveOn has. GOP put that rinky-tink music while speeding up Kerry's footage and showing bicycles from the turn of the century. Think they asked permission of Kerry to do that?

I understand Clarke's honorable desire not to be portrayed as partisan. But the GOP is going to do that ANYWAY regardless of what he wants or says. So it's entirely appropriate for an organization that has no collusion with any particular party campaign but wishes to speak up, using public quotes in the public eye, to do so.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

If he doesn't want his words in a political ad, then they should take it out. I know they don't have to but out of respect for a courageous man, they should follow his requests. Maybe they should compromise, take out his exact comments but leave reference of him.

What if the GOP used snippets from Kerry's opponents during the primaries as the basis for an attack ad against Kerry? What if they refused to pull the ad if the Democrats who spoke those words asked the GOP not to air it? Knife seems to cut both ways.