A Warning to supporters of our candidates...

When someone posts an article critical of you candidate, CHECK THEIR SOURCES. A simple google will usually tell you all you need to know.

In the last 24 hours there have been several anti-Clark threads. I have no problem with that. However, among them were:

1) one thread that linked to an article by ELIZABETH DOLE'S EX-PRESS SECRETARY. He's also worked for Senator John Kyl, a rightwing Arizona senator. Yet this poster proudly offered it up as legitimate criticism of Clark.

2) one thread linking to a LTTE from a retired colonel from rural Mississippi who didn't care for Clark. This was posted as though this man was a serious commentator. He's not-he's a local nutball.

3) one thread from a cranky Canadian "humorist" who hates all things American. A quick review of his other writings turned up denunciations of Kerry, Lieberman, and Clinton. He said that he has "no regrets that Gore lost". And we're supposed to take this as serious criticism?

4) one thread linked to an article by a man who collaborated with Philip Agee in his traiterous book Inside the CIA which outed hundreds of operatives and resulted in several deaths. I don't know how you feel, but that's treason to me.

My point is, disrupters work in many ways. I'm sure some of these are innocent. But some, undoubtedly, are being posted to try to tear down all Democrats.

When something negative is posted about your candidate

CHECK THE SOURCE

Check the source.

Also, repub opinions on any dem candidate should be instinctively and immediately discounted, since their intentions can be immediately divined.

But you knew that, right?

those are repub opinions. oh, but they're "legit" because they favor Clark.

and why the constant emphasis on how "Rove fears Clark"?

that's a repub opinion too.

who Republicans vote for. They're enough Democrats to win with no Rethug support at all. But, if they like Clark, should we turn them away? Will Clark get more Republican votes than any other Democrat? Damn right, just because he's ex-military. Whats the problem? Do you not want Republican votes if the candidate can get them? Would they be too "impure"?

any info they present on arnie is suspect?

What "sources" are appropriate for articles about Clark?

His website? (Does he have one yet?)

I don't think most people here appreciate it. If you choose to, fine. But I'm going to be watching and checking and letting people know when right-wing garbage is posted. Personally, I'm not interested in Republican views on who we nominate. However, if you need more anti-Clark articles, you can find plenty at Freerepublic.com. What am I thinking, you're obviously very familiar with their views already.

LOL

But your sources are highly suspect.

Look, I don't want to be adversarial. But posting something from these twits just because it suits your purpose is WRONG. I don't think your a freep or even a bad person. But you allow your dislike of Clark to influence you to post stuff like that. Did you really not know that the author was a right winger or did you just not care? I'm sorry, I would not use those tactics against ANY of our candidates. It's not what DU is supposed to be about. I would be ashamed.

You may not like the source, but the content is accurate.

Sorry.

It was tacky and I would edit it out, but that would make your response look wierd so I'll leave it. Still disagree with you, and still refuse to cite right-wingers in threads I start, but you do what you need to do. I really think with all the anti-Clark stuff out there you could find liberal sources that everyone here would give credence to if you looked a little harder. JMO

I've seen a lot of anti-Clark crap on this forum that is NOT accurate.

And if it is accurate, finding corroboration from a more neutral source shouldn't be that difficult, should it?

Why?

If Clark announces tomorrow morning that the sky is blue, I bet by noon you'd have five DU threads starteed on why he's wrong. But let's go on ...

The point is not that all Republicans are always wrong. The point is that several people (like you, perhaps?) have posted propaganda pieces by Republican partisans trying to tear down Clark. And these same DUers have swallowed what the Repubs say about Clark hook, line, and sinker. And, the thread originator says, don't believe what you read without checking it out. If the source is partisan, take it with several large grains and salt. That would be true of ANY information on ANY candidate. This is just common sense.

Only a flaming idiot would believe what a Republican party operative says about a Democratic candidate without corroboration.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with which candidate might pull in the most crossover voters.

No matter where they're published.

P.S. I do not swallow.

But the facts have to be proven and one can't just go on the word of the winger sources. If we could then...

It would be true the Bill Clinton killed over 40 people on his way to the White House.

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian.

Bill Clinton has a black love child.

Al Gore claimed he "invented the internet."

Clinton allowed bin Laden to get away one... two... three... up to five times!

and on and on and on...

But hey! Facts are facts!

\fakt\ n

1: a thing done
2: PERFORMANCE, DOING
3: the quality of actual being
4: something that has actual existence
5: a piece of information as having objective reality

From: Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary

Facts are facts.

... the next time Newsmax prints something about Clinton's secret plot to rule the world, I'll just accept it.

And it would be ignorant to accept it.

Newsmax is not a credible source. <---------- that is a FACT.

...wasn't the original crux of this thread - or at least this portion of it - not to rely exclusively on rightwing sources?

I mean, in post 69, maha wrote: If the source is partisan, take it with several large grains and salt. That would be true of ANY information on ANY candidate. This is just common sense.

Your reply was "facts are facts no matter where they are published." (post 78)

So I can only assume that by your rejection of maha's advice, you believe rightwing sources are credible only when they publish something you agree with. I'm looking back over your participation in this thread and that is the only conclusion I can draw based on your dismissal of maha's very wise words and your rigid "a fact is a fact."

But, I see where my last post could have caused the confusion. IMHO and most others, Newsmax is not a credible source Period.

I still hold to the "facts are facts", though.

... a rightwing source, one should always scrutinize it more than we would other sources.

Your only response was "a fact is a fact."

Do we accept FOX News and not Newsmax? How about the Wall Street Journal's editorial page and the Drudge Report. New York times?

Who decides what source is credible and which isn't when we quote a rightwing source, especially if we hold to the "facts are facts" mantra?

You still appear to be rejecting the original poster's position about being wary of RW sources by your position of "a fact is a fact" UNLESS it comes from a particular RW source you think is less reliable than the others.

:thumbsup:

and these Clark-bashers was in the Army
and they tried to bash him while they were
still in the Army, it would be a very different
story, wherever they got the stories from or sources
or whatever I'll tell you that. I wish he was
still a General and they were privates and they
tried this stuff on him. Whoa Nelly.

Sorry, he ain't supremecommander anymore. He's just a DLC shill. (And of course, a lobbyist....)

He'd crack some heads. You might think twice
instead of him being calm in a big regular suit
where he's got to grin and bear it. If you had
those stars in your eyes and a big General hat
loaming over you you'd think twice three four
times before coming up with some of this stuff.
You ever hear of Leavanworth by any chance?

and Clark is a putz.

Sir!

What is your source?

www.clarkisaputz.com

Remember what that word did to Alphonse D'Amato...Every time I hear Charles Schumer tear into Bush I smile and remember D'Amato.

I have bookmarked it for later.

It's real cheap and easy to call names, isn't it?

if I had those stars in my eyes and 'a big General hat
loaming over me' I might bust up laughing.

"Crack some heads"? :eyes:

If a active General ever got talked to like
some of the people around here talk to
General Wesley Clark and they were in the
military, they would write home wishing that
all they got was their head cracked. I mean,
for Pete's sake!

as checking facts. If you want to put blinders on about your candidate just because you think he's a 'nutball', or think that someone capable of treason is incapable of telling the truth, beware--the criticism might be legit.

Excerpted from William Blum's 2000 book Rogue State: Guide to the World's Only Superpower

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html

Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations and of cynicism. Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the "nongovernmental"-part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through the NED.


If you dispute the FACTS presented in this article about Wesley Clark's National Endowment for Democracy, please explain yourself.

Note that Agee's book wouldn't have been "traitorous" if it hadn't presented the facts accurately, now would it?

Those aren't facts, but arguments, opinions. Learn the difference, then throw words around as if you know what they mean, because this post very clearly demonstrates you do not.

It is a fact that Reagan was president in 1983. It is not a fact that NED was created for nefarious purposes -- it is this particular author's opinion, which he argues in this passage, and presumably throughout his book, because his argument here is totally unsupported -- by facts.

But that wouldn't be quite the height of sophistry, now would it?

Why should I argue against a totally unsupported opinion? It's a waste of my time. I glanced over that giant, masturbatory thread about the NED and almost died laughing; arguing with you here, when you don't even know what a fact is, would surely be my death.

To everybody who has to read it.

You have to have something to say, even when ... you have nothing to say.


'A well dressed scarecrow.' ROFL.

seems to be your main if not only response to information which puts your boy in a bad light. Careful or DUers reading these threads might come to the conclusion you can't defend Clark at all.

Eloriel

Careful DUers reading reading these threads might come to the conclusion that you haven't been reading these threads carefully at all.

was "terrorism". I do not, therefore we do not share a common world view. The man's opinion means nothing to me because we're coming from totally different places. I read the article you linked to and did some further research about NED that leaves me somewhat puzzled by your hatred. To each his own.

Regardless, you and I do not agree on basic fundamentals of foreign policy and intelligence and thats not likely to change (certainly not on my part and probably not on yours either).

Fair enough.

My experience in logic is in CS, rather than philosophy, but this sure seems like a straw man to me.

Everybody uses logical fallacies on occasion in informal argumentative discussion.

What I object to is an entire group of people who very seldomly mount any arguments that are not obvious logical fallacies.

as long as the facts do not come from RW websites, they're o-kay? Oh yeah, are "far left" (still don't know what that means) o-kay, or are they not credible as well? Second oh yeah - are DLC websites/and or members o-kay?

To make it perfectly clear, could you please post a list of the websites that are o-kay?

It's not about which sites are OK and which aren't (though people can certainly argue about that if they want to, but it seems pointless to me). It's about making judgements based on good information, which includes understanding the context of the information.


-ph :smoke:

Someone gets it! This is not a Clark boosting thread. It is meant for ALL candidates. Dean, Kucinich, Kerry, Edwards and others have all been unfairly criticized by posts from right-wing sources on this board. It should stop. Not just those against my candidate, but against all candidates.

I simply do not trust REPUBLICANS to tell the truth about any Democrat.

There is more than enough of THAT here. By the way, did you mean to say "Jesus"?

So much crap is posted here by people who have an ax to grind that they'll use any source to bolster their arguments.

it is the equivalent of RW talk radio, apparently, because they published an article critical of clark, and clinton. that's a BIG no-no, and makes them "haters." i just checked...there is another article critical of clark's candidacy there right now...this one is probably also a pack of lies :shrug:

There is definitely legitimate criticism of Wes Clark. But you must seperate the trash from the serious analysis. However, I'd like to know why they criticized Clinton-that would tell me a lot about their motives. You don't happen to have a link to it, do you?

the article mentioned that clinton co-opted some neocon issues, like welfare reform...i don't have the link, but it was posted previously. i believe it was written by wayne madsen, and i do believe someone commented that he worked for bob barr in the past.

co-opted welfare reform. It was the lowest point of the Clinton presidency from my standpoint and the "reform" was a travesty. I worked with the "Workforce Incentive Network" in Mississippi (welfare to work program) and it was a joke. That said, I still adore Clinton. No politician I've ever experienced has given me 100% satisfaction and, at this point, I doubt anyone ever will. Clark comes closer than most.

And my mind is not closed. When anti-Clark threads are posted, I read them and research the authors. I've already changed from Graham to Clark and I certainly don't rule out changing again. But, if I do, it will be because of sources like you quote, not Liz Dole's ex-press secretary.

i appreciate and respect your intellect, and your fairness. a few clark supporters here aren't as open-minded, so forgive me if i was a tad testy. someone actually took issue with the use of "clinton" and "neocon" in the same sentence. :D

and clinton...he did a few disaspointing things, but overall, he was indeed a good president...no comparison to you-know-who.
at this point, i don't know who i will support, but i do support a critical, and fair dialogue about all the candidates.
i sure wish gore was running.

your point about verifying sources is a good one.

I greatly respect your posts, even when we disagree. You appear to be skeptical, but open to dialogue. I appreciate that because I also tend in that direction. I also wish Gore was running but I really can understand why he isn't. I don't know if you saw the thread earlier today that replayed the obscenities Republicans were shouting outside the Vice Presidential residence after Gore was elected in 2000 but it was chilling. I well remember the "Get out of Cheney's house" shit and it seriously angered me.

Verifying sources is essential if we don't want to be manipulated and I, for one, don't want the people I despise to have any say in my choice of a nominee.

I think that what he is saying, is to view the source of the criticism through the lens of the writer/speaker.

I subscribe to and read "The Nation", "The Progressive", and "Harper's". I love all three magazines and will definately renew my subscriptions.

But, I also realize that they have an agenda. Therefore, I need to reconcile their point of view with other sources before making an informed decision.

-----

BTW: I just finished Clark's new book, "Winning Modern War", and I have decided to back him 100% for the nomination. In it, Clark lays out his thoughts on the Iraq war, globalization, economic concerns in the U.S. and abroad, the effect of social concerns on foreign policy, and much more. He also discusses PNAC and advocates a return to multilaterism in foreign policy to help America regain respect around the World.

He is very critical of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Company. I believe that the book erases any doubts that I had about his motives for running.

It is not on sale through Amazon yet, but I think most bookstores should have stock on hand.

Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire

(on edit - fix URL)

And funny too! Did you see that thread about Clark and Dyncorp that turned out to be a case of mistaken identity? LOL. Can't stop laughing...hheheheh.

How did you conclude that the Dyncorp/Clark thing was definitely a case of mistaken identity? I never saw anything conclusive either way, just the argument that there was another Wesley Clark, and supporters of the candidate concluded that the CSC Clark was not the candidate because it said "Mr." in front of his name and not "General". Can you point to something more conclusive?

The biography of the other Clark is that of a computer scientist. And on the board of directors, the the particular company that "Clark" represented was called Computer Science Corp.

And of course, as you've pointed out, there's the fact the Mr./General telltale sign that points to it not being General Wesley Clark.

And Seventhson, the poster of this "link" between Clark and Dyncorp, present this as something he'd just found out, acting like it's news and a surprise to him. But when other posters checked up on him, they found that he'd posted this information three other times previously, so obviously he wasn't exactly being truthful. Tellingly, Seventhson did not respond to this accusation, especially since the other posters provided links to previous instances where he's bruited this story about, hardly news to him.

There are contact emails on that page. You're free to email the board of directors and ask them yourself, if you so desire. You don't need to take my word for it. Send an email.

There are some whose minds you will never change, but maybe your post will make potential Clark supporters think twice before they believe some of the bullsh*t that gets posted here. Thanks.

Kayeleigh

I still have questions about Clark, but so far everything I've learned has supported my initial positive reaction to his announcement. So far I've yet to see a single allegation against him with legs. Some people don't want a military man, fine. That's their right. But, overall, the attacks on Clark have totally failed to stick. JMO.

The RW is in full "Stop Clark" mode. They'd feel a whole lot better if he was taken out of contention. I think that of the current pack they'd prefer to run against Dean but I don't have facts about that. It's clear, though, that Clark is number one on their hitlist. The good news about that, if Clark does get the nomination, is that they'll have used up a lot of their ammo in the primaries. Doesn't mean they won't reuse it, of course. They've never been afraid to repeat themselves. When the primaries are over, no matter who our guy is, they'll be working on splitting the left off of the Democrats fulltime and they'll have some ammunition because all the really possible candidates have something in their past or their records that the left isn't going to like. For that matter, even the impossible candidates do to a lesser extent.

“The RW is in full "Stop Clark" mode”
That is at best misleading and you know it. What negative press has he gotten since he entered the race? When Limbaugh had his problems the only Democrat that was asked to comment on it was Clark, and he got a nice sound bite condemning the bad guy.
If they were in full stop mode some of the stories you hear at DU would make it to the press and you know it.

Drudge was the first to break the Clark speech at the RNC fundraiser AND the first (at least it was the first place I saw it) to talk about the famous non-call to Karl Rove.

Wesley Clark has been a daily in depth subject on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Neal Boortz. (I listen to portions of all three.)

And the Moonie Times have paroted what these have published/said (or is it the other way around?)

Through all this, the negative spin on Howard Dean has been non-existant, unless you count the near daily offer from Rush to help Dean beat Clark.

That Rush and Drudge is the mainstream media.
And you are right there are no negative stories about Dean; in fact there are no stories at all. But Clark is mentioned all the time, and most of it is milk toast. Show me something on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC CNN, or FOX. That is the media that most people will see.

We are discussing rightwing media. right?

try again.

Or do you subscribe to the notion that the media has a left wing bias?

you said, "Show us the proof of that “The RW is in full "Stop Clark" mode” That is at best misleading and you know it. What negative press has he gotten since he entered the race?

I showed you how the RW is in full "Stop Clark" mode.

You then asked the totally out of left field question: "So you think
That Rush and Drudge is the mainstream media?"

Why totally out of left field? Because, in your words, we were discussing the rightwing, not the mainstream, and my post never said nor implied Rush and Drudge was the mainstream.

You then dodged and asked: "Fox and MSNBC is not right wing media?"

Well, as a matter of fact, they are and I'm glad you mentioned them. Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews on MSNBC and Hannity on FOX have given plenty of negative coverage of Clark.

Which brings up back to the original point. You wanted proof that the RW has been in full stop mode on Clark.

The answer, again, is yes.

Show me something on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC CNN, or FOX. That is the media that most people will see.

Again, we're referring to the RW media. Whereas I have said FOX and MSNBC HAVE given negative coverage, all others did report the "republican fundraiser dinner" and the non-call to Rove.

on edit: You entire premise must be based on the belief that ALL mainstream media is rightwing since you're using the terms interchangably.

Try again.

You must have taken lessons in that to be so good. I’ll just assume that you will not talk about it and move on.

... you just go on backtracking and trying to divert the point. Easy than admitting your wrong.

:eyes:

Let’s try to find the truth. Tell you what you research the major news networks for negative stories about Clark and I will search for positive ones and then lets compare what we have and see.
But of course then we would argue what is positive and negative and whether mentioning Clarks name a dozen times every hour is a positive thing, and it would go on and on.
No what we need is a study by science to tell just which side the media and the RW is on because this is all well scripted propaganda created by some very savvy marketing people. And don’t say that this is to a lie because most thinking people know that. Why else would they need all that money to run?

you research the major news networks for negative stories about Clark and I will search for positive ones and then lets compare what we have and see.

That wasn't the crux of the argument. The point was that the rightwing media has been printing negative stories about Clark or, as it was termed, in "full stop mode" when it comes to Clark. You denied that to be so.

We have never discussed whether positive stories have been issued by the major news networks. The original objective was negative stories by the rightwing media.

I reject the notion that the major networks comprise the rightwing media - a proposition you injected into the discussion after you challenged someone to provide proof of Clark negativity in the rightwing media.

There are only a handful of outlets who intentionally position themselves to the right - and I will be more than happy to demonstrate their bias against Wesley Clark.

Declaring any other sourse "rightwing" just because you don't like what they report is ludicrous.

But I will not enter into a pissing contest with you on the proposition that all media is rightwing and whether there has or has not been positive stories on Clark - which wasn't the original premise of the discussion.

But of course then we would argue what is positive and negative and whether mentioning Clarks name a dozen times every hour is a positive thing, and it would go on and on.

Don't waffle on this. A negative story is one reported that holds someone in a bad light. Mentioning a name several times isn't negative.

No what we need is a study by science to tell just which side the media and the RW is on because this is all well scripted propaganda created by some very savvy marketing people.

bwahahahahahaha... how some of you love to bat that "propaganda" word around. No, we don't need science. It is simple. Has the rightwing media over-reported stories on Wesley Clark that were negative - designed to cast a negative shadow on him. I say yes. You say no.

And don’t say that this is to a lie because most thinking people know that. Why else would they need all that money to run?

Most people know this? You're so funny. Why not look at a candidate's public expense account? Check out how much a 30 second TV ad in major markets cost. Do you think their staff works for free? Signs. Billboards. Air fare. Travel expenses. Office space in multiple cities, the list goes on and on.

Now we have your definition of right wing media and it does not include any of the major networks, just a handful that you mentioned.
And your assertion that when the major media covers Clark in a positive way it has no effect at all. And that all you want to talk about is the negative stories from Rush and Drudge. I got it.
That is what you hang the theory that repugs are afraid of Clark the natural winner on.
And I already know that you think that the RW wants to run against Dean because Karl Rove said so. ( I won’t ask the obvious question of what else do you believe that Rove says)
But the hardest thing for me to swallow is when you say that there are no marketing going on in the campaign. I am ot that gullible and I don’t think anyone else is either. I know that most of the money for a 30 second spot goes to marketing people and they are experts in selling. That is what they do.
Dean is marketed just like Clark and all the others, no need to try to bullshit people in to believing something so silly. Propaganda is not a bad word, but it is a tool for good or evil, whatever you want to use it for.

Now we have your definition of right wing media and it does not include any of the major networks, just a handful that you mentioned.

No, there are more than the 3 I mentioned, I just don't scream "rightwing media" whenever a media outlet reports something I don't like.

And your assertion that when the major media covers Clark in a positive way it has no effect at all.

I've asserted no such thing. You are lying.

And that all you want to talk about is the negative stories from Rush and Drudge.

No, Rush and Drudge were examples.
Say it with me: e x a m p l e s....

I got it.

No, apparantly, you do not.

But the hardest thing for me to swallow is when you say that there are no marketing going on in the campaign.

Again, you are trying to deviate from the original crux of the thread. If you want to start a new topic, by all means do. But, for the record, quote me where I said there was no marketing going on. But, also explain your logic as to how marketing has anything to do with the rightwing media's spin on Wesley Clark.

I am ot that gullible and I don’t think anyone else is either. I know that most of the money for a 30 second spot goes to marketing people and they are experts in selling. That is what they do.

Of course, but what does this have to do with the rightwing media's spin on Clark?

Dean is marketed just like Clark and all the others, no need to try to bullshit people in to believing something so silly.

Now you've gone WAY of topic. I don't see how you are tying a candadate's marketing campaign to the rightwing spin on Wesley Clark.

And I already know that you think that the RW wants to run against Dean because Karl Rove said so.

I remember that exchange, too. You whined for proof (just like in this thread) and when I gave it, you scurried away and never addressed it.

Propaganda is not a bad word, but it is a tool for good or evil, whatever you want to use it for.

Go back to the beginning of this thread - especially the portion you, unionmade, and I have contributed to, and see if you can't see where you have twisted and spun and generally back peddled on your entire postition.

I have learned a lot about you.

..like, when you scream "prove it" and someone does, you either run away or try to change the subject.

But you have proved nothing except that you can keep circling forever by insisting on terms that you provide.

...and in a discussion, you can't keep changing the terms whenever you position weakens.

By the middle of this conversation, you wanted to define rightwing media as the mainstream media - a proposition that I and most will flat out reject.

And you certinly did run away after you whined for proof on the Karl Rove quote and then it was provided.

You didn't run away this time, but your responses got more off topic and bizarre as they went.

...that many posting on this thread would otherwise abhore rightwing sources...

...until they suit their purposes.

So, from now on, if rightwing sources can be trusted on Clark info, we can trust them on EVERY issue...

We can make our point with legitimately with solid, liberal sources. Wes Clark is the real deal and he's Dub's worst nightmare.

Glad we're on the same side :thumbsup:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! If the rightwing media reports WMDs DO exist in Iraq and they've been found, by God it is the truth!

Unless we have liscense to be selective in what we believe from the rightwing sources... like when it has to do with three individuals the right wing feels threatened by the most: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and now apparantly, Wesley Clark.

such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International:

New Amnesty International Report Says NATO Committed War Crime During Kosovo Conflict

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2000/fry06072000.html

Pentagon Report Whitewashes Civilian Deaths in Yugoslavia

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato208.htm

CIVILIAN DEATHS IN THE NATO AIR CAMPAIGN

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/

Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/docs/nato_all.pdf

... that caused so many civilian deaths. Clark argued against it.

Next?

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

..and they don't usually get involved in the mudslinging at DU and those candidates aren't considered legitimate threats by the rightwing.

Goes for Graham and Edwards, too, but to a lesser extent.

But Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Dean supporters have some BIG surprises waiting for them around the corner.

The Sierra Blanca story, for example, is going to bite Dean in the ass. John Kerry has been hammering it, and several VT reporters and TX and VT environmentalists have a tale to tell about it, too.

If your candidate is in the upper tier, and you're slinging mud at Wesley Clark on DU, expect to be in major defense mode in the coming months.

First get Clark out. I really think that if they should succeed in that and Kerry or Gephardt became the frontrunner they'd start in on either of them in earnest, but particularly Kerry. I think they want anyone who can take the national security issue away from them out of the race, like yesterday. If Dean is the man, they'll revisit the areas where he's vulnerable to disapproval on the left and the bad back thing is going to get huge, huge play in the media if it's Dean in the general. It's not a mystery.

The strategy is pretty clear to see. I think there are some other things afoot right now that are going to put all our frontrunners on the hotseat in a very, very difficult way right now as we type. The attack by Israel in Syria strikes me as an October suprise, although it's not the October we were expecting, but that's another thread and a whole other debate.

I rather we get all of this out in the open now than to have an Eagleton surprise after the Convention. I also would like to hear it now, and get a chance to ascertain its credibility than having the story break on the eve of the election. I say this as a Dean supporter. Let's hear it all, about all of them!

We should always be aware of the source when we analyze a candidate.

However the counterpoint is valid as well: even when considering the source, we shouldn't discount the facts.

Sometimes your enemy won't need to lie or distort when they have the truth at hand. I certainly don't need to lie when trashing b*sh. It would be a shame if a Republican would dismiss the valid and relevent facts I present, simply because I am an avid b*sh hater. And conversely it would be tragic if they only listened to FOX News for the "truth", simply because FOX represents the same POV.
The most valid critical arguments will usually come from an opponent.

So yes, pay attention to the source, but no, don't immediately dismiss it out of hand either.