Wes Clark on Hardball - Now

Talking about Rusmfeld, Iraq, Iran, etc.....along with Dan Burton(R)Indiana (Yuk)....the ultimate Clinton hounddog.

Seems like Burton is doing all of the talking. Like he knows anything!

Said that it was the same ol' same ol'.

They're on commercial now.

He is still on, after the break--2nd segment.

Now, if only he gets a chance to speak. Geez. Burton has a big mouth. Windbag!

Burton, with his "don't know shit" ass was doing all of the talking....and saying absolutely nothing...other than, we have to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from developing a Nuclear PROGRAM.

I believe that this administration is going to "save" Iran for the 2008 election. Will probably wait till the Dems pick a strong domestic policy candidate who has no National Security experience during the Democratic primaries...and then they'll ramp up a crisis/show down with Iran.....and then scare everyone into voting for the Repugs.

I'm 12 steps in front of Rove, the asshole.

And Tweety let him go on and on and on saying nothing.

"The preznit sent a message that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons!"

Gee, I'll bet they never realized that before...

"They'd better not or else!!"

Or else what?

"Or else we'll have to RE-EVALUATE."

He really did say that when asked what the preznit meant the US would do if they continued. We'll "re-evaluate." Ooooooh. Well that sure made it clear. :eyes:

I get angry about being too poor to afford cable any longer. ;(

that he should have because of the torture.

Had windbags Burton and Matthews doing most of the opining......Clark spoke as much as he could under the circumstances.

I have to write a letter to hardball....telling them, I want to hear from the experts....not the "retired" politicians like Burton, who don't know doo-doo squat!

Did you hear Clark's radio interview from yesterday? 42 minutes and lotsa of info! Foreign policy and talked about domestic politics(that comes at about 33 minutes in). Now that's the kind of venue that Clark needs. These short interviews on these cable presstitute shows are just not worthwhile.

Here's the link to the radio interview:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x5200

I didn't know until that interview that President Carter had called Wes Clark and was one of the ones that asked him to run.

and I did listen to the KPCC inteview. I really loved it....posted about it in the Clark Supporters forum. It's a great interview.

He has other people on but hardly lets them talk. I remember Jeane (sp?)was on with a head person of AAR and if they didn't yell and jump in they wouldn't have had a chance to say anything. I think on these shows you can't be poliet but you have to totally debate and not be nice. Scarborough is just an a$$ as Matthews. If they don't let you talk I suggest walking out like Malloy did once on Fox. Let them have their whore fest.

one bit. Save your money as cable is worthless, IMO.

of dubyas rhetoric to Iran vs. his fathers policies in '89 on Iraq that got thousands of Shite killed.

n/t

The sig line prompted me to ask this.

3rd in TN and VA.

IMHO, he did amazingly well considering the media called him dead before NH finished voting.

;) and on edit... 2nd in New Mexico???

Aw. Nice. :) Anybody else win TN? I think if Kerry did more campaigning here he could've done a bit better.

Oklahoma, and came 2nd in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota.

He would have done much better....but the media had written him off after New Hampshire.

When people don't know you are still in the race, it's hard to get their votes.

Illustration of some of the reasons why Clark was "disappeared from the race" here....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=310182

It sounds like he has some pull in the SW but didn't do so well in the South. (I don't consider OK the South).

What did Clark have to say about the Iraq *elections* ?

That was how you asked it I think.

On the Iraq elections, Clark basically credits our troops for their skills and determination, then questions the cheerleading that the right is doing as ignoring the difficulties yet to come.

(this is from different interviews recently)

he has countered the republican claim of high turnout by pointing out that the turnout may be high among Shite, but it is anemic among the Sunni.

by listen to his own words here...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1564522&mesg_id=1564638&page=

If you bother to go to the link I provided on your first question...then you would not have stated that "he didn't do well in the South"....cause four southern primaries at a time when you have already been written out of the race and not given any publicity (but Kerry and Edwards got plenty)...doesn't lead to an accurate assessment. In fact, it's a miracle that he did as well as he did.
Plus Red state do not equal South. A red State is a state that the Republicans routinely win....and although the south tends to all be red, other states not in the south are red too.....like Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, etc... If we could win these red states, we wouldn't need the South.

Since Kerry did so well in the south in the primaries, how come he didn't during the General election? You see, the logic doesn't follow. The media manipulated our primaries, and if you were not aware of this.....then I've got news for you.
---------
Here's an exerpt from the link I provided...

Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004

THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-----------------------
While John Kerry is near 100% awareness according to the ARG, Wesley
Clark has the following numbers among likely Democratic primary voters:
Tennessee - 73%
Virginia - 86%
Wisconsin - 86%
---------------
Here's a few examples of mediawatchdogs doing their work and busting the media on the underreporting on Wes Clark. There are many more.....We won't even mention the endless manipulative polls used by the media to influence elections....

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerry ...
Networks Anointed Kerry, Edwards Before Iowa Did

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000032.asp
"Oops -- There ARE More Than Two Candidates"

http://campaigndesk.org /
In a moment of flashback, Mickey Kaus writing on Slate remembers that there's still, technically, a nomination fight going on, and acidly points out what a lot of our readers have been arguing: Wes Clark is getting an increasingly raw deal. :

Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004

THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-------------------------
NBC's Today Show Saturday morning, this is the coverage score for candidates:

Discussing the So Carolina Debate this was how many times Tim Russert mentioned candidates names:

Kerry 7 times
Dean 7 times
Edwards 1 time
Clark 0 times

This even even though one of the topics disc in this segment was national defense and other was the economy.
Pictured:

Kerry 2 times
Dean 2 times
Clark 0 times

This on backdrop of the fact that Dean is on a 'downslide' also so if Clark is dismissed for this reason, so would Dean. Also Dean is not running first or second place in any state in upcoming primaries Tuesday Feb 3rd.

In following segment on 'looking ahead to Tuesday', Tim Russert mentioned these candidates:

Kerry 6 times
Dean 0 times
Edwards 4 times
Sharpton 4 times
Clark 3 times

Sharpton is not running in first or second place anywhere and Clark is running in first place in OK and second place AZ.
------------------------------
ABC coverage report on 2/2/04- ABC's coverage the morning of the race for the primary on their Good Morning America Show. Tomorrow is primary day in 7 states.

The coverage was a two part theme.

Main theme was that Kerry was a Patriot fan and Edwards was from Panther territory, so all the coverage was on them and pictures of them campaigning and also watching the Super Bowl game.

No of Time Candidates Mentioned:
(in order of frequency)
Kerry 4 times
Dean 2 times
Edwards 2 times

Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

No. of Time Candidates Pictured:
Kerry 6 times
Dean 5 times
Edwards 4 times

Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

Second part of coverage was on the 'race in general'. It started out, "Well, that was in So Carolina, but there are other states in the race for Tuesday election: Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona (he named them all).
(The report "Amazingly there are NO negative ads running in these states against Senator John Kerry, the presumed front runner." (That was the report friends for the primary race friends on ABC.)

Candidates mentioned news segment two:
Kerry 1 time

Candidates pictures in news segment two:
Kerry 1 time

Candidates not mentioned or pictured in entire coverage:
Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0

If you were trying to pick a 'winner' for a race against Bush, who would you vote for in Tuesday's primary?
--------------------
ABC coverage report BarbW on 2/4/04- After Clark's Oklahoma win:
The below is a link to ABC New's Home Page. It looks like a Kerry/Edwards ad, not a cover story. Do you think that they are trying to tell us that Kerry and Edwards are winners. I think so. No sign of Wes on his win here. Clark is invisible.

Then even more amazing, check out their coverage of 'results by state'. I thought for sure I would find Clark's win here - NOT. Not even under Oklahoma!!
www.abcnews.com

Okay this is just online. I'm am coming with their television coverage this morning, which is the same. They don't even admit he won Oklahoma. They say he is leading in OK, like the counting is still going on at 7 am this morning. (Kerry won, Edwards won and Clark is leading in OK, tight race...they won't use the 'win' word with him, as in 'winner')
------------------
02/05/2004
The media continue their not so subtle BIAS.

The following page shows the Campaign Schedules for the runners.

* NOTE * - Clark's and Deans schedules do not include the address of where his rallies are while Kerry's and Edwards have detailed addresses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/politics/main ...

This is clear discrimination, I used to like CBS News, I will never forget how they have shaped and dictated this nomination.
------------------
CBS coverage report BarbW on 2/6/04- CBS portrays Clark as a loser again.
CBS Evening News last night, Friday, Feb 6th.

transcript used, but transcribed to notes taken by hand so inexact:

"Next Tuesdays primary proves to be a do or die test for John Edwards and Wesley Clark. They are both native sons to the South. If one of these guys manages to pull off both states, the other one is gone.

Edwards says he is the one because he could carry the south (lots more words and picture of Edwards in cheering thongs).

The AR born Clark, *running low on money, cannot sustain his candidacy on just his slim win in OK (showing picture of a tired looking Clark speaking to practically an empty room.)

(Incidentally, the day before ABC showed pictures of Clark supporters silent and sitting in the grass with signs of support laying on the ground as backdrop for their report. Only one supporter was still standing and she was looking down, like she was discouraged. Gist of story there was also, campaign just barely hanging on.)

Coverage goes on to say that if Edwards and Clark split the South Tuesday then race is over and Kerry wins, and then race is between Edwards and Clark for VP spot. (of course looking at the pictures of Edwards cheering crowds, anyone would assume that the winner of VP spot will be Edwards, especially if this coverage continues. Although it IS better than nothing but barely.
----------------------
I could go on and on and on......

I can't listen on this computer, the speakers are blown, but I'll check it out on one of our other computers.

I am interested in keeping up with what Clark says about Iraq. I'm glad to hear he noted the problems with *election* turn out. I hope he candidately talks more about what a sham the *election* was in the near future.

VERY much better in Tennessee had the media not already coronated Kerry and Edwards.
His internal polling was showing he had Tennessee wrapped up until just a day or two before the primary. We had people - Clark volunteers - calling us telling us that they were switching to Kerry because he would be "more electable" against Bush in the fall.
How's that for sticking by your candidate?
I also question the vote. It was not a hidden secret that the rightwingers - who didn't have a primary to deal with - were pushing for Edwards or Kerry OVER Clark because they feared Clark. It was on Instapundit and Polipundit, two right-wing blogs, for days before the election.
Here's what solidifies my belief that this is EXACTLY what happened - Clark came in first or second in ALL of the major cities, where true Democrats reside. In the rural counties, he came in sometimes second, but mostly third. These are counties that have about as many true Dems as could fit into a phone booth, but they had high voter turnout in the Dem primaries.
It really didn't fit that Clark would come in third because he was MOBBED everywhere he went on the "Love Bus."

the media...I wonder if the posters still think that media had no role in the maneuvering of this election....

said that Rummy did the right thing when he tried to resign!!! (over Abu G.)

I haven't heard and, as you know, I am very curious.

here is the link:
http://www.scpr.org/programs/talkcity/index.shtml#
Go down to Feb 2, 2005. Click to listen.

I dunno, Frenchiecat. He spent lots of time recruiting for the empire and even said "be all that you can be" to talk about community service for youth which he always linked to military service. Always.Yes, disclaimers about "doesn't have to be the military" but this is transparent. An economy that's shrinking and wars needing to be committed will need to do something with the youth and Wesley Clark is the Friendly General to lead them to...Tehran? Syria? Indonesia?

He couldn't articulate any Dem value to go up against the Repubs when the hostess described a pathetic Dem party. He said "we'll have to see what attitudes are and the situation and so forth." This the Blowing-In-The-Wind school of politics. Big help that is. Not.

He did embrace the Constitution and that's a very good thing. But so does everyone. Even Bush** and Gonzales.

And he left OIL out of the discussion of why the neo-cons are in the middle east and instead cited China as a looming threat. Hmm.

Wars are fought for economic reasons. Period. So to have a book titled 'Winning Modern Wars' really means 'getting away with murder.'

Thanks for the link. I'll save it. Confirmed quite alot for me.

Guess, I oughtta know...

...but the Gen'ral be the first to call out those NeoCon scallywags, while DEM'others hid in the gallos. China owns 30% of our debt,..economically speaking, we'll be exchanging "yuans" and "jiaos" just for "fens"... and instead of sailing me'frigate, I'll be sailing their "junks",...

He does believe in public service...I noticed he said that it didn't have to be in the military.

He seems very worried about the Democrats getting their act together; which is a new wrinkle for him. One of Clark's amazing strengths is to recognize the possible future of structural movements. I worry too. Life in a one-party state is really a fucked up way to live.

BTW, Clark was a good friend of John O'Neill's. It's those truth tellers who tend to keep their footing even when surrounded by the worst of liars.

that Clark knows exactly who these people (the neocons) are. Also, it was Clark who advised Richard Clarke to "tell the truth" because although they would roll out a campaign of personal destruction aimed at R Clarke, (as they did with O'Neill and Ritter and W. Clark) that is was important for the future of the country.

...thus it be like these PNAC'kleheads sharpen'nin a blade and slicing thru a swarm of horseflies around Elephant dung. The neocons lack 2 other tools: detante and diplomacy, ...as the Gen'ral has said. But we'knows them neocons hate french,...and prefer swiping thru their pile o'shit.

Break out the grog...thars word that that that lillylivered black-hearted scallywag is fixin to Pirate-ize the people's social security. And how many fingers would he be holdin up? I ask ya that.

~Iron Jenny Flint at your service.

ps I'm bad at pirate-talk, but I knows the difference between a lie and the truth. Raising one now to all of the truth tellers, and the good General leads the mates.

Aiye, Capn Bushwack be a bastert! Been sailing da'blogoshpere for his SS Piratization, word be that he be filling it's gallos with bounties of our gold,..Arrhh!

Lady Flint,..it be sometime since me'goodeye seen me'mateys.
Alas, from da'deck of me'newly sequestered frigate,..The Patriots Dissent!<\i>

~=]; )

Cheers ta'ya all ye Bushwhacking rascals a'bordd the SS'Aintbroke!! Arrh.. :beer:

He specifically said America is not an empire; but I guess you think he didn't mean it.

He said he wished young Americans wanted to serve their country in some way, but not necessarily the military; but you think that's "transparent," which seems to mean lying.

He embraced the Constitution; but "so does everyone." So that doesn't matter.

He described the Democratic value of reaching out in service to others to grow strong communities, rather than striving to go home with the most chips and build walls around our families. But I guess that's either not a Democratic value in line with our party's history of social progress, or else, he didn't mean it.

So no matter what he said, you've decided he's all about "getting away with murder," blowing in the wind, and leading our youth into Tehran, Syria, or Indonesia.

Frankly, I have to wonder why you bothered to listen to it.

You know I have grave reservations about the further militarization of our culture. We are already in a para-military police-state. As soon as dissent actually matters, terrible things will happen in this country that many can't even imagine, a totalitarian lock-down.

I understand you have placed your trust and hope in WesClark and I envy that. I'm not on a zealous mission to take that from you. Please don't take it personally. Thanks for the info you present to justify your confidence. I read it searchingly. We want the same thing for our country.

Read Robert O'Harrow Jr.'s 'No Place to Hide' about how far down the path to Poindexter's Total Information Awareness we already have gone over the last 4 years.

Clark's association with Acxiom and DARPA disturbs me.
Clark's association with James Lee Witt Associates, former FEMA head now revolving door security industry lobbyist is disturbing.
Clark's heavy recruiting pitch for pointing youth at national service is disturbing. Sure, he seems to be trying to keep our military from breaking down and trying to look out for the troops stuck in a very poor management of their lives. We are in a dire situation on all fronts.

The federal organizations I FEAR the most are those three:
Pentagon, DARPA, FEMA. That only leaves the CIA out as the Four Riders of the Apocalypse eliminating any hope of democracy in this country.

Do you understand why some of us are deeply disturbed by this? I'm not an alarmist. I spend hours a day reading to figure this out like a Manhatten Project against Hitler. Because IT IS against Hitler.

War is for economics. Not heroics. That's why a book called 'Winning Modern Wars' is also disturbing.

I'm glad to hear that WesClark urged Richard Clarke to talk. There's something going on that not even Richard Clarke is telling us. He mentioned Operation Vigilant Warrior in one unexplained sentence in his book 'Against All Enemies.' No explanation of something at the very heart of the 9/11 event which began history for too many Americans.

And WE have to figure out the game and players. It's bigger and older than the neo-cons. Maybe that's part of our different perspective. What's going on is connected to 100 years of American Empire.

Just because WesClark says "we aren't an empire" that does not stop it from being exactly that. The neo-cons only crime is losing a war and blowing the cover of the fascists who have owned and run the US for the last century.
http://www.padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK.html#BOOKPARTS
(George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography)


I'll keep looking and listening. I'd like nothing more than for Clark to be "all that he can be." That would be great. Fingers crossed.

anything more than what supports your negative view of Wes Clark. What else is new?

With a 42 minute interview that's frank and honest, and armed with a fine tooth comb, those who want to, can certainly find what they want. They can fear the suggestion for public service to our country and disregard Clark saying that it did not have to be in the military. They can forget to mention his discussion about the Money and power issues that he discussed. One can just cut and paste too, whatever the pleasure. This country is full of those who justify means to their end.

In the end, those folks are only lying to themselves in that they are forced to work overtime to dissect, misinterpret, disbelieve (the portion that they want), etc., etc. Negativity comes from many corners.

One day, maybe Democrats will get a fucking clue. For now, many are into that real "useful" eating their own mode that is oh so easy and unconstructive.

Just sad.

It is a true for the left as it for the right. When I saw the link, I knew. I'm writing a new piece about this...I'm not sure how I grew out of it. But I did.

Thanks for the heads up. :thumbsup:

Thanks for the heads up, Frenchie.

a whole monologue for Kinky Friedman.

That was just plain RUDE. Why have a guest on if they're not even going to talk to him? And you'll notice that once again, Tweety got a case of Hostus Interruptus and just couldn't let the General complete his point.

I think General Clark should write more articles. That would get his thoughts out there in a complete way without the "filter" of idiots like Tweety, Scarborough, Burton and Hitch.

because it's such a joke and I've noticed all of them are so rude. I was watching a video of a woman on Faux talking to some lady about Bush's inauguration and she let her talk but you should've seen the Faux lady's eyes popping out like "how dare you judge lord Bush!" I wouldn't go on these shows for anything. They're such a waste of time.

I know Clark could have spoken for an hour on Chimp's speech and on Burton's non-statements if he'd had a chance, and it would have been interesting and informative. They do NOT like an opposing point of view -- they just repeat the same BushCo lines. I'm glad Clark goes on these shows when he gets a chance to speak, but this and the Scarborough fiasco last week make me wonder if he's thinking of no longer wasting his time with these jerks. I couldn't blame him.

to tweety in loud-and-clear body language: WTF????? It was priceless, IMHO -- just so tweety gets the message Clark intended: "we both know what went on here, you get me??"

The "nice to be with you" smile was definitely not there.

Enough of trying to work through the CM (corporate media). I think Dean should do the same and head south and then to the west. I don't even like pick ups but it's time to re-invent publicity. We are doing quite well with the internet and, in case anybody missed it, we did great with K-E pub through local media. Make this a big deal -- Democrats across America. Get the press involved and get some convoys with Teamsters driving.

We will never get a fair shake on ANY cable or network CM operation. In their f'ing faces, we need to create a new set of press tools, the pick up being first salvo.

n/t

And they were telling how Rumsfeld's said he, a few times, asked to resign and Bush said no and to keep him on. I just cracked up at that. Rumsfeld resign during war time?! What-ever! Did anybody see the PBS documentary "Rumsfeld's War"? I believe you can find it on their website.

is the fact that Rumsfeld "asked" to resign.....hell, he should have just done it.

What fools these mortals be?
and
What fools do they think we are?

Something like, Rumsfeld is smart enough to know that resigning was the right thing to do. Haha!!

and framing Rumdud's resignation as a good reflection of R's understanding of how badly things are going.

General Clark never stops hammering the Bushies and he does it with such calm but tough force.