Al Franken should apologize.

Al Franken should apologize.

Franken has been one of my favorites for a long time. His seminal book on Limbaugh was an oasis in a desert of right-wing lies. His moment of confrontation with O’Reilly was a watershed moment for those of us fed up with liberal TV wimps like Paul Begala and Alan Colmes. His radio show has provided thoughtful, entertaining, progressive radio to a larger audience.

But he has a serious weakness. As long as he is opposing a right-winger he’s fine. He demands the truth, he’s well equipped with the facts and almost always gets the better of it. However, when he has to deal with someone outside the right wing, who is nonetheless dissembling, he has a tendency to fall apart like a cheap suit.

Why did he support the invasion of Iraq? Because Colin Powell told him it was OK. Despite the fact that over and over we heard that “Tonight, the president will finally make the slam dunk case for war,” or “After Colin Powell presents at the UN, there will be no doubt about the necessity for war” and yet time after time no such compelling evidence was forthcoming; despite the fact that each time these road-to-Damascus events were supposed to convince and didn’t achieve that effect for tens of millions of skeptics around the world; despite the vast protests, despite the cogent inherency arguments regarding sectarianism and the option of containment should Saddam actually ever get a nuke; despite the politicization of the war by Rove (demanding the IWR vote BEFORE the 2002 election), despite all this, Franken went along with Bush because Powell showed up at the UN with: 1) cartoon drawings; 2) an audiotape of an irrelevant dialogue in Arabic; and 3) a vial of crack.

Fast forward to his radio show this year. He has the well-known media whore, Howard Fineman, on as a regular guest. As far as I know, he has never, ever made Fineman apologize (or even confronted him about it!) for his participation in the media scandal that was the 2000 presidential campaign.

This week Wesley Clark was on and claimed he had opposed the IWR from the git-go. I know this statement will start a tangential thread. I don’t want to make this a Clark thread. I like General Clark. I would support him if he were the nominee, but I think that claim is dubious at best.

My point is that Franken gullibly accepted Clark’s self-characterization as always being anti-war at face value with plenty of evidence to the contrary:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1839

But the previous examples are merely to set the stage for what is really a gross public disservice: his interview today with Joe Klein. It was awful. Klein is well known as an outrageous media whore. For example, see Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604120012

He is currently on the talk-show circuit pimping his new book, hence the Franken appearance. His book is based on a big lie. The lie is that Dem candidates lack “authenticity,” and that their major problem is their own respective characters. Whatever problems some recent candidates have had are absolutely dwarfed by the unethical, spinning, lying coverage they get from MSM reporters and pundits.

Bob Somerby catches Klein deceiving to sell books and satisfy his revisionist agenda:

http://dailyhowler.com/

http://dailyhowler.com/dh050306.shtml

http://dailyhowler.com/dh050206.shtml

http://dailyhowler.com/dh050106.shtml

Klein was all over the “authentic” thing about Gore and Kerry, completely ignoring the overwhelming force that was the MSM in 2000, with constant spinning and lying against Gore, while worshipping McCain and then giving Bush favorable treatment after McCain got out. Not to mention the acquiescence of the MSM to the Swift-Boating of Kerry in 2004. A totally disingenuous presentation. When Gore wore cowboy boots he was searching for an identity, when Bush did it, he looked natural. That’s illustrative of the kind of crap Klein was involved in back in the day. See dailyhowler.com archives for numerous details. Just search "Joe Klein."

Franken gave Klein his “props” for accurate coverage of the Wellstone memorial. IMO, that’s like praising a rapist for getting good grades in high school. It’s a question of proportionality. Klein has participated (and continues) in a media process that has led us to a falsely-inaugurated president, a war of choice with untold suffering, a neglect of our crisis priorities and a low-point in American power and prestige at a point when real American leadership is vital to the survival of civilization. Franken gave him a pass. He should apologize to us all.

You make some good points, though.

FWIW, I approved of the war after I heard Colin Powell lie to me.

And I saw the impressive graphics in USA Today explaining it.

But now we know that the "mobile weapons labs" were actually Saddam's Port-potties.

I won't hold Al Franken to a higher standard than I hold myself to.

That's knee-jerkism at its worst.

Besides, if you bothered to check their profile, you'd see that Admiral Loinpresser has been a member of DU since 2002.

Good points are good points, even if the post count is single-digit, and I've also seen some pretty dumb stuff written by people with high post counts. The OP is not without points here, although whether his post count was 18, 180 or 18,000 I do not think Franken owes an apology to anyone.

How many times have we had people get to 1,000 posts in a month with a large number of posts along the lines of "I agree! (n/t)"? I'm guessing it's a pretty high number. It took me over a year to hit a thousand, and I could have had five times that amount or more had I been half as obsessed with post count as some seem to be.

other of us EvilDuers! I still can't figure out why WE were smart enough to know they were lying through their teeth and why no one else in this country could see it!

and understand media bullshit?

Once I had determined that Bushco was going to say anything to go to war, I knew all evidence presented had to be a lie.

I still can't understand why there are still people out there who are not sure he was lying - makes me feel like Americans are basically trusting people and that Republicans basically take advantage of people's desire to trust their politicians...

you would be criticizing him and questioning his authenticity . Some people would rather wait and post something meaningful than to sit around all day posting two word replies. I have the same ideals today as my future persona that will eventually have many thousands of posts. It is a useless number.

The FAIR hit piece on Clark was a perfect example of how unfair FAIR is. Out of context quotes can be used to convey any lie. Clark was quite accurate. in his appearance on Franken's show. You've convinced me Klein may be more accurate than I would have given him credit.

as using Wes as an example of what Franken should "question" was a bad move, IMO!

used as an example of the style of journalism he accuses Klein of doing. That likely wasn't the intent however since it has been noted in other posts here that Klein had been dissected in other posts. How ironic that a supposed hit piece on Klein uses the subject line do to hide a hit piece on Clark. It certainly doesn't take any magnification to see through this one.

pretty darn lame attempt, eh?

See my "bring it on" post below.

If the piece is unfair, prove it. See my post #95 below. I gave Frenchie a chance to fully and fairly debate the FAIR article and she declined, claiming she had answered some of my questions in other posts. She failed to answer my first question, which is, does she (or anybody else for that matter) have the primary source materials I didn't obtain. See #95 for details.

I wanted to discuss my central point about Franken, so I declined for a time to respond to points about Clark. But now I have answered and all of a sudden I hear a lot of crickets chirping.

Are you willing to debate the FAIR piece?

Do an advanced search and you will find this has been discussed ad nauseam. A quick rundown on the FAIR piece is, as I have noted, it is out of context. You have shown you have links to some of it. Read these linked stories in full and you will find FAIR has conducted the same sort of journalism you denounce Klein for doing. To better understand you also need to develop a time line. When were these statements made and what events had transpired at that time. Who were these statements addressed to and what was the conclusion of those statements. For instance the op-eds in the British press were primarily addressed to the British public at the conclusion of the ground war in which US and British forces had defeated the Iraqi Army. It is no stretch to say there is no army at the present time that is a match for the US/UK forces in a conventional war at this time. Clark lauds the accomplishment of the troops, whom he loves, and damns with faint praise the leadership, Blair/Bushco. If an American were to condemn the UK leadership and disrespect the UK forces in the UK press, how much relevance and attention would that garner? Instead Clark sets up the point that even though the military component of the equation was met, the political and diplomatic components were not there. The military force required to maintain civil order was lacking and the peace was a long way off. Look at when this was written and the accuracy of his thesis has been born out with time. In other words he paints a glowing picture of parades and congratulations that will pass without anything having been achieved to resolve the real problems that remain in Iraq and the loss of credibility of the coalition because it's justification for undergoing the war was the threat of WMD which had not been uncovered yet. It was a complex editorial that FAIR attempts to pick out a sentence used to set up the failure as if it were the idea behind the writing. Once again, read the linked articles without prejudging them with the spin FAIR has applied and if you have comprehensive skills and a sense of the historical events when they were written, you should be able to come away with a better understanding and even possibly an admiration for the integrity and perception that Clark has displayed.

Please keep it real:

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

How is that faint praise? And ANY praise for these two chuckleheads, who have committed one of the great blunders of history, not to mention a great moral travesty, is ridiculous. Clark certainly didn't imply that HE was one who "questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation." He wanted a parade!

"Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." ... "Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

A couple of caveats mixed in with the exuberance and celebratory rhetoric will not get it done. His predictions in that piece were ridiculous:

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

If Clark wants to claim he has consistently been against the war and considered it ill-advised, he has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

BTW, ad hominem attacks aimed at FAIR won't suffice. Others have noticed the inconsistencies:

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

If Clark and Gore both choose to run.

Wes Clark wrote an Oped in a British paper on the heels of the then perceived victory of the troops quickly getting into Bagdad and basically made his case that whatever parades were gonna be held for the very "recent" victory were likely premature....no matter how "sucessful" Bush and Blair appeared at the time. He lauds the Soldiers who were certainly sucessful in accomplishing the initial mission, but that there was much more to be done before Bush could really claim a total victory.

Of course, he was absolutely right....and I ask that you find articles written by any of the Democratic "Potentials" who were brave enough to even "risk" doing what he did.....bringing to question all that had NOT yet been accomplished, and doing so in a foreign forum.

I'll leave you with this paragraph from the article.....

"But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

What is odd, is that you claim not to be able to find this article on the internet...which begs me to understand how you read and understood the article without having located it. That's kinda of contradictory, doncha think? :shrug:

Here's what you said:



Here's what Clark actually said:



No comment from me is required.

Then you provide a rebuttal quote from Clark from the same 4/10/03 article:



First the term WMD was used as a basis for conflation by the Bush regime. It's like the old Ed McMahon mailer that promised "You have already won one million dollars, or a Cadillac, or a Swatch!"

Well, nuclear weapons are the one million dollars, bio weapons are the Cadillac and poison gas is the Swatch. BushCo said Saddam had WMD so that people would think he had a nuke. All he had was poison gas and all serious analysts knew that. Maybe he had some bio labs at some point, but Powell lied about that as well.

So the term WMD can be used to conflate Iraqi nukes (a national security issue for the USA) with poison gas (NOT a national security threat to the USA and definitely NOT a casus belli). So Clark's reference is probably to poison gas, not a big deal and no justification for war. It was always a neo-con shell game.

Clark's second sentence in your quoted paragraph is just flat out false. THE INVASION OF IRAQ NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH "THE STRUGGLE AGAINST TERROR." It's almost funny, except it was an excuse for so much human suffering.

Bring democracy to Iraq? What a joke.

Create positive change in the Middle East? That sounds positively neo-con.

Your cited paragraph truly lessens my estimation of Clark. Your attacks questioning my motivation spurred me to do some research. What I have found has made me much less impressed with General Clark.

Finally, your sophomoric attempt to score a debating point:



The article above quoted is the April 10, 2003 London Times article. A casual inspection of my post #95 will reveal that I stated I had found the 4/10/03 article (I provided a link!) and that I could not find the April 11 article (I still have not). Once again you are completely wrong, doncha think?

Besides comprehension and an open mind, a good amount of common sense is nescessary. Why don't you see if you can get an op-ed published in a well read UK paper calling Blair a chucklehead. Clark was SACEUR and worked closely with Blair and many of the other heads of state in Europe. He is not about to address a subject in that fashion and immediately lose credibility. Then in your own clip you provide the key. After the praise comes the refrain, "And more tough questions remain to be answered." I remind you of the timeline. "Mission Accomplished" had not even been declared yet. You say his predictions were ridiculous, in what way? Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia held elections that were not to our standards but were "slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."
The quotes you cite are clear if you read the last sentence in them.The one above,"And more tough questions remain to be answered." The others,"Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.","but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."
Then in your recent post you imply that Clark said the WMDs,the struggle against terror, and bringing freedom to IRAQ, were the reasons for the war. Clark is saying those were the reasons given and since they had not been accomplished the success of the military portion was not enough. That is really where comprehension is required.
In addition read these parts,
Snip>In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people. <snip
Was that not perceptive?
And further,
Snip>As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.<snip
There is a lot more but due to posting rules I'll go no further. The point is selecting the quotes where Clark sets-up the coalition by pointing at their military success in order to show they have no plan for overall success is what FAIR has done. Show me how any of those quotes show support for the war.

when it matter.
I don't listen to Franken since he derrided the stolen election 2004.
Fair.com was in tandem with RW efforts to derail Clark's candidacy - NO OTHER CANDIDATE WAS ATTACKED SO HARSHLY IN THE PRIMARIES. Yup. You opened a can of worms.

let's not forget, in 2000, Fair was advancing the Bush=Gore BS - even had a cover with the 2 heads coming out from the same body. So, why would anyone doubt the mighty FAIR?

NO OTHER CANDIDATE WAS ATTACKED SO HARSHLY IN THE PRIMARIES.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If you think being put on ignore is harsh, you should see what happens when you are dubbed the "frontrunner".

the difference certainly was the methods used to stop both candidates....and certainly, the results were the same.

I just don't happen to find what occurred "ROFL"......at all. :(

The egregiously erroneous characterization of it? Yeah, pretty funny stuff.

Have a good weekend you crazy Wes-Warrior. :toast:
Julie

The MSM played that so-called "Scream" way too many times.

nt

If Franken is honest, then he is not very intelligent. IMHO.

been stolen! That really pisses me off about Al! We are all up on the election thefts! Why isn't Al Franken????? Makes no damn sense! I can hardly bear to listen to him over this very issue!

They are different.

that's why I love it so much.

At first a year or so ago, I didn't understand why people here praised Al Franken - the guy is not funny on the air. I can't speak for his writing because i haven't read anything he's written. His interviewing style and tecnique is nauseating at times and infuriating at other times. Because i do like many of his guests, i tune in and out to check who he is going to have on - even with the best of the guests, i'm often disappointed as to how much information was allowed to be dessiminated over the air, because knowingly or not, Al Franken is one of the chief information censors on the "left" (on a list of others) that i have come across.

the question i have is how much of it is deliberate - then i only have to consider the fact that I have never ever heard Noam Chomsky on his show, but then I may have missed it. It would seem i would have heard or read about it somewhere though. Air America (or at least KQKE) has been promoting Chomsky's Failed State by Noam Chomsky for over a week at least, quoting the New York Times rave reviews. So, if the NYT thinks Failed State is one of the "most powerful books of our time" why doesn't Al Franken?

I can only speculate, but there are too few possible rationals one is compelled to consider.

Iraq war resolution "from the git go."

Kennedy has publicly stated he voted no on the IWR following Clark's advice.

Clark has stated he told several senators not to give Bush "a blank check" before the IWR vote...please do not spread the disinformation that these facts are in any way in doubt.

and stand by to repel boarders.

We talked about Klein and Franken last evening, they lived down to my expectations, limited as they were.

But I think the predictability of Franken's behavior does not excuse it. We almost certainly lost the White House in 2000 because of the MSM and possibly in 2004. If we ignore that recent history (and the ongoing depradations and revisionism) we risk repeating it. Franken is capable of much better. I don't question his sincerity. He's a great Democrat. But this chink in his armor is potentially very dangerous, for both 2006 and 2008.

If he gets some heat for it, maybe he'll change. I truly respect his ability to change.

It has always seemed weird to me to have David Brock as a regular guest when Franken has on so many of the writers that Brock correctly dings. Although, if Franken actually used mediamatters.org to check out how factually accurate his guests are and based his guest list on that it would be a lonely three hours for him.

With that said, I posted how I felt about Klein's appearance yesterday at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2605330&mesg_id=2605823

when * is behind bars for starting it.

Honestly. All the time you put into this post could have been used to attack someone far more deserving.

especially, the Clark reference, but I took a shot. I didn't want to set off with a presumption that Franken is weak on confronting non-right-wingers. I thought the preface was necessary.

Franken is almost universally considered one of the "good guys" on this forum and rightly so. I certainly am in that camp. I am definitely in that camp.

But in this context, I think he sometimes exercises poor judgement. Further I consider it a real danger for us, with practical effects (i.e. 2000, 2004).

We are supposed to be better at nuance than the freepers. Can't we applaud someone who fights tirelessly for us yet criticize him when when he condones behavior that costs us elections? I'm not trying to score points, I respect your opinion. Of course Bush is to blame.

He never should have had the chance. But for the MSM, he never would have. I really believe this. I could be wrong, maybe its no big deal.

But when a rat bastard like Klein lies like a rug about our duly elected president, it pisses me off. And gives me pause about what might happen in 2008 if our good guys don't get a little tougher with those jerks.

that you don't do your research any better than Franken....

So does that make you, Pot and Franken, Kettle?

Can you please explain further how you came to this conclusion on Clark?
I am curious.:popcorn:

I consider the centerpiece of Clark's position to be his October 10, 2002, editorial, entitled "Let's Wait to Attack." I understand it to be a counterpoint to an editorial entitled something like "Let's Invade Now."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

The only temporal clue I can glean as to the "when" of "Let's wait," is in the final paragraph:

"As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace."

If you read the whole thing, it's thoughtful and nuanced. He makes good points about the dangers. But I certainly wouldn't characterize it as against the invasion. I grant that it is arguable.

That was my point in the OP. If I had been doing the interview (rather than Franken), once he stated that he was adamantly anti-invasion from the start, I would have certainly asked what he meant by the closing paragraph.

Remember that this was WRITTEN ONE FUCKING DAY BEFORE THE VOTE. SO AT THIS POINT, WES IS REALLY, REALLY TRYING TO BUY SOME TIME....IN FACT, ANY TYPE OF TIME. If you had a bit more appreciation for what you read, you'd have understood this. This was written really for senators to read, because senators were the only ones on October 10th who could literally stop this crazy shit on October 11th.....the day of the vote. Even Ted Kennedy said that another 24 hours even would have made the difference in how many votes they got against the resolution.

I am disappointed in the naivety you're demonstrating....to the point of where I have to think that it is a purposeful naivety.

I really don't like this kind of "playing with me" Bullshit.....at all!

Note that My BS meter is set very high these days.

I think these paragraphs in the same article you mention discuss very much that there was time, i.e., no urgency, i.e., not imminent, i.e., why the article is called; "let's wait to attack"....doh!
so I don't know what you have thought to have proven.



Oh....and I'm soooo glad that you like and respect Wes Clark....:eyes:

FrenchieCat wrote: "Remember that this was WRITTEN ONE FUCKING DAY BEFORE THE VOTE. SO AT THIS POINT, WES IS REALLY, REALLY TRYING TO BUY SOME TIME....IN FACT, ANY TYPE OF TIME."

Or, a more straitforward interpretation is that Clark really meant what he wrote. 'Let's invade, but try harder for a real coalition.'

the day that the Clark Oped, "let's wait to attack" was published, but the excercise would do us all some good.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

It is important in reading this article, that one takes into context where this nation was at the time....which would greatly assist those in putting perspective to the reality as it occured. In particular, those who want to simplified their "interpretation" as to what the true purpose of Clark's opEd, published a day before the Resolution vote.

For those who "want" to state that Clark wasn't "against" the Iraq war as much as he felt a need that it be done "right"....they really need to read this post to its end, and make an earnest attempt to recall where we were....as opposed to where it is convenient for their current particular view today as to whether Clark presented the truth in stating on Al Franken that he was against giving the President a "Blank Check".

As the House had already passed a resolution on October 2, 2002.... and mostly everyone knew that the Senate was going to vote for "a" resolution, less a "miracle" occurred, at this point. It was only a matter of time that we would be confronting Saddam/Iraq. The question was no longer would we, or wouldn't we? as much as when and how?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

Ted Kennedy said on Larry King as recently as last week, that there were only had 8 senators who were going to vote against the Lieberman resolution.....and yet, after some "backroom work", it got up to 23 senator; more than they had "expected". At this point, it was a matter of which one of the resolution was going to be the one that passed.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

Clark wasn't saying "let's invade" anymore than Al Gore......as much as he was saying, if you're gonna invade, and it looks like that's what it's going to be, then at least don't do it the fucked up way. This was the last roadblock to attempt to put in the way of the Bush invasion train that had already left the station.

Here's what Al Gore himself said (so was Al Gore saying, "let's invade, but try hard for a real coalition" too)?



What about Russ Feingold?(so was Russ saying, "let's invade, but try hard for a real coalition" too?)

"And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

What about Ted Kennedy?(so was Ted saying, "let's invade, but try hard for a real coalition" too?)



So was Wes Clark really saying anything much different from those senators who voted "NO" or AL Gore, who is said to have been "against" the Iraq War all along?.....as Clark was writing a day before the Resolution vote by the Senate...."Let's wait to Attack"?

Back to the OP....Wes Clark, as he told Franken, was working to stop Bush from getting a "Blank Check". That was the issue at hand....and Clark told the truth on that radio program.....and that's really that.

ya probably shoulda left him out.

Sounds like you have some selective hearing.

Al did not seem very comfortable with Klein. I think there is plenty Al should have said (and maybe wanted to say), but he might have felt boxed in by the way the game is currently played (stacked against Dem candidates and for GOP candidates and MSM reporters/pundits). But I strongly felt the overall result was a pass for someone who deserved to be taken by force to Truthiness Town.

Please don't misunderstand, I love Franken. But Klein is a gross liar. He said Gore didn't talk about the environment in 2000, which is ridiculous. He asserted that Gore was refraining from his signature theme because of advisers, without a shred of evidence.

Bill Maher is another who makes this baseless assertion. I've never seen any evidence for it, have you?

Eleanor Clift may have been drawing on Klein when she did this recent interview:

http://truthout.org/docs_2006/042906A.shtml

Clift: In 2000 and in 1988 when you ran, you really didn't talk about the environment that much. I think you were counseled that it was not a good issue. Any regrets about that?

AG: That's the conventional wisdom that I want to challenge because in both cases I talked about it extensively. And to take 2000 as an example, there were numerous speeches and events and proposals and multipoint plans that were not considered news, and if a tree falls in the forest and it's not heard, then later on people think it didn't happen. John Kerry went thru a very similar experience in '04 because the way the issue has been covered has been plagued with some of the adjectives that you began with-it's marginal, it's arcane, it's irrelevant, ridiculous-and so if a daily news cycle is devoted to that issue, then one candidate has his message out there and the other is mysteriously missing. There's another factor that's often overlooked in 2000. Then governor George W. Bush publicly pledged to regulate CO2 emissions and to forcibly, with the rule of law, reduce them-and publicly said "this is a serious problem and I will deal with it." Now, the other way that issues get covered in the media is if there's conflict, and if there's a sharp difference. And one is tempted to conclude that Rove crafted those positions that were immediately abandoned after the election-in the first week after the inauguration, the first week-one is tempted to conclude that Rove wrote those positions in order to take from that issue any sense of contrast or conflict and thereby make it non-newsworthy. It certainly had that effect, whether it was intentional or not. I can't look into their hearts-I'll let the grand jury do that. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Gene Lyons

Please notice the date that Lyons refers to: Summer July 4, 2002. So unless you've decided that not only is General Clark a liar, but Gene Lyons is too, well, I think the first apology needs to come from you. Thx in advance.

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one."

"Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years. So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French."--Wes Clark
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/29/cf.00.html

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone."--Wes Clark
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/29/cf.00.html

Clark said "I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons." On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/29/cf.00.html

I would be happy to apologize if ANYBODY would debate me on the FAIR piece and prove it's invalid. See post #95 and take the challenge.

Anybody else hear crickets chirping?

-- your arguments are good. But then, of course, they also reflect my strongly-held feelings about Al Franken. How dare you spout off on DU!

There is this schizophrenic nonsense in some on the left side of the aisle, although "schizophrenic" is, of course, not the right word. Could it be there is this "multiple personality disorder" on the left side of the aisle" that wants to accommodate everyone? I'd prefer to believe that than that so many of us are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome.

How can you listen to Franken?

He will NOT listen to the information, he is 'afraid' to look like a tin-foil hatter.

Franken -> Go hang out with Colbert. Grow some NADS.

:grr:

It's not hard to get the point and there is a glorious precedent in our party history.....
called the VOTING RIGHTS MOVEMENT. It's still out there going strong, fighting for
minority voter rights, since they're the voters who generally get shafted. It was spoiled
ballots now it is lousy machines, e.g., Cleveland in the OH primary.

Franken is the left wing of the establishment. To admit that election fraud exists is to
question the very legitimacy of our system. Franken can't do that. To admit that you were
duped by the most corrupt administration, which Franken would have to do, is again, not
possible. He's the radio equivalent of Mick Jagger except without talent.

who may run for office. Are you going to vote aganist him because he is not as rightous as you?

of the "liberals" who voted for the war and would do it again.

Remember, those on Capitol Hill knew that the intelligence was bogus, they knew. So when they
voted for the war their behavior was against reality and good judgment. That's a pretty big
mistake: getting all those people killed and injured, the disaster this is for our nation's
image and ability to do business, and the trillions it's cost. Anyone who voted for the war re-
solution should resign; anyone in a position to know should refrain from running for office.

whether or not I vote for them.

And, your question is 'righteous' (as in holier than thou) my statement about Franken is not.

Clark's claim?

Clark stated specifically the issue of giving Bush a "BLANK CHECK" via a Resolution. that was the issue being discussed by Clark and Franken.....

Here's the exchange.....
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.
http://securingamerica.com/node/932
===============

The problem with your op is that you are the one in doubt of the Fact that General Clark did not want to give Bush a "BLANK CHECK" in a resolution....Franken wasn't, and so he didn't feel compeled to question Clark on his words.

Here I am presenting you with the information that should allow you to also believe Clark's words from that interview with Franken.....and then you tell me how you are believing that Clark was for a Resolution to give Bush a "BLANK CHECK" via a congressional resolution....

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King a few days ago....


and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and here's what Clark said on 9/16/02 (one month before the vote)...
September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?"

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

I read his testimony. Clearly he wanted Congress to refrain from giving * a blank check. International
pressure on the likes of Saddam was not a bad idea. Invading was and that was Clark's point.

Why take a shot at Clark.

Franken is the fool here. Taking Powells word. What a genius. I guess Franken failed to read about
Powell's role in the lack of investigation into My Lai. Wonder how that escaped him. Everyone and
their brother knew about that years ago.

To the OP: This post has great arguments in it, particularly Franken playing footsie with Howard the
Duck and the odious Klein (who deceived America and his publisher). The Clark artument is wrong and
detracts from important points.

But when Op uses Wes Clark as an example of Franken being a fool...then I must respond with words from the mouths of those who were directly involved....senators and Wes, not some hit piece "Fair" article full of shit.

Ya know me by now! :headbang:

Can you imagine taking Powell's word for anything. Big mistake here by the "yeas" on the war resolution. Time for some accountability. But Wes is a hero and a truth teller.

Here's what I said in OP:

"My point is that Franken gullibly accepted Clark’s self-characterization as always being anti-war at face value with plenty of evidence to the contrary:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1839"

I believe that a credible argument can be made Clark opposed the IWR resolution, especially the one that passed. But I also believe counter-arguments can be made even on that point.

But in my view, the idea that Clark has been consistently anti-war is ludicrous. Quoting Clark after the fall of Baghdad:

"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

See my point? Also notice that now that I have chosen to respond fully to their contentions about Clark (see my post #95), there is a deafening silence.

:hug:

If this "isn't about Clark", then don't drag up shit from the primaries. Does anyone really want to go back to that crap-slinging?

Unreal.

Clark testified to congress not to give Bush the authority! What more proof do you need?
It is one of the main reasons progressives "drafted" him to run for Pres. He counter argued against Pearle at the hearings called Pearle out for his bullshit. Clark was labled "crazy" by the rightwing cause he was talking up PNAC back in 2002.
Sorry but you are a 100% wrong on Clark. :spank:

But you right on Fineman and Klein. :toast:

You had better be very careful when you throw around criticism about statements, especially sentences taken out of context in long statements about the buildup to war and IWR.

Because the guy on your avatar is equally open to the same kind of hit piece on Clark that "Fair" concocted over the war using the same tactics.

It is most definitely UNfair and anyone is open to this kind of smear. Believe me.

incapsulated, you break my heart. Look at my guy on the bottom. I'm here defending Clark;)

There were four major candidates for the Democratic nomination: Clark, Dean, Edwards, and Kerry.

Two of them were dead right on Iraq, Clark and Dean. In addition, Gore opposed the war and
endorsed Dean.

That's my trifecta, the rest of the Democrats with a record on Iraq need to meet the first
entry requirement for 2008, since they ALL knew the intelligence didn't support *:

To an article attacking Gore, with the same unfair picking and choosing of words, although mild in comparison to the FAIR hit.

Just to prove that *anyone* can be turned into a pile of crap if the writer intends to use underhanded tactics to do so.

Let's at least leave off of this until the primaries, jesus!

:hi:

Gore - Clark :evilgrin: Just kidding. I'm happy with either of them at the top. They're both
loyal Democrats out there speaking to parties, fundraisers, helping the locals out. Quite
impressive.

I have to do my job by getting you Clark folks some good information on electronic
elections. Here's a good one to start with, it's the pure truth and tells how
we got in the mess we're in. I wrote it with Land Shark of DU (who is a well known
election law attorney in WA state).

Secret Vote Counting Crammed Down the Throat of Democracy
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0604/S00233.htm = print version

:toast:

Remember when we all said it's going to be Dean and Clark? Jinx! :D

Thanks for the links! :hi:

That is what I say.

You have not responded to those defending Wes Clark!

whoops...did I make a typo? Weird keyboard.

Had to walk the dogs. I did respond to one (Tinksrival). I'm off to bed pretty soon, but I will be back tomorrow (maybe morning). If I recall you and I went around about this same topic some time ago and just had to agree to disagree.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that Clark is not one of the "good guys." I consider him a good Democrat. But I think Franken should have challenged his claim on the basis of the editorial. Maybe Clark would have a compelling explanation, I have no idea. I was just using it as a recent example where Franken struck me as unprepared because he wasn't dealing with a right winger.

And posted an old hit piece against him, one I haven't seen since the fucking primaries.

Want to know how that feels? Read this:

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Editorials/2002/Sept%202002/Al%20Gore,%20Genuine%20Opposition%20of%20War,%20or%20just%20politics.htm

and I don't like it at all.

Maybe I should waste my time by starting a thread, and just post that article there that you have...and a few other excerpts from Gore's 9/26/02 speech....but I'll do it by attacking Hillary Clinton or somethin'....and just slip AL in there....

You know, post stuff like.....



as well as choice "excerpts" from his 2/12/02 speech(I won't bother right now)...since he didn't say much else during this period. But I looooove Al Gore, but you know, there are some things that I have "questions" about.

Hey, I've got it......Let's play the new *Admiral* Game which goes like this: "I really meant something else, and am not really doing a "hit" on _____________ (fill in the blank) cause I "like" ______________ (fill in the blank), cause he's one of the "Good Guys".....but I'll cut and paste his shit he wrote and said, just like the RW does!

Sounds like a great way to pass the time, instead of working for the 2006 elections! Yeah.....much more constructive, I'd say! :sarcasm:

Thank goodness Wes Clark is too busy supporting Candidates in the Red Districts....the ones that most candidates would rather NOT have Al Gore campaign with them in. You know, the ones that will make all of the difference, cause it is only by winning those seats that we win the fucking house back.

(Hope you got my message loud and clear, Admiral! :hi:)

Your example of defending Clark contained a lot of cursing and sarcasm. Perhaps you bullied him into abandoning the thread?

So mentioning it now could come from A: your inability to recognize your behavior is not conducive to an intelligent conversation among political allies who disagree and a genuine plea to continue the debate or
B: you know you were nasty and made him run away and would like to highlight the fact that you intimidated him for the rest of us.

I don't care what the answer is...just think about it.

By the way, I agree with your points on Clark, but the manner in which you did it turned me off. Mind you, Admiral did not curse, bully, and try to intimidate you.

That is all I can say. It's history and it's long and it's very unpleasant. And I believe the OP knew exactly the shit he stirred up.

So I do not see the need to walk in your shoes.

I find it interesting how so many come to defend the right for others to curse and use sarcasm as an argumentative technique.

No Zodiak, I'm not intimidated. I am pretty busy, though. I work for myself. If I don't work, I don't eat. I'm off to teach a class now. I have to take my kids on a trip when that's over, etc. So, I'll try to check in by about midnite CDT, which is probably when I'll have my first real free time. Admission: I'll probably watch Maher and relax some, but that's my choice.

I knew I was pushing a button re General Clark, but on balance, I decided it was important to the prefatory case. I'm not an absolutist about whether Clark has always, consistently opposed the war. Frenchie has made some good points about that. But I remain skeptical. I'm also open minded. I haven't studied it as thoroughly as Clark supporters have. I'll take that up with them when I have time, hopefully tonight. Over and out.

All the points Frenchie made were valid. It was the nastiness followed by "awww...did you run away?" that prompted me to respond. A little over the line, in my book, and remniscent of school-yard bullying. I'll let you fight your own battles from now on.

I am not a netcop, though, but I wondered if that peron knew what she was doing (rather than assume she did....false attribution of motive and all). So I said something.

I beg for your apology.

However, as I have been having to post this stuff since 2003, and since this is 2006, and I would rather be spending my time on other issues beyond whether Clark was for or against the IWR......I get a bit "hot" when responding to certain points.

I recognize my behavior just fine, thank you!
and I understand the world where the Admiral is considered admirably calm and serene in his/her approach and strategy....(which was to drop the hit, and then not really respond to the facts unhearthed but one time or so--see his halo glowing?)

While I, on the other hand, am to be labeled a wild untamed, impolite, fouled mouth, and totally unhinged banshy (while dropping relevant facts and quotes with cites, throughout of course).....!

What you identify as unbecoming behavior, others may see as pure political passion.....and if you ask me......à la fin, il signifie que je suis plein de la passion, et fier d'etre!

À chaque son goût !

However, I find it best to not turn my passion into a lash to beat others across their backs. It is fallacious to attribute motives to the OP and react to those motives rather than the stated ones. Strawman and all.

Your use of links and facts are fine, but of course, I suspect you knew that I did not take umbrage with your use of facts. Another strawman.

"shit" one (1) time and dropped the F-bomb one (1) time.

"Your example of defending Clark contained a lot of cursing and sarcasm. Perhaps you bullied him into abandoning the thread?"

Perhaps you've been asleep since, oh, 1890, Mistah Ironfist? :eyes:

I could have mentioned the logical fallacy of attributing motives to the OP that were not expressed, and you did not address the sarcasm element.

As for the last line, what are you talking about?

If you would like to know the origin of my screen name, ask. Don't beat around the Bush with innuendo.

You're right. Frenchie did use some profanity, and perhaps what offended you more, she was extremely sarcastic and assumed bad motives on the part of the OP. In doing so, she risked offending you and others and maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

But it's more complicated than that.

Those of us who are both DU regulars and Clark supporters get hit with exactly this sort of attack all the time. A poster, usually one with a low post count or recent sign-up date, or both, but not always either, will post some really old attack piece (from one extreme or the other of the political spectrum -- they're usually pretty much the same ref Clark) that has been thoroughly debunked more times than any of us can count. Often, they say just what the "Admiral" did, "I like Clark, but what about..." There have been quite literally thousands of posts, and hundreds of threads, very much like this one over the last three years or so since Clark declared in 2003. And while there are fewer now than during the 2004 primaries, they still pop up regularly. I'd bet the FAIR article alone has generated at least a hundred posts all by itself and that might be a conservative estimate. It gets frustrating beyond belief to see it again.

Now, we all realize that not everyone reads a lot of what's posted at DU, and no one reads it all. And most people don't know a whole lot about Clark's background, altho anyone who claims to be a Democratic activist (and DU membership sort of implies that) really should. So it is possible that the OP here is sincere in wanting an answer to a legitimate question. But surely you can understand why we are skeptical.

Frenchie is one who spends a lot of time and effort combatting misinformation at DU. Not just about Clark, but about just about all of our Democratic leaders. Even some she doesn't much like, if she thinks they're being wronged. She is death on the media whores and the way they manipulate information. If she has less patience than some others, I think she's earned it. And I would guess that most of us who know her feel the same, which may be why you and the OP got so many replies coming to her defense.

But please note, there are a couple people who either defended her, or accused the OP, who are not Clarkies.

As for the profanity... all I can say is that it's the norm at DU. I know you're not that new here, so I would think you'd recognize that. It shocks me sometimes, and yet I find myself using it too when provoked. And, I hate to admit, sometimes just out of the blue. It almost seems like, if you want to make a point, you have to slam it home with harsh words because otherwise, people are so used to seeing them, you can't get thru if you don't. I suppose that's not a good excuse, but it seems to be the way it is. :shrug:

Since you have been nice enough to give me some kind of explanation.

Cursing by itself is not the issue...there is a lot of cursing at Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, etc....even Democrats. All that is fine since the person you are addressing is not here. Such use of profanity and sarcasm against a non-present entity could be construed as "passion". I have no problem with that.

However, cursing at another is a form of verbal assault. It makes the blood pressure rise; it burns bridges, it discourages others from participating ("I don't want to get flamed"). It should not be a default mode for a discussion board amongst political allies. Maybe I am more sensitive to this issue since I have a heart condition. The same can be said for false attribution of motive and sarcasm.

I appreciate what it is to counter bad information day after day. As you have observed, I am not new to this game. I find, however, that to best serve your point of view, it is best to not resort to logical fallacy, ad hominem attacks, or false attribution of motive in order to get the point across. The straight use of facts is good enough. We have seen an example here where the facts get lost because the speaker is, frankly, nasty to another. Perhaps with this approach, the bad information you wish to counter would be dispelled more quickly.

We at DU are a growing crowd, as well. People wander into here from all parts of the internet and abroad. Not everyone has been privy to the conversations that have taken place here over the years or have been getting their news from alternative sources for years on end. As such, a low post count could simply indicate a political naiveity. I think it is best to assume that as a default rather than the opposite.

I must say that in one of the responses to my post, I am put back by the innuendo that I am a Nazi or a racist (yes, I looked up "ironfist 1890" on Google)...both references are not very complimentary to me. Really, the behavior needs to be cleaned up because frankly, I cannot take a person who says such a thing seriously...and I am twice shy of their allies as a result. I would wager than I am not alone in this. It really doesn't matter if the poster has been around for twenty years or twenty minutes. In fact, if a poster has been around a while, they should know better.

That's all for me being preachy...I won't bounce this dog of a thread again.

and I must say you should feel ashamed of yourself for insinutaing that I am a racist or a Nazi because I object to Frenchie's method (1890, "mistah" Ironfist). It is this kind of behavior that DUers of all stripes find repulsive.

If I am wrong about the reference, then fine, but mind you, inneundo can be misconstrued which is why it should not be used.

I did NOT Google your screenname; I assumed you were a teenaged technogeek and SCA member with a Conan complex (the Barbarian, not O'Brien). I simply found it ironic (and pretty damned funny) that someone calling himself "Zodiac Ironfist" should get such a case of the vapors over a couple of naughty words, for all the world like a proper Victorian in a too-tight corset.

Allow me to suggest that your sense of proportion is...well, seriously out of proportion.

about my identity? No, not if you have never asked.

And look up "ironfist 1890", why don't you and tell me if the references are complimentary? If you didn't intend that, maybe you should have discussed your assumption about me being a teenage techno geek instead of relying on inneundo. By the way, Conan was written in the 1930's.

And now I am "like a Victorian in a too-tight corset?" So if I have a problem with how we treat each other, I am a woman or like a woman? That's an awful thing for a progressive to say about women. Surely not all Victorians wear corsets, so your insult can be construed no other way.

It is this knee-jerk insulting behavior that I have a problem with. Not because I am uptight, but because it is not friendly, not healthy, and does not promote a sense of community in on DU where people go to be among allies. And it is done as a bullying technique in defense of arguments....completely unnecessary, entirely self-serving, and to the detriment of others.

If you must know, I can sling mud with the best of them, and do so in other places (you can Google my name or look up my history in a place called @forumz). I just reserve that for my political enemies, not for political allies that disagree with me.

get away with that Naomi-Klein-told-Al-Gore-to-wear-earth-tones myth.

That was speculation by Dick Morris on what Naomi Klein might say to Gore. There is no evidence that she said anything of the sort.

:shrug:

Maybe Franken didn't know where the "earth tones" phrase came from, but he might have at least questioned it.

at what major politicos don't know. Even very well read ones like Franken. For example I went to a DFA Dean speech where Howard admitted he didn't learn about the Florida FelonGate scandal of 2000 until after he dropped out of the race in 2004. The MSM has even snowed our leaders in many respects.

And in the lead up to the war in Iraq, most Americans gave Bush and his people the benefit of the doubt. Even the most informed among us. I personally researched the IAEA inspection records at the UN's website for both the pre-1998 inspections and the new inspections undertaken in the run-up to the war. I read the UNSCOM reports. I just didn't completely trust Bush, never have, never will.

Anyone who read what the UN was producing had to see that the case for current Iraqi WMD production was very, very thin. In fact the 1996 IAEA report said all Iraqi nuclear capability had been destroyed. After doing some further research, it seemed almost impossible for Saddam to have reconstituted his nuclear program under the sanctions he was under.

But even after reading the UN reports, when the US government kept proclaiming that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs, I had to admit to myself that likely they knew things the UN or I didn't. So although I wasn't happy with the decision to invade as a geopolitical move (that was easy to see as a future failure, given the sectarian makeup of the nation and our prior experiences in the Islamic world), I couldn't oppose the decision on a national security basis.

That's what Bush's lies accomplished. It made rational people second guess the apparent facts they could see in front of their eyes and defer to the potentially greater knowledge and resources of our government, whom we didn't think would lie to us in matters of life and death and war.

But now we know Bush lied. So I give a pass to all those who were snookered as I was. I have never supported the war. But there was a critical time that I didn't vocally oppose the war, and that was all the opening Bush needed to ram his policy through. That's why the nuclear lies were so very insidious. Because they were so very effective and so very false.

he was close to Gore at the first robbery. Someone who steals an election can easily lie about a war too.


a relevant good piece of writing:


"You really have to wonder what kind of bloated house-bound moron could think slumping polls and plummeting approval ratings would worry a gang of fanatics who stole two elections in a row, invaded a country they knew couldn’t defend itself, and gave a male hustler White House security clearance."

With bad legal decisions regarding the Florida recount. Not many here want to hear that, but it's the truth. Bush's lawyers spanked Gore's lawyers. That's a fact.

Sorry, maneuvering to win an election, bending and breaking election laws to do so, is a time honored American tradition. Lying to the public to make a case for war is much, much less common. And there is no causal link to conclude that just because a politician did one, they will do the other.

But it sure makes great "Monday Morning Quarterback" fodder.

We now know, without a shadow of a doubt, exactly what kind of piece of shit George W. Bush truly is. But in 2002, all we knew was he supported bad policies and rigged an election. To be able to predict that he would also rig intelligence to take us to war, was a leap of faith that most Americans just couldn't and didn't make at that time.

Many of us had suspicions. But we had no evidence and no proof. Looking back-wards, it's obvious. But looking forward from that time period, it certainly was not as clear cut as you would like us to believe. Maybe you were smarter than the rest of us. Or maybe you were just lucky. My guess is you were guessing and were lucky.

Of all the problems going on in the world right now, I can't think of a single one more important than getting a radio talk show host/comedian to apologize for being wrong in one of his opinions.

Beats me! :shrug:

Because this is not about Franken at all. In fact the poster had already started a thread about Franken that was on the front page. Ah but...if you like another candidate and you can get in a deniable smear, hey...why not.

As for the long debunked hit piece, I can imagine the poster sleeps with it under his pillow waiting for the draft fairy.

So let's get this straight: Wellstone, Levin, Kennedy, Lyons and Clark are liars. Anyone who opposes Clark tells the truth.

Must you agree to disagree? I don't think so. I agree to recognize intellectual dishonesty whenever it raises its ugly little pinhead. Because if this was really a question about Franken why single out Clark. I've heard Franken do plenty of interviews, sometimes I find them interesting and sometimes I don't. But I've never heard him attack the credibility of a truth teller because hack wrote a unreached hit piece.

Ya know....I wrote something in another Clark attack thread just three days ago (they're endless). You see to my mind, Wes Clark has been there every time we needed him. Whether it was standing up for Dean, opposing the war, writing op eds for Kerry, and now busting his butt trying to get Democrats elected. And it makes me wonder about the character of those post junk like this. I'm with WesJr on this one: why should his father run for president when all that Democrats online can do is post the same tired lies over and over again. But that's what's going on here. Same lie different thread. The saddest part is that folks like this divide the left and bring us politicos who vote against the Common Good.

I totally understand your frustration...and I agree with you and Wes Jr both. Sad, isn't it? :(

I posted to refute the lies, but would never vote up such a silly thread. Who cares about Franken? I stopped listening to him after the 2004 stolen election. mealy mouth politician - is what he sounds like.
And if some people need to re-fight the primaries today, should this really be on page one?

If you will read the OP, you will not find ANY criticism of Franken for his opinions expressed in the Klein interview. Rather, you will find I criticized Franken for not challenging Klein on perpetuating the myths that led to the election of Bush. And those myths, which continue largely unchallenged to this today (with the exception of many blogs) had a great deal to do with the inauguration of Bush. My point is that NOT challenging these MSM dirt bags is DIRECTLY related to why the world is in disastrous shape in 2006. Can you get your mind around that?

He was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for the local DFL chapter. He was GREAT!

You should start a thread giving us details, Iojasmo!

I think we need to unite to win in 2006......instead of allowing those who like to nitpick apart who's who.... to dominate the conversation.

BTW....Clark will be in studio on Bill Maher's "Real Time" this evening. Should be interesting.

because of his way of adding details and thinking out loud of ALL the angles of a story which shows he thinks about all the sides of a military issue before he makes his own determination clear.

American people used to prefer that nuanced thinking in their leaders. The media has told them for years now that they want a soundbite guy who sets his mind on ONE goal and will lie and cheat his way to get there.

However, I consider Wes Clark a master of the concept of "economy of language" IMHO, Clark's words are most often twisted by "cherry picking" and flat out lies.

As best said by Gov. Cuomo....

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."
Mario Cuomo
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

in spades for what Clark supporters go through, too.

Sam Parry of consortiumnews wrote this piece in 2004 that I wish people in Kerry's campaign and the DNC spokepeople had tatooed on their hands. Clark supporters can find it helpful in crafting replies, as you can easily replace the name Kerry and put in Clark's in more than a few spots.

It explains the importance of why leaders SHOULD look at all sides in complete opposite of the way Bush runs the WH. It's a quality both Kerry and Clark share and their supporters need to learn how better to counter the mediaspin used to mischaracterize this precious trait.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/051304.html

in my book, and driven by the same intention to distort. Thinking leaders get it used against them all the time now in the current media climate.

How do you know Franken supported the invasion of Iraq. Because he fucking told you. How do you know why? Because he fucking told you. How do you know he regrets it? Because he's SAID so. So now that he's actually admitted all this, you need an additional apology. Sure you do.

You understand the "props" comment? It means, "proper respect". Klein gets props for his coverage of the Wellstone event because he told the truth when few found it newsworthy. Franken gives proper respect to truth and the telling thereof, from whoever it comes. He didn't give Klein a tongue bath. He gave him proper respect. Equating Klein with a rapist and expecting everyone to act as if that's not a grotesque hyperbole is an insult to Klein, to Franken, to anyone reading your OP, and to the raped. But because Franken doesn't have your style, he's supposed to apologize to you. Ugh.

step 2: re-read OP; and

step 3: locate in OP where I EVER said Al should apologize for supporting the war. Hint: Step 3 will take a long time.

Of course I know what "props" means. My point is that Klein is not entitled to ANY respect whatsoever. If you want to debate that, bring it on. Klein is a scumbag.

So he reported accurately on the Wellstone memorial, that's supposed to let him off the hook? Did you notice the word "proportionality?" One fair and accurate piece of reporting (or even dozens) is not exculpatory for the betrayal of the republic in 2000 that the MSM committed (Klein was a willing perpetrator).

He enabled Bush to take the White House in 2000. In my view, he has moral responsibility for the human death and suffering, the ecological catastrophes engendered by Bush's inauguration. Klein has blood on his hands and yet he continues to enrich himself with lies and revisionism and endanger the Democrats ability to take back Congress and the White House.

Of course the rape reference was hyperbole, but justified in my view. Because of the MSM's disloyalty to America in 2000, how many have been killed, raped and maimed? How much preventable tragedy has ensued? A great deal. Enabling Bush was/is a truly evil thing.

Klein is entitled to no respect. Zip. Nada. His crimes against the republic are serious indeed. Franken should have held him accountable, but instead allowed him to lie like a rug on the people's airwaves. Ugh, indeed.

regarding Klein being integrity challenged and full of fecal material. I also believe the MSM has been most excellent at brain washing the American People basically for the cause of corporate supremacy over the people. I believe this a major reason we should heed Al Gore's words warning against letting the media conglomerates take over the internet. Regarding Clark; I am not as certain about him as I am Al Gore opposing the war, but my gut feeling is, in the last paragraph you mentioned, there was only a few weeks before the mid term elections for congress and I believe he was trying to buy time hoping for a change of power possibly to stop the war from happening.


P.S. I am heading for a cinco de mayo party, y'all have a good night.

Read the story you linked concerning Clark. In spite of the fact much of it is misleading it does not say Clark was not anti-Iraq War. It's summary is that Clark is not anti-war. That is true in the sense he is not a pacifist who believes nothing justifies a war. There are few pure pacifists however since most people believe int the principle of self-defense. Just another little deceptive trick the FAIR article uses. Similar to what you accuse Klein. If your intent was not to disparage Clark then it might be a better course for you to restate your thoughts.

"crimes against the republic". "Justified hyperbole" to call him equal to a rapist. "Betrayal of the republc". "Blood on his hands."

Sorry, dude, but nobody, including myself, has to act as if hyperbole was true and act as if Klein is a criminal.

How about this: I take a criticism of Klein by Franken, call it a "smackdown, a real beating, gave him a black eye." Then we both pretend that the hyperbole is true: that Klein is a criminal, and that Franken gave him a physical thrashing. Wonder why that wouldn't work? Why, because everyone has to take your hyperbole as meaningful relationship to truth and act on it, instead of recognizing for, well, stuff somebody wrote because he felt like it.

I'll gladly debate whether Klein is a scumbag, and how much of one, but not with you. Because I'd be debating facts, and you'd be spouting hyperbole in order to score points for the greatest page.

By the way, if you don't think that Franken should apologize for backing the war, then why did your first horse include believing Colin Powell.....which is exactly what Franken apologized for? Why, then it's not a hit piece and nobody gets points for the greatest page. Ugh.

In the interest of helping you comprehend my points, I will use no hyperbole at all in this post.

"Justified hyperbole"-- I try not to trivialize murder, rape or maiming. They are truly awful things. It is simplistic misdirection to say that I equated Klein with a rapist. Rather I used a hyperbolic simile. Then you conveniently avoided the justification I gave for that simile (see post #79) in responding to your post:



Bush has literally caused murder, rape, maiming, ecological catastrophes and a lot of other evil. Klein was an active, willing participant in an MSM cabal that made the 2000 election close enough for BushCo to steal it. But for that MSM cabal, Gore would have won the electoral college handily and the great evils of the Bush regime would have been avoided.

So I believe that Klein has attenuated, yet real, moral responsibility for the evils of Bush. Attenuated in two senses: 1) Klein was only one of many in the MSM who cost Gore the election; and 2) some of the terrible things done by BushCo were not predictable in 2000, e.g. the invasion of Iraq. However, many awful things BushCo has done were quite predictable, for example: increases in respiratory ailment deaths of low socio-economic status American kids living close to smokestack industries; third world women dying from lack of family planning and other health services; poor people dying around the globe because of diminished foreign aid; more ecological catastrophe (and concomitant human casualties); increased extinction of species and habitat in critical ecosystems, etc., etc.

"crimes against the republic"-- I consider that only slightly hyperbolic. Klein had a journalistic duty to be fair and accurate (he was neither), to promote a healthy discourse in order to allow the democratic process to occur. What he did was a betrayal of his profession and our republic, quite literally.

"Betrayal of the republic"-- As stated above, I mean that literally.

"Blood on his hands."-- I consider that only mildly hyperbolic. I believe he has a real, albeit attenuated, moral responsibility for the evils of BushCo, including war casualties, murder, torture and environmentally caused death. Hence the reference to blood.

I have no desire to debate you either, regarding whether Klein is a scumbag. However, if you ever decide I am rhetorically worthy of your lofty standards, I believe it would be easy for me to make a strong case in the affirmative.

Finally, your last question:



The answer is simple. Because it illustrated my premise, namely that in dealing with non-rightwingers, Franken sometimes is not as rigorous in his skepticism or pursuit of the truth. In the run-up to the invasion there were many red flags raised. Two examples: 1) reports of cherry ppicking intel and pressuring analysts; and 2) Bush insisting the vote on the IWR occur BEFORE the 2002 elections, thereby politicizing it. That's part of why millions around the world took to the streets in protest prior to the invasion. They sensed BushCo was acting in bad faith.

Franken has admitted that particular mistake with great candor, to his credit. He is a wonderful, talented human being. He is a tremendous asset to our party in so many ways. I admire him greatly. But, IMO, he does a disservice to our party, our country and our planet when he lets MSM reporters come on his show and dissemble with no effective accounting.

You mean, the guy works for the media. He didn't pull any triggers. He didn't order anyone else to. He doesn't have that sort of power.

By "attenuated", you mean.......the hyperbole stuff again. You mean you disagree with him. Or he got it wrong. Or even he got it wrong on purpose. So he's a murdering rapist traitor, and everyone has to act like he is one, or they are about the same. What bullshit.

You flog Franken for not being rigorous in skepticism or pursuit of the truth, but what you really mean is that he doesn't treat people as if the hyperbole of rape, murder and mayhem had a relationship to the truth of the matter.

Your problem with Franken is that he doesn't fall your competing set of myths, namely, your hyperbole based on "attenuated" responsibility.

I have no problem if Franken puts the truth first, not rhetorical excesses. I don't have a problem with him treating people according to what they actually do, not as a rapist or a murderer or a traitor because somebody throws the words around.

Me, I think that the truth is enough. I don't need anyone to act as if something else were more important, but you do. Or at least, you pretend you do in order to make a hit piece that makes everyone equally responsible, including Franken, for not treating people who aren't rapists like rapists. That's not a question of reading, is it?

You could still use a reading course. Maybe one about logic would be better.

IMO, you are spouting generalizations and not addressing my arguments. The funny thing is that it appears to me you are using exaggeration (dare I say hyperbole?) about my statements.

FWIW, Al Franken also engages in hyperbole. One example is in his book, Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them, p. 44, 1st sentence, discussing the pernicious MSM in 2000:



I guess Lies was just a hit piece. Obviously all he cared about was making the NYT best seller list! (Note to Inland: that's sarcasm.)

I'm through. I don't feel this sub-thread is going anywhere. Readers can judge the merits on the basis of what we have both already said. Feel free to take the last shot.

Isn't that where all of these type CT threads end up. Be them truth or not.

just sayin

Labeling my contention about campaign 2000 as a conspiracy theory is weird. What the MSM did to Gore in 2000 is a matter of public record. The reasons for the animus displyed by the MSM are certainly debatable, but the existence of hostility, bias, spin and deception on the part of the MSM is thoroughly documented using publicly available reportage from the era. One exhaustive reference is the archives of dailyhowler.com.

Since you have questioned my motives based on "vibes," etc., I will take up the challenge. You and others have repeatedly called me out on the issue of Clark's consistency as being anti-war with respect to Iraq. Let's see where the facts lead us.

First let me say I hope that this thread doesn't become all about that. I criticized a popular figure (whom I still very much admire) because I think he did a terrible job on the Klein interview. Sometimes great people do bad things. FDR, Bobby Kennedy and Al Gore, three of my favorites, all have things in their careers I don't like. That doesn't change my admiration for them, it only tempers it. I hope others may continue to discuss the charge I made in OP with nuance and a commitment to independent inquiry and intellectual honesty. That's what I want for this thread.

Having said that, let's do the Clark thing. I am committed to doing it robustly but with reasonable civility and respect. I invite you to do the same.

Why not start with the FAIR article? Here's what I propose:

Let's de-construct the FAIR article by: 1) obtaining the primary materials cited; 2) discussing the context and political motivation (if any) of FAIR's article; and 3) discussing the primary materials considering the full text, where available.

Here's my initial analysis of the FAIR piece, linked in OP:

Paragraph 1: States a contemporary (9/16/03)conclusion that press characterizations of Clark are inaccurate (i.e. that Clark was consistently anti-war).

Paragraph 2: A selection of anti-war characterizations in the press.

Paragraph 3: Discussion of the political implications of Clark's anti-war status.

Paragraph 4: Purportedly conflicting quotes calling into question the consistency of Clark's anti-war position.

Paragraph 5: Summary of Time magazine piece (10/14/02) by Clark.

Paragraph 6: Clark quotes on CNN to support the contention that as time wore on, Clark's position shifted.

Paragraph 7: Clark quotes on CNN concerning the certainty of the existence of WMD.

Paragraph 8: After Baghdad fell, FAIR contends Clark shifted position dramatically. In support, his London Times column (4/10/03) is quoted.

Paragraph 9: Further quotations from the 4/10/03 piece.

Paragraph 10: Quotation from subsequent LT column (4/11/03).

Paragraph 11: Conclusion.

In my opinion the heart of the debate lies in paragraphs 5,6 and 8-10. I am discounting paragraph 7 because I think a discussion of the existence of WMDs is irrelevant for our purposes, but if you want to include it, OK.

PRIMARY MATERIALS:

Paragraph 5: Time magazine piece (10/14/02). I have that.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

Paragraph 6: Full text of CNN comments (1/21/03). I do not have that.

Full text of CNN comments (2/5/03). I do not have that.

Paragraph 8: London Times article (4/10/03). I have that.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Paragraph 9: Same as paragraph 8. See above.

Paragraph 10: London Times article (4/11/03). I do not have that.

Let's begin. Do you have any of the mentioned primary materials that I listed as not having?

This has been done on DU so, so, so many times already.

If Frenchie wants to spend her time going thru it again, she's welcome to it. She's certainly capable.

But it seems to me there's probably an old thread somewhere that lays it all.

I fail to see how me spending my Friday night debunking your accusations is gonna have you seeing the light.

After all that I have posted, you now want to me to "dissect" the "FAIR" article on Clark for you, ignoring the fact that you also had the civil debate obligation to respond when I post quotes that clearly showed quite a few things, such as the fact that all of the politicians who were against going into Iraq, INCLUDING AL GORE, were not anymore "anti Iraq war" than was the General.....and that Wes Clark did indeed not want George Bush to have a Blank Check, i.e., "that" particular resolution that ended up passing.....

So, unfortunately, I believe that if I were to take a great deal of my time engaging in this excercise that you are now promoting, aside from the fact that you have arrogantly ignored my posts, then that would make me the fool.

If I leave things as they are, then what this thread reveals are your true motives from Jump street.

I will let others judge If I have provided enough of the evidence required in response to your initial post.

You may call yourself an "Admiral"....but you are not the "Boss" of me. I already "brought it on"...you just failed to respond.

In reference to some of what you are asking for....you can read these threads, and you can make your own decisions (hint....one of these or two answers your questions)--If you bother to read these exchanges....good! If you don't want to read them....fine by me as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1517151

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1879608

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=824791

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2482830

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2121094

You see, my job as a Clark supporter is not to get you to agree with me as to what Clark represents, especially if you don't want to..... My job is to make sure that folks who read this thread have enough information so that they can themselves decide what's what, and who's who.

Now....I will wake up tomorrow and fight the enemy (the GOP) by making my weekly donation to an '06 candidate that I find worthy, and writing a couple of letters to editors in reference to the Goss issue....as soon as I find out more about it. :hi:

1. I generated the OP of this thread, prefacing my criticism of Franken with several examples I considered germane to set up the point about the Klein interview.

2. One of those examples was about Clark. I clearly stated in the OP that I considered any resulting discussion of Clark was tangential to my main thesis.

3. I refrained from responding to most of the posts about Clark for a time because my original intent was to create a discussion about what I consider a significant weakness on the part of Franken.

4. Several of the posts about Clark challenged the FAIR piece I cited and questioned my motivation and good faith.

5. Finally, I responded with what I consider to be a serious way of debating the FAIR piece (post #95).

6. You responded to #95 with a series of links from other DU threads (I looked at all of them) discussing Clark but not addressing my main question in #95, (i.e. do you have the primary materials I do not have?).

Now as to Gore. He unequivocally opposed the IWR which passed. If you don't know that, I can provide you the quote from his San Francisco speech in September, 2002. For the record, he has been consistently, robustly against the invasion of Iraq, no matter where American public opinion stood. The same is true, in my view, of Feingold, Byrd, Kennedy, Dean, Kucinich and others.

I applaud you for what you are doing on the 2006 elections. I too am donating time and money in that effort. We are definitely political allies in the struggle to rid this country of a great evil. So is Franken and essentially everybody else who has participated in this thread. My point was (and remains) that Franken needs to do a much better job in confronting certain MSM reporters/pundits who continue to spread lies (sometimes on his show!) that seriously hurt us as we confront that evil. Also, as I said in OP, if Clark is the nominee, I will support him. I'll work with you and others to put him in the White House.

Having said all of that, I stand ready to debate you or anybody else on the FAIR piece cited in OP. Will you at least give me the common courtesy of answering my question? I really want an answer. Do you have the primary materials listed in post #95 which I have not so far obtained, especially the 4/11/03 Clark piece in the London Times?

You obviously DIDN'T read all of the links that I provided you with, because the link to that article is there, in two of them....

So maybe you "skimmed", but you did not read, or else you would have located a total analysis and break down of that Times article, paragraph by paragraph in quite a few post which running as a pretty interesting debate.

I would add that your comment of having "refrained" from responding to the Clark defenses because you wanted the thread to be about "Franken" and not about Clark is disingenious, at best. You chose to include a "Hit piece" about Clark in your OP, and to justify that you did not respond to those who totally rebutted your initial accusation, is weak on your part.

Like I said, you may call yourself Admiral, which I guess is supposed to provide you with an "air of authority"....but unfortunately, the only Troop commands that I respond to are those eminating from a certain progressive General, in particular, when he tells me that 2006 is what is currently important....not fighting a premature primary war with a Gore supporters on a blog.

Again....we can take this up again during the primaries....when what you are discussing might be more germaine, but for the time being, I believe you to be way "offbase" in what your unstated goal appears to be is based on your OP.....including the manner in which you chose to approach it.

This is it for me, for now. You may certainly have the last word, if you so choose. Have a wonderful weekend! :hi:

Your Kafkaesque refusal to discuss or debate rationally has finally worn me down.

"You obviously DIDN'T read all of the links that I provided you with, because the link to that article is there, in two of them...."

Like a fool, I actually started RE-READING six long threads, then I remembered I'm not your monkey. Sweet Jesus, if you have the link to the 4/11/03 piece, why not provide it? I don't have it.

I put in a lot of time to find the 4/10/03 reference and I freely provided it to you but I'm getting no reciprocity. BTW, you stated that FAIR was a hit piece but it is based on Clark's own words.

He was a cheerleader for an immoral war, based on the 4/10/03 LT piece.

As to your mind reading ability to discern my motivations, I wouldn't advise opening a psychic shop.

Believe whatever you want. In the interests of civility I'll quit here.

Franken can be a real drag.

I used to listen to his show daily for the first few months, but I gave it up, like smoking.

I despise "G" Liddy. I hate the fact that he has the American Enterprise dude on, I don't give a shit if the guy is a good analyst.

He dismisses Election Fraud out of hand, perhaps he needs to have his Senate Race stolen from him by the Rethuglican machine before he "gets it", however, that hasn't seemed to have woken up John Kerry.

I loved "Lying Liars", I recommend it over his radio show.

Nobody should "get over" the election thefts of 2000 and 2004, and no free rides for enabling media ho's.

The line has become so very blurred. Yes, we do have to hold people who call themselves journalists accountable. There's no doubt about that. The media are just one big collective mess.

You don't fallow him and just want to put the spin on.
Clark NEVER supported the war just like I never supported this war.
It doesn't matter what we say to you or the links we give you. Your
mind is made up. I won't waste any more of my time on you.

cheers