Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scarborough's lies against Clark and other Dems: watch out for this tactic

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:05 PM
Original message
Scarborough's lies against Clark and other Dems: watch out for this tactic
(Please, please don't turn this into a Clark-bashing thread, okay? Thanks in advance!)

This is the story of Joe Scarborough's shark-jumping this week. (Yes I know, he's just a Ho and what can you expect etc., but this one's really over-the-top egregious, and I don't think he's the only one taking this angle.) It relates to other Democrats like Albright and Kennedy as well as General Clark (and even the "librul media" as a whole), but I've followed it by following what's said about the General so I don't have the transcripts or details about Kennedy and Albright.

The game is to accuse Democrats of inappropriately downplaying the election in Iraq for political reasons. Scar's mischaracterizations of their words have escalated through the week to the point where today, he actually claims they are "providing comfort to the terrorists."

It started on Monday. (Transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6867311 / - link to video here: http://www.u-wes-a.com/vidclips/MSNBC_012405.WMV )

Here are some quotes from Clark regarding the election in Iraq, from that show:
"I think its great news. And Iyou know, we all welcome the election."
"So, Im really happy with the good news. I hope it all works."
"Well, I think its great news..."
"I think an election is a great place to start..."
"I do like the good news."
"All Americans want this election to succeed."


And yet Joe actually said to him: "I know you dont like the good news getting out there. Were getting it out there tonight."

As you can see from the transcript, Clark kept explaining that the election, while an important step, needs to be considered in perspective, with caution, with reasonable expectations, with an end goal in mind, and what's really needed is for BushCo to come up with a strategy. Yet Scarborough didn't hear and/or didn't understand that.

Scarborough's cheerleading took the form of an argument against a point of view nobody held: "Thats great news, isnt it?" "I think that's a damn positive development." "General, you speak tonight as if an election is a footnote." (In the transcript, Clark then says "That's right" but watching the video it's clear he was answering Hitchens' statement just before that, not Scarborough.) "I think thats a good place to start." " This is historic." Of course, nobody was saying it wasn't good news or historic, but if you only heard Scarborough you'd think there was somebody on the other end who really hates elections.

Scar's summary statement included this gem: "I dont give a damn whether the Sunnis vote or not." Obviously he wasn't listening to the General at all, because he has no clue that Sunni participation and/or acceptance is important to stabilizing Iraq.

Now if you want to really piss off a four-star general, imply that he doesn't like the soldiers' success, or doesn't want the soldiers to succeed, or doesn't consider a step they've fought and died for important. Making that accusation and then not letting the general respond is an even worse insult. Clark spoke up loudly, in a vocal match with Hitchens. That led to a charming exchange later in the show, with Rich Little, which I won't even quote here. I'll just say that it's a fine example of what Repukes consider "supporting the troops" or "honoring service" or "respecting our veterans" and all that, right up there with purple-heart bandaids. If they had an ounce of respect they'd have edited it out.

Anyway, it gets better.

On Thursday, Scarborough said this in questioning Mort Zuckerman about liberal media bias: (transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6881313 / )

SCARBOROUGH: We are only a few days away from witnessing what is an historic election in Iraq. And yet I hear from the former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that she is saying, well, it really doesnt matter what goes on in this election, because its no big news.

A couple of nights ago, we had former General Wesley Clark and presidential candidate Wesley Clark saying it doesnt matter whether this is success or a failure. You know, this election, it just doesnt matter.

Dont you believe that the media has been underselling the significance of this election in Iraq on Sunday? And, if it succeeds, arent we seeing a great historical event that could change the way that Middle East history plays itself out?


Clark never said the election "doesn't matter." In fact it was Scarborough who said he didn't "give a damn" whether or not the Sunnis vote!

Which brings us to today. Scar has gone another step further, now accusing Clark and others of "providing comfort to the terrorists." On his webpage (called "Congressman Joe" -- um, is he still a Congressman?): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851 /

Over the past week, Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Madeleine Albright, and Wesley Clark have done their best to downplay the importance of Sunday's Iraqi elections.

Why would they make such absurd statements about a process that will bring democracy to a traumatized country for the first time in history? Why can they not put aside partisan politics for a few days to celebrate the fact that for the first time since they were installed by the Ottoman Empire in the 15th Century, the Sunni minority will no longer be able to oppress the other 80 percent if the Iraqi population?

Why do they choose words that can only be seen as providing comfort to the terrorists who want to delay, undermine, and dismiss this historic election?

For one simple reason: Because success in Iraq means validation of the president's foreign policy goals. And too many Democrats and editorial writers would rather see America humiliated abroad than see the President succeed at home.


So now these Democrats want "America humiliated abroad." They're "providing comfort to the terrorists." They're engaging in "partisan politics," and they don't want "success in Iraq." All because they supposedly "downplay the importance" of the election -- by telling the truth, putting it in perspective, proposing reasonable expectations and urging the administration to actually get a freaking plan.

I just found this so outrageous I wanted others to be aware of it as a technique against Democrats overall, and a huge lie in particular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's the only way Joey the Intern Killer can win an arguement.
Argue with phantoms. Or agree with the Progressive position, as he did with Ron Reagan this summer.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. And PS: Turn on Fox right now if you want to see the next installment
They're going to go after Clark with the same technique, from the lead-in I just heard.... (8:10 eastern time)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Well, I thought it was coming up next
Still waiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I'd love to watch this
but can-not stomach Fox! Can someone give a follow-up post on Ho's statements?

Thanks all! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Well I must admit when I'm wrong
and I'm pleasantly surprised on this one. Compared to the Scarborough fiasco, the interview just now was superb. I don't usually watch Faux so I don't know who the interviewer is, but he asked questions that let General Clark provide informed answers, and he gave him time to answer. He didn't accuse him of wanting to see the mission fail, and let Clark state several times how it might succeed. It dealt with mechanics and not really with politics, but still it was at least civilized.

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Tony Snowjob is a raving lunatic
I sometimes catch him on local Fox radio affiliate in the late afternoon (after InHannity). But he behaved himself in this interview. 'Course, he tried to tempt his next "guest" into dissing Clark (after Monday's chop job, I hold my breath to hear what follows), but the guy must have missed his cue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Yes
I did notice the bait -- sort of: "General Wesley Clark just said..... So how much DO you disagree with that?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
44. Are you sure that was Fox????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quakerfriend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Your analysis is right on!
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 07:11 PM by Quakerfriend
They are experts at turning a complete 360 degrees...and using the dems as their scapegoat!

We need to blast them with emails!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maestro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Save this
Joe is scum and the polarizing rhetoric he uses, just like other ultra right wing bots, do nothing to help anyone except garner him more shock ratings on the Faux News channel. What scum!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Actually he's on MSNBC, but there's little difference!!
The thing is, I think they'll be using this same technique on other Democrats (or all Democrats) or even the last vestiges of non-compliant media... If you don't take up the pom-poms and join in the Chimp Cheer, you're an unpatriotic troop-hater who wants the situation in Iraq to deteriorate further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. No matter what network. They all read off the same talking points memo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Mediawhores Anonymous
Maybe they've got a program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, joe@msnbc.com
I doubt he reads them if they are citicism!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Also letters@msnbc.com
I suggest requesting they take that lie off his webpage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Do you really think they care?
It's more than probable their filters are set wisely to head straight for the junk, if not trash can.

I've gotten to the point that it's a waste of my precious time, and why should we care. Their joy-ride can't last forever - pundit payola re-pukes! Who are "they" to tell "us" about patriotism, much less anything else when their high-paid puppeteer's!

Rumor has it they're all sore-winners because we do not shut-up, nor go away on issues. I said kick um' on their curtails till they implode!

:kick: :kick: :kick: Here that Fox & MSNBC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Well, I care and I feel better doing something, even writing futile emails
Maybe they don't read them. Sometimes I think I'm writing more for myself than anything else. But also, recently the General said we ought to keep writing.

So, it may be futile, but I do. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
45. I think it's so funny
how they "won" this last election and still are so angry. LOL! It's just funny to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. Sparkly....you've done an excellent compillation and timeline of
the type of propaganda the country is being subjected to. In fact, this is the first timeline of its type I've seen, and it is remarkable how transparent and harmful this type of "reporting" is to the country.

I suggest you send copies of this to every Dem in Washington. If that doesn't show them what's happening to everything they say and do, nothing will.

These right wing tactics are systemic and are destroying our currently frail Democracy, and I'm just sick to death of it!!!

Good job! :yourock:

:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Thanks, Sue!
I appreciate that very much! :hi:

If only everybody in the media were bound to telling the truth... everything would be different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. If Clark is actually a presidential candidate
he needs to stop going on these wing-nut shows immediately. It will NEVER help him.

Scarborough's not a journalist, he's a partisan hack. A serious Democratic presidential candidate shouldn't even think about going on his show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I know what you're saying.
On the one hand, I think it's great that he takes these idiots on and speaks out against this administration.

On the other hand, after that show and Scarborough's subsequent spin, I too find myself hoping he'll put Scar on a "NO" list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. This has nothing to do with presidential campaigns
It's about how the corporate media distorts and lies about everything Democrats say and twists it around into the oposite of what was being said.

So far Wes Clark has not expressed any particular interest in running for president in '08. He has expressed an interest in speaking out on the abuses and incompetence of the Bu$h administration, and especially in doing so in venues where progressive voices are not normally heard. I think this is a laudable activity. You don't have to, but please do not attempt to hijack this thread and turn it into a candidate war. That was not its intent, and it is a disruptive and counterproductive behavior.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Beg your pardon
but, WTF?

I said IF Clark is running. Chuck Todd of Hotline said to Judy Woodruff that Clark wants to run in 2008. Is it true? I don't know, but thousands of people all over the Internet believe it and are are excited.

Sure it's laudable for Clark to go on these wing nut's shows and fight the good fight, but the point demonstrated by the OP is that they will lie about him and twist what he said endlessly. I don't think the benefit of doing it outweighs the cost, IF he intends to run in 2008.

I'm not saying Clark shouldn't go on television and point out Bush's lies and failures. But there are better venues than the shows of lying nut cases like Scarborough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. I apologize for my earlier response.
The recent attacks on here on Clark and his supporters have been so massive and so vicious that I've kind of gotten to be on a bit of a hair trigger. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your post and reacted before thinking.

I don't know if it matters whether Democrats go on these shows or not. Every word they say will be misrepresented and twisted whether they say them on the show or not. At least when they go on those shows, their actual words are more clearly documented and it's easier to point out the misrepresentation. I honestly don't know if it's of any value or not.

Once again, I apologize for snapping at you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #30
53. No harm done
I think we mostly agree. I think Clark should be on telelvision as much as possible. Just not on the execrable Scarborough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. Either way, same problem
If all Democrats listen to that other poster's advice and not go on any of those shows, we'll never even have an opportunity to be heard. Whether they're trying to kill Clark before he gets out of the 2008 gate, or smear the Democratic voice altogether, the tactics are the same. We've got to stop fighting amongst ourselves and point the gun at them. I've been saying that since summer 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Scarborough, Mr. Attorney-For-Re pukes!
I've thought the exact same thing! Serious Democrats need to stop going on their shows as kicking-posts.

Think about it, seriously think on this one: "If absolutely NO one goes on their show to debate/argue with them, whom will they have to debate with?"

Logical Response: NO ONE! Rating go down w/no one to grind to the ground.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
41. They will always find someone...and they won't be as good as Clark.
I say Clark should get on as many shows as he can. It's also good experience!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. According to Clark
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 08:47 PM by Jai4WKC08
He goes on these shows precisely because they're RW idiots (ummm... not an exact quote), not journalists--but he knows that a significant part of their audience is not. He's willing to take the abuse to try and reach those in the audience who are still open to a rational, dissenting view.

Moreover, he's asked all of us to call in to RW talk radio, and communicate in other similar venues to try to get the truth out to those who will listen. There may not be many of them, proportionately, but they are there.

It's a worthy cause, and has nothing to do with a potential presidential run in '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. A passing desperate attempt, imho.
After tomorrow, and maybe for the next week, the "election" will be headline news (probably more so than our little charade), and then, as the blood continues to flow, American and Iraqi - human and on bush's hands, it will be like the staged toppling of the saddam statue.

And these little whores, who'd rip America to pieces if they could get rich from it, all fail to talk about the true cost of bush's bloody invasion - the cost in lives, human lives.

They want to preach "sanctity of life" in the next segment, but boy, they never let that spill over into their Iraq fantasy, do they?

Let him ramble on like the hateful liar he is. This particular attack will be irrelevant in a week.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Well stated!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lostnote03 Donating Member (850 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
22. Congressman or Killer Joe?....
.....I did watch briefly, Mondays version of a journalistic lap dance and Joes distance from Clark saved himself from a good ole ass whipping....Clark was ready to disengage Joes brain from his jaw....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
28. Interview on Fox: more polite than MSNBC=assholes
Clark just completed an interview with Tony Snow on Fox. I've written to Snow before-not about Clark-and I've received snide comments for my efforts. (Note: not as bad as the one I received from NPR.) So, I have no illusions about the crap that Snow can spew, but this evening he was polite, and the talk was substantial.

As for the General, well, what can one say? His answer about bombing Iran: It is always best to talk to people before you wallop them with a stick.

Snow then asserted that Iranians hate the mullahs and will welcome freedom (paraphrase.) Clark responded that people hate it when you bomb them. (Snow changes subject.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
29. Starting early on the 2008 smear campaign
Doesn't matter who the candidate is, they will smear him. Decorated war veteran, U.S. General. Makes no difference. Maybe some day we'll all come together and stop bashing Democrats and start bashing Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Could be, but what's his gripe with Albright and Kennedy?
Maybe it's just sort of "piling on," trying to make his case that assorted Democrats, including Clark, are unpatriotic troop-haters.

I dunno, but I agree it's the Republicans who deserve that bashing! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Lumping Clark with Kennedy?
It's such an obvious political ploy. I'm amazed it still works after all these years. But it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cry baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
33. Send him your post - it's great, see if he'll give you a response...
he thinks no one is paying attention. Call him on his lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
35. Pundit Payola might not be solely in dollars. There is still no
justice for Lori.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
36. Once Tucker Carlson joins MSNBC, there will be balance.
Smirking rightwing commentary from Tucker Carlson balanced with smearing rightwing commentary from Joe Scarborough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
37. I say that we write to them and to mediawachdog orgs.....
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 10:34 PM by FrenchieCat
Don't give up. Writing is important...especially when you copy an organization that could end up giving MSnbc Bad press. That's the one thing they would not want....to be part of a story instead of distorting one.

I wrote the following letter to viewerservices@msnbc.com
and copied:
Media for Democracy at tim@mediachannel.org
Joe "Blowhard" himself at joe@msnbc.com
JScarborough@msnbc.com Joe "Blowhard" other email for good measure
MSNBC's trash email address GeneralComments@feedback.msnbc.com
And Media Matters tips at mm-tips@mediamatters.org

I also went to the "contact us" site on Air America for every single show they have and sent them a copy of my letter.

If more would do the same....not just send the letter to the offending source, but copy it to those who can do something about it....like publicize this propaganda, we COULD make a difference.

MY LETTER-- SUBJECT: INACCURATE INFORMATION ON YOUR WEBSITE
Dear Viewerservice,
I must insist that the below highlighted spoken words of Joe Scarborough be removed from your website, because joe is not speaking the truth.

I am tired of the MSnbc employees distorting the words of those who appear on their programs. It is very disturbing to listen and to read misrepresentation and distortions. I, for one, have had it up to here with this kind of propaganda!

I will be contacting several organizations, such as Media Matters, Media for Democracy and various shows on Air America. By the time I am finished complaining about msnbc's lack of honesty, you will end up losing a lot of your readers and viewers and MSnbc's reputation will rate in the same category as Fox, but without Fox's large audience. I am attaching the transcript of the show which recorded Wesley Clark's spoken words when he appeared on Joe Scaroborough's earlier this week, and none of the sentiments reported by Joe below appears in that transcript.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

ps: Transcript of what was actually discussed appears below the offending words needing removal from your website

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851 /
Politics over freedom (Joe Scarborough)
REMOVE THE FOLLOWING:
You would like to think that in the end, when all the political shoving and scratching is over, that Americans would come together for what is in the best interest of their country.

Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Over the past week, Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Madeleine Albright, and Wesley Clark have done their best to downplay the importance of Sunday's Iraqi elections.

Why would they make such absurd statements about a process


TRANSCRIPT BELOW SHOWS THAT COMMENTS MADE BY GENERAL CLARK ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE SENTIMENTS THAT MR. JOE HAS ATTRIBUTED TO CLARK. READ CLOSELY:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6867311 /
SCARBOROUGH: General Clark, obviously, youve been concerned from the beginning about the way the United States got into this war. A lot of Americans have shared that concern. They also have shared your concern about what the Bush administration did to bring peace to that area or their failure to bring peace to that area.

And yet, we have a poll out showing 80 percent of Iraqis are excited about this opportunity to vote. You see more and more evidence that the turnout is going to be high; 80 percent say theyre likely to vote; 12 percent say theyre unlikely; 4 percent say they dont know. And international observers say that the worlds going to be shocked by the turnout. Is that good news?

WESLEY CLARK (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think its great news. And Iyou know, we all welcome the election.

The question is what really happens after the election. Clearly, a lot of Iraqis are going to vote. Clearly, some wont vote. And after it, some wont accept the results. And the question is will a large turnout in and of itself invalidate those who are fighting against the idea of a democracy in Iraq?

SCARBOROUGH: Like Zarqawi?

CLARK: Like Zarqawi, will it do that? And the odds are that it will not invalidate them. The odds are they will continue to still make bombs, still attack people, and still have the passive support of large numbers of the population.

Remember, if youve got 80 percent that are going to vote, thats five million who arent sure theyre going to vote. And why is it that there are five million who arent sure theyre going to vote? If you look at insurgencies historically, it doesnt take a very large insurgency to cause a great deal of difficulty for an established government.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: And what were trying to do in Iraq is establish a government

is were trying to establish a government in the face of an insurgency.

Its an extraordinary difficult task.

So, Im really happy with the good news. I hope it all works. I just hope that well approach this with a little bit of caution, because weve got a long way to go in Iraq. And the administrations record honestly is not very good at delivering on the potential.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: Well, I think its great news, but youre not going to compare Iraqi democracy with an American democracy, surely, Joe. Im not going to do that.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Well, if we have a higher turnout, then I think thats a damn positive development.

CLARK: If you look at the polling thats been done, youll see the turnouts like 95 percent among the Kurds and the Shia. They think theyve got a lot to gain. If you look at the turnout...

SCARBOROUGH: They do.

CLARK: ... percentages projected from the Sunnis, the figures Ive shown show its about 20 percent. Now, the Sunnis are a small part of the population. So overall it looks really good.

But if you end up after the election with a very angry, dispossessed Sunni group in the middle of Iraq, thats not a positive outcome. Thats why people like Chalabi are trying to offset the idea that itsthe election is only about sectarianism.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: What we havent heard from the administration is what the real strategy is.

Theres an excessive focus here on the turnout as the measure of success in election. Id suggest that heres the way you should look at this. The election is productive if it leads to the creation of a legitimate Iraqi political body that can take away from all elements of Iraqi society the idea they have something to fight against, that can take away the idea that theyre being occupied by the Americans, the idea that the Sunnis are dispossessed. Thats the standard, not the percentage of turnout.

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: Well, I agree with you about the percentage, because it is important, above all, that an election is taking place at all, as it was among the Palestinians going forward, and as it has been in Afghanistan.

CLARK: Furthermore, theres another thing here, Christopher, we ought to talk about. What we really havent seen from the administration yet is, what is the real strategy? Of course were going to have an election. But the strategy, what is the end state were after in Iraq? Weve never laid out the end state.

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: Well, the administration has put all its egg in the Allawi basket.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second.

General, you speak tonight as if an election is a footnote.

CLARK: Thats right.

SCARBOROUGH: That a democratic election in a totalitarian state is a footnote. I think thats a good place to start.

And, Christopher Hitchens...

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: I think an election is a great place to start, but what is end state were after.

SCARBOROUGH: What Im hearing from soldiers that e-mail me day in and day out, its the same thing, that mainstream media keeps burying the lead on the Iraqi vote.

I want you all to look at this headline. And this was the day after George Bush delivered his address. Washington Post, above the fold, A-1, Arabs Say U.S. Rhetoric Rings Hollow. Now, of course, they dont quote a single person on the first page. But buried on page A-13 under the headline At Unity Against Violence, Not on Vote, this came from a Shiite leaderquoteWhatever they do, it will not change the outcome, because there are only 10 days separating us from the day when we will say no to dictatorship. And the article went on to say that worshipers chanted inside this bombed-out mosque, We will go to ballot boxes even if we have to crawl. This is historic.

HITCHENS: Yes, its very inspiring.

SCARBOROUGH: And, Christopher Hitchens, the story is not being told on A-1, like it should be.

CLARK: I think its being told in many newspapers, Joe. Ive seen it in every newspaper in America.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: General, will you let somebody else talk? I know you dont like the good news getting out there. Were getting it out there tonight.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: I do like the good news. Ive been in favor of our troops and in favor of the success of this mission from the beginning, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: Christopher Hitchens, talk.

HITCHENS: The question was to me.

CLARK: So Im not going to be painted in the other corner.

HITCHENS: The question was to me. The question was to me. Thank you.

CLARK: No, it was personal to me, Chris. And I dont like the idea...

HITCHENS: Christopher.

CLARK: Look, Ive been in favor of the mission, the success of the mission from the beginning, Joe.

HITCHENS: The question was to me. The question was to me.

CLARK: I want like to see...

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: ... make a success.

HITCHENS: The question was to me.

SCARBOROUGH: General, you were filibustering, General. Let Christopher Hitchens respond.

HITCHENS: The question was to me.

Look, the administration doesnt come too brilliantly out of this. If, through the CIA, installed a man, Mr. Allawi, a very dubious character indeed, who has been smuggling U.S. dollars out of the country that dont belong to him, who has been using the media in Iraq as if they belong to him personally, and who has been acting in a generally all-around thuggish way, the CIA has never got anything right in Iraq and continues to get things wrong on our dime, in our name and at our expense.

SCARBOROUGH: General, Ill give you the last word.

CLARK: All Americans want this election to succeed. We want our troops to be safe. We want the mission to be accomplished. We want our troops home safely.

And this election is part of the process of getting them there. But I think we also have to look realistically at the election. The point is not just the level of participation, but who is participating and what happens next. And what Id like to hear a little more of is what the administrations strategy is. Whats next? Are we going to let the Iraqis invite us to leave after the election? Are we going to stay there for a long time? What are the standards for the success of this mission?

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

CLARK: I dont think its asking too much to ask the administration to lay that out. Thats what our soldiers and their families need to hear, and Im speaking up for them.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, General, Ill meet you halfway on it. I still agree this administration doesnt have an exit plan. Thats a terrible mistake.

But regarding who votes, I dont give a damn whether the Sunnis vote or not. Theyve oppressed this nation since 1934. If they dont want to vote because theyre finally going to have to live in a representational democracy, tough luck.

Well be right back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Excellent
I like the way you included mention of the other places you were contacting in your email to MSNBC.

His remark, "Why would they make such absurd statements," ought to be enough to expose this as a journalistic sham, as he never quoted ANY statements at all, let alone absurd ones!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. How much is Bush Junta paying Joe?
He railed against Pundit Payolla so much that it seems that he is angry that these other pundits who worked for Bush Junta got way more than he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #40
50. Joe has a skeleton in his closet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Joe's an ass hole! Pure and simple!
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 11:29 PM by Auntie Bush
Joe's comment...."If they dont want to vote because theyre finally going to have to live in a representational democracy, tough luck."

Did it ever occur to him they not vote because they are afraid to be blown to pieces!

As of this moment (8:23 AM Baghad time) not a single person has voted in Baghdad yet. I guess they are ALL afraid of living in a representational democracy!

Edited to add...an explosion in Baghdad just occured! We should ask Joe if he were there...Would HE vote. I think he said once that he'd vote if he had to crawl. Someone ought to take him up on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #37
48. Wow, you've got it nailed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
39. Love the interview hate the network?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
43. Mind if a do a post about this, asking DUers to e-mail MSNBC??
For the past week or two I've been trying something out: I've been asking DUers to e-mail specific media outlets, in regard to one particular subject. My theory is that a targeted, coordinated approach is most effective in having an impact on the media -- a station getting 100 or more e-mails on one subject might take notice.

I've put a few posts up over the past two weeks or so. For example, one asked everybody to e-mail CNN thanking them for having Boxer on and letting her talk at length, and then asking them to give more coverage to her efforts. Thursday I did one asking everybody to e-mail Chris Matthews asking him to talk about the neoconservatives and how they're driving Bush's foreign policy (since Tweety is hosting tomorrow night's Iraqi election extravaganza on MSNBC).

Got a very good response on the Boxer one -- about 40-50 people did it. Less than 10 did the Matthews one, though (bummer).

The stuff you wrote about Scarborough makes my blood boil. That's exactly the crap that should be smacked down, but good. There seems to be a ton of Clark supporters on DU -- I bet they'd send e-mails.

What do you think? If you like the idea, I would like to put a link to your e-mail on the post, if that would be okay with you -- so people can read of full account of Scarborough's "lyin' ways".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. of course you should do the link......
and I have been reading your posts and acting on them...cause I always believe that if we don't speak out, then who?

Clarkies must have written quite a few letters to Joe....cause the various Clarkie groups that I belong to always do (I count approx 700 members collectively). We understand the power of the media (witnessed by all of us during the primaries, so we know).

If you ask a few of the talking heads....they will tell you about the term "been Clarked".

Again, if we don't do it, then who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. yes, I recognize your screen name
There's a few stalwarts who always respond and kick action-oriented posts (many others are too busy putting together the '08 ticket, determining who needs to be thrown out of the Party, etc., etc.)

I was thinking just before that writing to the public affairs people at GE might be a new, potentially effective approach. Hmmm, will have to think about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #43
52. Sure
I guess I was hoping people would do that but it's probably better to come out and ask. ;)

If possible, I think it's best to write in some way that doesn't make it seem Joe is getting lots of viewers as a result of his outrageous accusations. That could come across in two ways: first by stating in the email that the transcripts or webpage link were seen on a blog or something, giving even more reason NOT to watch Scarborough; and second by writing to letters@msnbc.com or viewerservices@msnbc.com or another address besides Joe's own email.

The specific things to ask for, imo, is that the accusations come down off his webpage, and that he stop saying this crap on the air.

(I also sent this in the form of a letter to Daily Howler and Media Matters, fwiw.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. So, moggie, did you start another thread?
If so, could you provide a link?

I think it's a great idea to appeal to DU as a whole. This is a GOP attack on three good Democrats, from very different camps. We would be well served to challenge it together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Hey Jai person -- finally did that Joe Scarborough post
Posted it Sunday night around 9:30. Let me know what you think and give it a kick if you like it ........thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
49. Get this election over so we can focus on the mysterious death of Lori
Klausutis. Let's see if Scarborough can do a little investigative reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. He'll do as well as usual.....
and continue to make sh*t up. He ain't gonna be investigating a damn thing, as you could have surmised!

Now if someone could investigate his sorry ass, that's when you might have a story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
54. That Clark is such a terrorist appeaser!
Glad he's not our president. Glad we have his holiness george to keep us all safe! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Yeah, can't have someone who puts politics above national security n/t
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
58. Can do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 17th 2014, 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC