How do Clark supporters reconcile his stint at CNN?

[KissMyAsscroft]

I am trying to be respectul of your candidate, but this is a valid question.

I got yawn after yawn in the last thread, but no real explanations. Funny how that works...

I realize this has probably been discussed here before but I did not see the threads, so what is your explanation?

I am ABB all the way and think Clark has strong credentials.

I am trying to ask this in the nicest way possible, but I think if Dean had done an excited play by play of the war and than took the position he does now Clark supporters would be all over him.

It is a valid question and I think that it is very telling that no Clark supporter has been able to answer it without a "yawn" dismissal.

[tishaLA]

1. Honestly, I'm not sure what to reconcile.

I also think I would disagree with your comment about his "excited play by play." It didn't look that way to me, but maybe you remember something I don't.

[KissMyAsscroft]

7. Well...he certainly didn't object...

I watched him a lot, and it was disgusting to me.

All day on this board we scream about Wolf, and Paula, and Aaron Brown, etc...hell I hate them all. We scream about the corporate media (which I despise). We talk about people not standing up and telling the truth, and we talk about people being bought off by the media.

Clark was just as guilty as all of these other people in pimping this war to the masses.

My point is this...Dean wouldn't have done it. Not that they would have asked him to, but he would have said he was against the war. He wouldn't have sat back and done the play by play with a smile on his face and cashed the check.

That's what I need reconciled.

So if Wolf Blitzer decided to run for the Dem nomination, and happened to have the same credentials as Clark that would be ok with everyone here?

[tishaLA]

19. I accept your points about the corporate media

but I am not sure how Clark was "pimping" the war. I seem to remember him as analytical about it, as an analyst should be, and not overzealous at all. IIRC, Faux took several shots at him for being too "negative" when he was doing his analysis, in fact.

Again, I accept that I might be wrong, but perhaps you can point me to something specific that transgressed good behavior and became "pimping" and/or when he wasn't "telling the truth."

I also think you are a bit off base with the implication that Clark simply sat back with a smile on his face and cashed his check. He was hired as an expert; he was denigrated by the RW because he was seen as not gung-ho enough; he looked--to me--like a Retired General analyzing the war.

Again, I may be wrong. I'd be happy for you to show me how.

[KissMyAsscroft]

37. I can't give you specific examples, but I watched him many times...

His supposed objection to the war never showed.

If he truly objected the war, he would have not done analysis of it like it was the Superbowl. He would have been digusted like the rest of us were.

Silence is implied consent.

[Clark Can WIN]

59. I disagree with you

To me his disagreement with the war came through very clearly. It's what first made me take notice of him.

It was not angry screaming in your face obvious. That isn't his style and would have insured an immediate termination. If you want to be heard, scream. If you want to be listened to, talk.

[mike_c]

85. good gawd, he praised the conduct of the invasion...

...to avoid being sacked for speaking out about what you presume were his real convictions and you don't find that the least bit troubling? The man wants to be President!

[Clark Can WIN]

86. You have it ass backwards and you should consider Deans Praise

of Bush at that time before you just go off.

[Printer70]

90. FAIR disagrees- Wes was Bush's supporter on CNN

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

One quote:
"Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03).

[BootinUp]

92. FAIR

I admire FAIR for what they do, been reading/listening to them for over 2 years. When it came to the Iraq/Clark thing they were pushing the "FAIR" moniker a bit. Clearly they take his words out of context as you do. But this is getting to be a waste of time. So have fun.

[Printer70]

95. "Context"!!!!

Would you care to put his comments IN CONTEXT? Apparently, you think "context" rescues Clark from these pro-Administration remarks so I'd love to hear that explanation.

[BootinUp]

98. Sure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=87486&mesg_id=87711

[VolcanoJen]

94. Ever heard of "Blow Dried Napoleon"?

This was the phrase Tom Delay coined during the early, casualty-heavy days of the war; it was aimed almost specifically at Gen. Clark, who was then rather vocal in his criticism of the ground war. That's actually the moment at which I first noticed him. The more I listened to him on CNN, the more I realized he was a voice of sanity in the middle of absolute madness. He had a real, tactile empathy for the soldiers and their conditions, and safety, and as the war dragged on, he increasingly aimed his critique toward the Bush administration and the DoD, for taking us there in the first place.

I think Clark sort-of metamorphosized during his CNN stint. I think he felt freer than he probably should have to speak candidly, as an "arms expert hired-hand." Personally, I trusted him more than any other former star-wearing talking head on all of television during the initial months of this damned awful war. I felt as though he was the only guy on television who wasn't trying to bullshit all of us.

I personally don't feel like I have to reconcile his CNN stint with my support of him at all. In fact, I kinda want to thank CNN for re-introducing me to that General from the late '90's that we used to hear so much about.

By the way, if you type www.blowdriednapoleon.com into your browser, it leads to the Clark04.com website. ;-)

- Jennifer

[Printer70]

96. Yes, he did metamorphisize INTO a supporter of war

So says FAIR:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

[JNelson6563]

32. I remember being disappointed

I watched when things were building uup and then starting to play out. I certainly never got the impression he was against the war. For most of the time he was just analytical but there were times it seemed to me that he supported it.

The reason I remember is there were so few voices that spoke negatively of this war at that time that I kept waiting and hoping to hear it whenever it happened.

Julie

[Clark Can WIN]

77. I felt that he was supportive of the troops, as one would expect

But not particularly thrilled with the "leadership" that put them there in the first place. That was what I took away from his commentary. As I said, it wasn't in your face slapstick obvious but it was there.

[SW FL Dem]

69. ALL day we scream about Wolf, Paula and Aaron?

Today I watched Wolf and Aaron and was very happy with their reports on the Dem primaries. Paula is an airhead. I tune her out for anything else. For the record Aaron Brown comes from Seattle. He's a good guy, I have watched him for years. He got off to a rough start at CNN. He was new on 9/11 and got shoved off the air by the airhead within hours.

[Clark Campaigner]

87. it shows that Clark wouldn't try to shut down the free press like Dean

threatened to do on Hardball.

[Printer70]

89. Wesley played cheerleader to Bush's war on CNN

FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) reports that the media has been inaccurate in stating that Wesley Clark was against the war in Iraq. At times Clark was a cheerleader while he was working for CNN.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

"Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03).

[Clark4Prez]

2. He worked for CNN, I can't believe it!

Umm, I am not sure what your point is here. He worked for CNN, he was a military consultant, he was in the military.

Am I bothered by it, no not at all.

[RetroLounge]

15. It's okay that he pimped for CNN then

He wasn't a Democrat yet...

[KissMyAsscroft]

18. LOL...thats what Clark supporters will not admit.

Thats my point!

[Clark Can WIN]

80. Whoah I thought you were ABB and

you thought Clark had strong credentials and all that?

Sound like you've already made up your mind. You are coming accross as distincly anti-Clark.

[realdem]

31. He didn't Speak Out

[SW FL Dem]

70. YES HE DID n/t

[Printer70]

91. Not the point- Clark shilled on CNN for Pentagon

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

[maddezmom]

3. well for me

My father would be considered a mediawhore to most here, but I still love him. :) It was a job, he was earning an income.

[MIMStigator]

4. I started liking him way back when he was on CNN DISSING *

he talked about not labelling people unpatriotic for beign against the war

[Dookus]

5. I'll take your question seriously -

There's absolutely nothing to reconcile. He was hired to provide analysis on the war because of his expertise. He did a fine job, too.

His knowledge of military matters is virtually unsurpassed. He was a great choice for CNN. He did a great job.

It was during that stint that he really caught my attention as an incredibly bright, articulate man. It made me research him further, and I loved what I found.

[KissMyAsscroft]

11. But aren't we fighting the media machine?

Aren't we holding CNN accountable for their pimping of the war like it was some sport?

Aren't we objecting to candidates picking money over their views?

Aren't we objecting to people not standing up for what is right?

To just say "oh, he was doing his job" is BS, and you guys all know it.

If Dean did the same thing, you guys would be flipping out.

As far as I'm concerned, he lost all moral high ground when he took a check from the devil(CNN) and did a play by play of an illegal war without filing one objection.

[tishaLA]

23. If I thought Clark were "pimping" the war

and that he was actually DOING the things you accuse him of by proxy, I'd be happy to criticize him--I don't see him as a demi-God, as some may (or may not)--but I don't think that fits the historical record.

And, indeed, if Dean had behaved as Clark did as an analyst, I would not flip out at all.

[Donna Zen]

75. Do you watch CNN?

Did you watch the war on TV?

Where do you think CNN get their money?

Why do you think CNN supports war?

If no one came, could CNN have their party?

Glass houses and stones

Find the remote remotely sane

Turn the fuckers off

Or don't complain

[Kahuna]

6. "Reconcile?"

"shrug:

[BootinUp]

8. You mean when

Clark warned about insufficient ground troups and pissed off the pentagon again?

[lurk_no_more]

9. OK, Ill bite

What is there to reconcile?



And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. You're trying to be respectful of our candidate?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Bullshit.

[KissMyAsscroft]

12. I'm being very respectful.

I am not calling him names, I am stating my opinion. That is the exact same way you treat Dean, so you can spare me the bullshit.

[democratreformed]

83. I've always heard that the word "but" negates what came before it n/t

[Maddy McCall]

13. A retired military general explaining tactics/strategy to JQ Public

GASP! EGAD! I'm dropping Clark!!

[creativelcro]

16. Drop Clark, definitely.

[KissMyAsscroft]

17. You aren't getting my point.

His views don't exist in a bubble.

He is either for the war or against it. If you are against a war where people are being killed, you state that.

You don't take a paid position hawking the war. He should have stated that he was against the war then, like Dean was doing.

[Dookus]

20. he wasn't hawking the war...

he was providing analysis on it.

I really don't see how using ones expertise to explain complicated subjects to the American public is "whoring".

[funky_bug]

26. We know

Dean was against the war... he was for skiing, against answering the call of duty.

I honestly don't see what's so honorable about a deferrment.

[KissMyAsscroft]

40. Blah, Blah, Blah...

The draft dodger comments are incredibly dumb and have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Clark was in the military? Gee, I hadn't heard!!!!!!

So was Clinton a bad president because he didn't serve in the military?

Get off your high horse.

[funky_bug]

44. I'll get off mine

When you get off yours.

[KissMyAsscroft]

54. We all know Clark was in the military...

And we all know Dean was a doctor, not a soldier.

Fair enough?

[SW FL Dem]

74. Are you a Dean supporter? n/t

[tishaLA]

29. So if you object to something

you cannot discuss it/view it analytically?

What would the law profession be with an attitude like that? How could doctors treat patients who don't take care of themselves? How could professors of literature teach something they didn't love? How could anyone examine a viewpoint that seems foreign or counterintuitive?

I believe Clark is mature enough to analyze something and disagree with it. Many of us do that every day.

[funky_bug]

33. Applause

Thanks - I was beginning to foam at the mouth like a crazy ... dare I say... cultist! Maybe we've been too hard on the Dean supporters. One evening of unfounded attacks on Clark have brought out the worst in me for sure. Your post was reasonable and mature. I'll sit back and let you take the reigns for awhile.

[KissMyAsscroft]

36. Apples and Oranges...

Everyone screamed bloody murder every day about the way CNN pimped the war. I saw it with my own eyes. It was sickening, and Clark played a part in it.

Your analogies are faulty.

[tishaLA]

42. Clark was an analyst. He was NOT Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer,

or even Christianne Amanpour, who admitted that she felt she had to paint a rosier picture and seem more supportive than she was because of the politics and the American mood.

None of these were Wesley Clark. He did indeed play a part--one that upset the Pentagon, Faux News, and dittoheads--but not the part, it seems to me, that youare accusing him of. Can you tell me what he did specificaly that allows you to say he was "pimping" the war? Or is analysis always a form of pimping?

[Donna Zen]

82. Turn them off

Don't contribute to their bottom line.

You are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.

[KissMyAsscroft]

43. He never disagreed with it!

Thats the point!

[tishaLA]

50. So you'll make the logical fallacy, then:

if he didn't disagree with it publicly, he must have really supported it?

It's just not a good, logical argument to pose about analysis.

[Donna Zen]

79. Bush speak alert:

He is either for the war or against it

How about supporting the troops, explaining the war, and dissing the WH.

Again, Clark speaks in complex-compound sentences and uses precise language. Apparently many people listened and understood that he was against the war causing them to start a draft movement.

Clark also spoke out against the idea of a war in Iraq at a Congressional hearing the summer before. Dean didn't do that either. Of course, he was not called upon to testify.

[KissMyAsscroft]

14. So everyone here is stating that if Dean did the same thing Clark did..

it would be no problem with you guys?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it for a second.

[Clark4Prez]

22. Dean could comment on down hill skiing

Military service is not his milieu

[BootinUp]

25. You used the Dean word of the day :)

[KissMyAsscroft]

28. Funny....

It's funny that when Clark supporters have nothing of substance to say, they decide to take the debate to bizarro world.

I said in an earler post in this same thread that obviously Dean wouldn't have been asked because he is not a military expert.

But hey, knocking down strawmen is easier than actually admitting your candidate did something you crticize others for daily.

[BootinUp]

24. Was Dean qualified?

I guess he could have done the Dr. Sanjay Gupta thing. Hey anyone remember when he did the brain surgery in Iraq?

[Lobo_13]

21. The way I see it

they don't want to acknowledge his previous job because it would show an ugly truth.

Clark got into the campaign with more name recognition than any other candidate. He was the CNN war guy. He was at the top of the polls right out of the gate.

Then people started looking at him and seeing there wasn't much there besides a couple of medals. And he's fallen on hard times because of it.

[BootinUp]

27. Got any of that stuff left?

I might need some mind altering if I gotta keep reading this stuff.

[funky_bug]

30. You're kidding me, right?

Clark is falling on hard times? He's RISING in the polls... oh, I forgot... Dean said today that the polls don't mean anything.

Clark had expertise... ah never mind. Read Dookie's post. She already stated it better than I could without completely quoting her.

Calling Clark a whore is childish. Unfortunately, I am reacting childishly, so I'm off this thread now.

[Dookus]

38. (ahem)

Dookie's a HE

;)

[funky_bug]

39. um

my bad... lol...

[BootinUp]

60. just a tip

click on the profile if the user has set it up. :)

[funky_bug]

65. Best tip

I've had since my hubby said, "I know you like Edwards, but take a look at this Clark guy."

[BootinUp]

67. I can't top that

:)

[KissMyAsscroft]

34. Bingo Lobo...

They can't handle the truth about their candidate.

I do however give Clark more credit than you do, I think he is more than just "a couple of medals." I think his plans sound good and he comes across as genuine.

I just happen to think his opposition to the Iraq war is oppurtunistic and phoney.

[Lobo_13]

49. His plans and all would sound much better

if he had some kind of experience in implementing them.

Dean has years of experience getting things done, even in hostile environments.

His plans all read like they were commissioned from think tanks and run through a focus group.

[Lefta Dissenter]

35. Unbelievable!

What is this, Slam Clark night?

Jeez, the reason I NOTICED Clark to begin with was that he was highly critical of the war as he was commentating on CNN. He specifically said that he would not have made the decision to go into Iraq.

I was pointing him out to friends and family, saying "look at this General who is actually criticizing bush for going to war!"

Why don't you spend some time touting the virtues of your own candidate rather than spewing such crap about others?

[KissMyAsscroft]

45. Actually the first response in nearly evey thread is from a Clark supporte

You might want to check.

If anything, it's Clark supporter night.

We are allowed to discuss candidates here. If you can't be an adult about it, don't participate.

[Lefta Dissenter]

61. So let's see,

the dean supporters post thread after thread attacking Clark.

You're surprised that Clark supporters would be the first ones to respond to the OP's?

And do tell me how I'm not being 'an adult about it.' If I don't like it, I'm not being an adult?

What's with all the personal attacks tonight?

[tishaLA]

64. It's not only that, though....

the thread's title is "how do Clark supporters reconcile...." And Clark supporters responding is shocking? Part of a nefarious campaign?

[democratreformed]

41. Well, flame and ridicule me if you must...

but, on CNN was where I first heard the name Wesley Clark. Yes, I watched him all throughout the war. I stayed glued to my TV set for most of the first month of the war (when I was not at work), mostly b/c if some new shit hit the fan, I wanted to know as soon as possible. Yes, I completely bought into the whole fear thing. It wasn't so much fear of terrorism or terrorists attacking us again but the very real fear I had that we were fixing to be engaged in WWIII.
I didn't get the perception at all that Wesley Clark was gleefully reporting the terrible happenings. As a matter of fact, his commentary was one that helped to ease my fears at times. I saw him as one of the few who didn't report all the death a destruction with a gleam in his eye. I didn't get the sense of "mass male ego" gone wild that I did with some of the other commentators.
I decided to find out more about this man. As my knowledge of him grew, I began to see him as someone who made sense to me in the vast sea of insanity that the world had become. I saw someone who continued to talk favorably about our "used-to-be" allies instead of repeating the silliness about changing french fries to "freedom fries" and the like.
So, I don't really feel the need to reconcile his "stint" on CNN with anything either. If it hadn't been for CNN, I would not have known who he was or joined the draft movement, or participated in his "Leadership for America" forum, or become actively involved in his campaign.

And, just for the record, I have never bashed CNN or the others for their coverage of the war. Because, as I said, I sure wanted to be one of the first to know when WWIII started so that I could plan accordingly.

[KissMyAsscroft]

48. Do you ever remember him speaking out against the war?

I don't.

But hey, those checks were mighty nice I'm sure.

[democratreformed]

71. Yes, I remember his criticisms n/t

[RafterMan]

46. I've seen a good link

Not that you're sincerely interested, but Frenchie4Clark has a great article written during the war quoting Democratic insiders as saying that Clark's criticism had made him a pariah, to hot to handle for anybody but Dean. (EDIT: HA! See post 76)

It was "Clark Tanks" or "Clark Blows Up" or something. Ask her next time you see her.

For my own part, I didn't get CNN. But I saw him on MTP in February (I think) before the war and he quite clearly stated it was unnecessary, elective and foolish.

As for an "excited play by play", again, I didn't have CNN. But once the war started, I must confess I wanted an American victory as swiftly as humanly possible. I guess that makes me a neocon warmonger around these parts.

To add to my PNAC credentials, I also hoped (along with Clark) that Bush and Blair would follow their military success with equally bold political steps to seize the moment and make the best of the situation. I was disappointed, thought unsurprised, that they did not.

You, me, Clark and Dean all agree it was a bad policy. If you want to demonize Clark for looking for ways along the road to making it a less-bad policy, nothing is going to stop you. But I'm pretty comfortable with his approach.

In sum, yawn.

[Donna Zen]

47. Clark on CNN

First, in all honesty I didn't watch one minute of that war on TV, because I personally, and absolutely believe that war is not a "spectator sport," and it also just encourages the fools with increased ratings. In someways that may seem to diminish this post, and yet, I think this post gains credibility because I have read enough contradictory views of Clark's coverage without any emotional investment.

I do believe that Clark was able to give accurate information regarding troop movements etc., and I also believe that he supported the troops and never wanted to see them killed. If that be cheerleading in some folks eyes, well then, so be it. I personally do not wish to see Iraqis die or American troops.

However, there are two results of Clark's reporting on CNN, that belie your characterizations. Many people who were against the war and did watch him report, came to the draft movement precisely because of his reporting which they found anything but supportive of bushco. Sometimes, it almost makes me wish I would have watch--but then again, not really. Also, on other news shows and in statements from the administration, Clark's performance was demonized because of Clark's criticisms of the war.

Can both your views and Clark's supporters and his critics be reconciled? Yes. Clark has an amazing control of the language, and unless you are paying attention, you will miss his meaning and his knife thrusts. Personally, I love when he goes after people and they don't know what hit them. It always leaves them sounding incoherent.

Finally, Dean could not have done a play by play of that or any military action. So the prospect is just silly talk and the comparison odious.

[KissMyAsscroft]

52. The point is this...

He never came out and said, "Look this war is a mistake."

Silence is consent, pure and simple.

He should have told CNN to fuck off.

[funky_bug]

58. But he did say

just enough to keep his day job AND piss off the Pentagon. Clark's "I'm not sucking Bush's ass" approach during the war is precisely what sold him to a lot of us BEFORE he announced his candidacy. So it's little wonder we are scratching our heads and trying to figure out what there is to reconcile.

[Lefta Dissenter]

63. He absolutely DID SO!

That's why I first NOTICED him! He was saying that it was a mistake to go into Iraq - that he would not have done it! I'd say he was using CNN in the best way possible - getting the word out to anyone who was watching that bush was taking us into an unnecessary war.

That took courage and balls. Something that not ALL of the candidates seem to possess. (and I'm not referring to Carol!)

[tishaLA]

56. That's a really excellent post, Donna

thank you for it.

[Donna Zen]

68. Whew!

thank you.

[Clark Can WIN]

51. Reconcile what?

It was his CNN commentary that led me to look at my husband and say, "Now why can't THIS guy be our president?".

He was clearly brilliant knowledgeable and against the overall premise of the war but not anti-troops. I thought he was wonderful.

I'm not sure what Dean would have had to offer as a military analyst considering his avoidance of the military. He himself said he "probably could have served".

[bhunt70]

53. My answer

I dont think there was a problem with it.

You ask why he did not speak out about the war when he was there...

it wasn't his job. He was there to provide a military analysis, not critique the political side of it.

If he was asked/payed to come in and talk about it like it was the risk board game championship then he pretty much stayed on task, he wasn't the "color commentary" guy who interjects his personal view points in what should be an unbiased analysis.

Thats how I "reconcile" it although I don't think its something that needed to be reconciled in the first place.

[KissMyAsscroft]

57. He never spoke out against it.

So he lost all high ground in claiming to oppose it.

That's how it is.

Every Clark supporter here would hold every other candidate here to the same standard, except their own.

[funky_bug]

62. I disagree

And I'll point it out by holding a mirror up to Dean again.

Dean recently commented that he is uncomfortable with civil unions. However, his RECORD shows that he appointed the judge who drafted the civil union laws in his state while he was governor. I look at what he's done v.s. what he's said, and I believe he will be an ally for the gay and lesbian community. In my book, that's a plus. I don't think you have to take a "fuck off" attitude to get the job done. Whatever Clark's feelings were about the war while he was working for CNN (and they were obvious to me at the time, but apparantly not so obvious to others), he still had a job to do. Dean was uncomfortable personally with civil unions, but he knew he had a job to do for his constituents, and he got the job done.

[bhunt70]

78. yes that seems to be your mantra...

but did you read my post? It was his job to be analytical, not oppose the war. CNN did not hire him to have a peace march on air they hired him because of his knowledge of military matters and "strategery".

[MoonRiver]

55. Clark always spoke in terms of military strategy. He wasn't political.

I watched those commentaries carefully, because I knew he was considering a run for president, and I adamantly appose the Iraq war. I never once heard him comment about anything other than combat options, which was his bread and butter as an army commander. It was like listening to a college professor.

[JVS]

73. But according to many of Clark's suppoters the military is political

and in the military Clark worked hard to promote his political principles. So how can you try to claim that military commentary is not political in nature?

[Bucky]

84. Good point. Let me try this explanation

There is political leadership required in any large organization. Clark's work as the Big Giant Head of Nato forces in Europe (SACEur) had very obvious diplomatic and political skills involved in it. So yes, a military man can gain and use important political skills that will serve him well in civilian leadership.

The community operations of military bases and the diplomatic negotiations in putting together a working coalition to stop ethnic cleansing are political tasks. They involve policy development and implementation. It's not a perfect analogy to being president, but then neither is being governor of Vermont, Senator from North Carolina, or Ambassador to New Zealand.

There is another aspect to military life, however. This is the technical end of the military, the mechanics and logistics of actually engaging and fighting the enemy. Whether you are fighting a legal war supported by our allies or invading a beaten helpless country over the objections of the UN, it's still the same tactics and logistics involved. He wasn't hired to talk about policy, he was hired to talk about logistics and tactics.

Was he proud of the armed services for their performance in Iraq? Hell yes. He lived with those people and that institution for 34 years. He took four bullets wearing that uniform. The army clearly performed its duty without challenging policy as democracy demands, and it did so with great care to limit civilian losses even when it was clear that the civilian leadership here just didn't give a fuck about how many people died.

I saw Clark many times on the news. As an analyst he made it quite clear that there were gross international issues about the legality of the war. He didn't go off on tears about it; he's a professional, after all. But he made his points plainly and clearly and informatively when just about no one else on network TV news was doing that. It was clear to me even then--before I was thinking about him as a candidate--that this "Clinton appointed" general had huge problems with how Bush was using the country's military muscle.

His training as a warrior is not to oppose policy short of committing war crimes. God help this country if the army ever loses that tradition. So his experience with political matters is limited to inner-army politics, not the electoral kind. But he does have political experience in one other area that we should not omit to mention.

The man is in the midst of running for president of the United States. This is as political as it gets. Even if he wasn't a pol going into this, by the time Boston rolls around, he'll be as much an experienced politician as any four term senator or five term governor.

[SW FL Dem]

66. Did you watch CNN?

I did from 8am - midnite or later all during the build up and "war". That is when I built up a huge respect for Wes Clark. Clark consistently and repeatedly expressed his criticism for the rationale for the unilateral war and the manner in which the the "war" was being run. He was very critical of the administration and the military brass running things. He wasn't a cheerleader. I can't believe that anyone who actually watched him could come to that conclusion.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. I found this article on a RW site

For another perspective on his CNN wartime coverage:

DEAN-DUMB
So much for the Democrats' hope that retired General Wesley Clark was going to be their Colin Powell. "He's more Benedict Arnold than anything else, if you believe the mail we've been getting here," says the Democratic National Committee staffer who, was touting Clark as his party's answer to the military star power aligned with Republicans. snip

Since the outbreak of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clark has been on CNN, bemoaning the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks's strategy in the opening days of taking down Saddam. And while several other senior retired military men have made critical comments about the ongoing fighting -- Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, another former Clinton-era official, has been quick to criticize during his stints on MSNBC -- Clark has by far been the most vocal.

"It just looks really bad that he's knocking the troops and the way we're executing this war," says the DNC staffer. "He's taking hits everywhere, on TV, in the newspapers, on talk radio. People are furious at him. We can't fundraise off performances like this. The only presidential candidate that would probably want to be seen with him is Howard Dean."

[FrenchieCat]

76. Well here is what some were writing

about the General during his war sting....
Clark Tanks
By The Prowler
Published 3/28/2003 12:03:00 AM

http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_3_27_22_49_18

So much for the Democrats' hope that retired General Wesley Clark was going to be their Colin Powell. "He's more Benedict Arnold than anything else, if you believe the mail we've been getting here," says the Democratic National Committee staffer who, only a month ago was touting Clark as his party's answer to the military star power aligned with Republicans.

"Any cachet he might have had he's pretty much pissed away on TV," says the staffer.

Since the outbreak of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clark has been on CNN, bemoaning the Pentagon and Gen. Tommy Franks's strategy in the opening days of taking down Saddam. And while several other senior retired military men have made critical comments about the ongoing fighting -- Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, another former Clinton-era official, has been quick to criticize during his stints on MSNBC -- Clark has by far been the most vocal.

[Auntie Bush]

81. Yawn

[rogerhall]

88. Actually, I thought the CNN stuff was fantastic ..

Yeah, he did the talking-general-head thing, and even though his analysis was smack-on, I just figured, "these guys deserve a buck or two".

But his persistent willingness to defend dissent and to question the sanity of various aspects of the 'operation' really stood out for me.

Of course, I first latched on to 'Gen. Clark' because he was from Arkansas - I am too - and you hardly ever see or hear about experts from here. :}

But he blew me away with his habit of making a lot of sense. :}

[maxr4clark]

93. Not sure what your objection to his work at CNN is

If you think he looked gung-ho for war as an analyst at CNN, I have to say that I disagree. The first I ever saw of Clark was as an analyst at CNN, and what I remember most about that coverage was that he answered the questions that were put to him in terms I could understand. I was very impressed with his analyses, both of the situation based on the scant news available, and of the Bush administration's goals.

I also remember that, virtually whenever he was asked to speculate about what should be done, for example whether Iraq should be next after the assault on Afghanistan was completed or after the IWR had been passed and the country was trying to guess whether/when Bush was going to invade, that he took the opportunity to say that he didn't think all of the diplomatic options had been exhausted; that it would be a mistake to use force before they were; and that the administration should be focusing on bin Laden and al Qaeda, not on Hussein and Iraq.

I had not heard of Howard Dean until long after Clark had convinced me that the invasion of Iraq was a serious mistake, and he convinced me of that as an analyst at CNN.

[tameszu]

97. Easily

Delay called Clark a "blow dried Napolean" for a reason--because of his criticisms of Bush and his justifications for the war. How do you reconcile this with your claims?

How do you reconcile the reports that Lou Dobbs refused to have Clark on his show as a commentator becuase he was too critical of Shrub?

Answer: you can't. You were simply watching a different Clark than most of the draftniks, who saw in Clark as a CNN commentator a credible critic of the war.

In this vein, check out this Salon article from March 2002, when Clark was basically the only mainstream military commentator who dared question the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index1.html

The key passage:

Q: You've referred to the campaign against Iraq as "elective surgery"; I imagine that means that you support disarming Saddam in principle, just not with the same urgency the Bush administration feels.

WC: My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency.


Anyone who reads the article FAIR parses from the Times of London in full can see that Clark's point is to capture the mood of jubilation that exists after a great (military) victory but still press home the point that we cannot lose sight of the WMD on which the war was justified and the crucial rebuilding that comes next.

BTW, your later posts demonstrate that your statement that "you are trying to be respectful" to Clark was not written in good faith. You don't seem to have considered much of the evidence on this thread at all.