Raw Story Cherry Picked to get a Misleading Headline, Here's What Gen. Wesley Clark Said in Full

[Turborama]

This was originally posted as a reply in the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x37430#39872">Reminder: Gen. Wesley Clark calls for exit from Afghanistan thread but I thought it was important to post his full remarks as a standalone thread to make sure everyone knows exactly what he said in November.

It seems like John Byrne's http://rawstory.com/2009/11/gen-wesley-clark-calls-exit-afghanistan/">article skipped over his important economic development suggestions by simply saying "He also argued that economic development in Afghanistan was important."

Where are those 'little-reported remarks' in his piece?

Well, after a quick search I've found them and it does seem like Byrne did some cherry picking possibly to get what could be described as a http://rawstory.com/2009/11/gen-wesley-clark-calls-exit-afghanistan/">misleading headline. I would copy and paste it but http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI111709/Clark_Testimony111709.pdf">the PDF only allows snapshots so here it is in JPEG format...






I've been trying to find it on YouTube but it's not there. Does anyone know if this was on C-Span? The most recent interview I've found is when he also said on ABC in October "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6IYcSdnKFk">We cannot lose in Afghanistan".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x37430#38287">This post has a couple of links that I think give further insight into General Clark's attitude towards Afghanistan's economic development. As does this quote I found at the bottom of what looks like a largely ignored but http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/29/714336/-Think-outside-the-box:-Afghanistan">very interesting Daily Kos diary.

"The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets. It's not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It's really going to be found in changing the conditions. It's going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy."

~ Gen. Wesley Clark, October 17, 2001, Annual Lecture sponsored by the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University

[Hekate]

1. Send this off to the Greatest. General Clark once again reminds me why I supported him for POTUS

That is one of the best analyses I've read yet. Thank you very much for finding it and posting the whole thing here.

He's absolutely right about the prospects for "democracy" in a place like Afghanistan. Nowhere in their history is there such a thing. And what most Americans fail to recognize is this: Democracy is not the only successful way to organize a society.

I don't condone the oppression of women but I believe it would be mitigated considerably by making sure girls and boys alike get educated. But whatever changes this social order makes it will be gradual and it will not result in an American or European-style democracy.

And it surely will do better without our military occupying their country. I love it that he has a list of things that need to be accomplished, but says it must all "be organized around an exit strategy." Isn't that what President Obama said in his speech? IIRC, yes.

I'm feeling better about our prospects.

Hekate

[Dinger]

3. Same Here (nt)

[tabatha]

9. It was on Clark's president's campaign board that I first encountered

the poster "Frenchie Cat".

I too supported Clark - and was disgusted by the Matt Taibi article about him.

"But whatever changes this social order makes it will be gradual and it will not result in an American or European-style democracy." is spot on - radical change leaves those whose culture was changed, flailing for a long time to adopt many mores that are alien.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Hey Tabatha......those were the days, weren't they?

Gen. Clark is clear in his statements,
and he supports Pres. Obama's decision,
not because Pres. Obama made it,
but because it is the best decision under the complex circumstances.

Here's hoping that Gen. Clark will be considered to replace Gates. :toast:

[tabatha]

30. Gates is not that bad.

But when he goes, I hope Clark would be good !!

[truebrit71]

60. I second that...

...still bummed he isn't POTUS...

[shireen]

34. yes, me too ...

i don't volunteer for political campaigns because i don't have the time or interest. Politics is nasty business; i hate it and don't trust most candidates. But Clark was different. I really really trusted him, and I still do. So I threw my heart and soul into his Maryland campaign, and did the best i could under the circumstances (trying to recover from a major illness). That was my first and, so far, last effort to participate in a political campaign. No other presidential candidate has inspired me as much as Clark did. If Clark or Bernie Sanders ran for President, I'd be enthusiastically supporting their campaigns. Otherwise, I can't see myself ever volunteering for presidential campaigns again.

[elleng]

50. HI shireen!!!

Good to see you!!! And I'm happy to see some discussion about 'Wes!'

:hi:

[D-Lee]

51. Ditto! Clark's remarks on failed counteries were brilliant

And I was present when he announced for presidency so long ago. What an absolutely brilliant man ...

[andym]

2. Sound recommendations from a thoughtful man. nt.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Thank you. NT

[HughMoran]

5. Aww geez, couldn't you just condense that down to 3 inflammatory sentences for me?

:rofl:

I'm ribbin' ya of course ;)

Thanks for posting what he actually said.

[stray cat]

6. Proof that just because a site is progressive doesn't mean its not full of intentional lies

the same goes for people who call themselves progressive but lie anyway.

[Hekate]

22. Mee-oww

[JNelson6563]

7. I'll listen to Clark over the hysterics on DU.

Once again he shows why so many supported him for Prez. I wasn't one of them but wouldn't have cried if he had one.

Julie--who loves that pic of the General on horseback talking to soldiers

[ShortnFiery]

8. The BIG mistake is to "adore" any General Officer. We only LIKED "Ike" but some

of you people probably believe General Clark is God-sent. :puke:

Truth is that when he was active duty, many troops did not respect him PRECISELY because he was "all about politics." Albeit he's super intelligent, the forgoing behavior has NOT changed.

Oh and he looks so handsome. Wow. I guess there's one born every minute. :crazy:

[Robb]

20. Is there anyone in the Democratic Party you *do* care for? nt

[ShortnFiery]

24. Don't change the subject. There are a number of DEMOCRATIC representatives whom

I'm proud to support. However, unlike the past, I'm only voting for LIBERAL Democrats in the future. No more support for "political insiders" who place corporate profits over the welfare of individual American citizens.

[vadawg]

33. +1

[JNelson6563]

42. lolz

I was never a Clarkie, though I think he's a very smart guy. Had a few tussles with Clark supporters in the 04 primaries. Don't know if they thought he was "God-sent" but I don't think that of anyone, since I'm an atheist.

And my comment re: Clark on horseback isn't about handsome or not, to me it represents resourcefulness and being able to use what transportation is available. I like that in a leader.

ASS-U-ME (mostly U)

Julie

[NYC_SKP]

10. +1 n/t

[JDPriestly]

11. Great. I supported Clark in 2004 and wish that Obama would

appoint him to Secretary of Defense of to some other post in the current administration. General Clark is one of our best leaders. He is so balanced.

[vaberella]

32. Dude...everywhere I see the Pres I've been seeing Clark. I was going to ask if he's an advisor. nt

[girl gone mad]

39. No.

In fact, he was frequently snubbed by Obama during the elections and afterward.

[vaberella]

48. I'm talking about now.

Obviously you were not there watching the jobs meeting. I think press likes to think the Pres snubbed him....far from it. Several meetings so far I've been seeing Clark at, alongside the President.

[Adelante]

54. Interesting

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks. The main reason I found it so natural to support Obama, in the very beginning, was how similar his thinking was to Gen. Clark's in so many philosophical and policy areas. It's been a source of some disappointment for me that I thought Clark's talents weren't being utilized by the President. I love the President, don't get me wrong. It's just that the General has so much to offer the nation, too, so I'm glad to know he is getting in there. :thumbsup:

[vaberella]

59. Agreed. Yup, he's been sitting in about two meetings so far that I know of.

And his chiming into the situation at hand says to me that the President has been asking him on advice. You don't come to the White House unless invited by the Pres here, when you're no longer in office.

[TomVilmer]

12. See a Text version of the Clark PDF

- just follow my link.

[Turborama]

13. Thanks, I already added a direct link to the PDF in the OP but this text version is very handy...

...for copy and pasting quotes. I wouldn't usually download files from unknown sources, just in case, but I checked it and it's legit.

Thanks again.

PS Was it you who converted it to a text version? If so, how? I tried for ages but couldn't figure out how to do it.

[TomVilmer]

15. How?

PS Was it you who converted it to a text version? If so, how? I tried for ages but couldn't figure out how to do it.

The new (paid) version of Adobe Acrobat 9.2 Pro can do it very nice and easy.

[Turborama]

16. Thanks for the tip

It's obviously time I updated my old 7.1.0

:hi:

[karynnj]

14. Here is a post with links to video of the hearing

(Under Part III) there are 2 links - one introducing him and his prepared statement and one on the Q &A. There is other Clark stuff here, so I have given this link, rather than the direct link, because people wanting this will likely appreciate the rest. http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18126

(caveat - I have not watched, but I checked that the link to the testimony works. I am listening to the HCR debate)

Your comments are excellent - I have no idea why raw story completely mislabeled their story. (though it was clear from the quotes that they were leaving stuff out.

K&R

[Turborama]

17. Wow, that's a great link!

There's a lot to watch and a lot of interesting comments, too. I'll sit through it all when I have more time.

Thanks a lot for posting! :hi:

ETA after going over it all again it looks like, not only was he going for a misleading headline, the article itself is disinforming. He says Clark was "breaking ranks with Obama's current Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal".

This is not true. As we can see from the above testament, this is what he actually said at the beginning...

"I must acknowledge first that I am greatly in sympathy with our military commanders, and especially
General McChrystal, who has asked for more troops. No doubt he needs them to provide security for
the population, to train the Afghan forces, and to impede and constrain Taliban reinforcement and
replenishment along the porous border with Pakistan. Were I in his position, I would undoubtedly have
asked for more troops, too."

[karynnj]

26. I agree with you on the raw story article

Obviously, they were counting on no one seeing the full testimony. We have all been unhappy with the accuracy in the media - this is a warning that alternative media is subject to the same flaws. I assume that the writer wanted to use Clark's name, status and popularity on the left against Obama's decision. Now, IF Clark's position was remotely what he implied, that would be fair. The problem is that that is not the case.

[Cha]

31. And, the left media

is no different than the right..in that they both want to manipulate and manufacure.

Extremists can't handle the facts.

It's disgusting what rawstory did with General Clark's testimony and it's not the first time a disingenuous article like this has been brought onto DU as toxic red meat.

[SpartanDem]

18. I'm not surprised rawstory has done this before

[ima_sinnic]

21. Ever since a RS editor published a hateful diatribe against atheists,

("The left's own religious whack jobs", at http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html) I refuse to read it, and consider it a punk outlet for news. With all the other sources of reporting, why should I patronize ignorant bigots? That was as low a blow as anything Fox or the RW nutbags would spew, so ES, RS. Figures they'd also have no qualms about doctoring the news. RS is no more credible or worthy of respect than the National Enquirer.

[Whisp]

23. I remember that...

rawstory - hoping for that 'exclusive' so badly they are willing to twist and lie for it. no thanks. I would't go to their site if I were paid. Too many episodes like what you just sited and the OP.

[Hissyspit]

43. As far as I know, the stupid anti-atheist article was by a columnist, not an editor, and RS also

posted rebuttals. Important to get facts straight, although I agree it was a dumb, fairly worthless opinion piece.

[ima_sinnic]

46. whatever. they published it, for what reason? "because they could"?

I don't have an MBA, but my gut instinct is that a magazine that offends readers is not going to retain those readers. I saw that RS chose to give a platform to hatred of a certain (maybe large) segment of their readers, myself included--which published "column" was nothing more than a big disparaging name-calling rant--and I chose to never read their ignorant, completely unconstructive trash again.

How would you feel about a hit piece on, oh, those of the Hindu faith in Huffington Post? Would that seem "enlightened" and "progressive" to you?

[Hissyspit]

47. If I was editor of Raw Story, I would not have published the piece.

But the site does not advertise itself as progressive, it advertises itself as an alternative to the mainstream media.

And the call they make to columnists is "Columnists: Of all opinions and persuasions."

As an atheist, I was offended by the level of stupidity in the column, and I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, that I posted as much here when the column came out.

[ima_sinnic]

49. I just chose never to read RS again. I can't tell whether you think I should

overlook that column, or agree with me that RS is simply a punk "news" site that is not competitive with others that take the trouble to publish worthwhile opinions and commentary, rather than any old hateful diatribe with no point whatsoever except to confirm the author's bigotry and ignorance. Whoop-dee ding dong, RS had the "tolerance" to print that, so take that you hypocritical "accept-everybody" freaks who hate bigots. Do they also print Fred Phelps' ignoramus spew?

[Hissyspit]

56. I think that in chastising someone for being factually incorrect, you undermine your argument

by being factually incorrect.

[jefferson_dem]

25. The "Drudge-Like" misinformation by some bloggers on the left is troubling.

Intentional or careless. I would vote for the former. Either way, it's not cool.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Awe, how quickly some here default to blaming the amorphous "left" is quite REPUBLICAN

of you. :P

[jefferson_dem]

28. Sensitive, aren't we?

How else does one label outlets such as "Raw Story"? My point was to distinguish more left-leaning (progressive) blogs from other outlets. I was not disparaging "the left" in general...(this time).

[chill_wind]

29. But pro-war agit prop from an "anonymous soldier"

posting "stackin em up like cordwood" war-porn missives to a conservative blog is perfectly credible and welcomed. But worse, palatable.

I don't know whether to laugh, or to cry for all of us.

I don't read much raw-story - and Sullivan, not at all. I do read some of our own credible progressives like David Sirota, who wrote long and critically several years ago about our party's unpleasant Partisan War Syndrome maladies, and never have I seen them so partisanly manifest, as now.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Raw Story is about as credible as Counterpunch. Those who use them as an OP source are idiots.

Thanks for this anti-propaganda OP.

:hi:

[chill_wind]

37. self-delete-- not even worth it.

eom

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Wes Clark is STILL the man who is my first choice for president of the United States

[elleng]

45. Hey Stinky, you and me both!

Got snow?

[windbreeze]

52. +2

mine too, and his words being misconstrued, is nothing new..wb

[Powdered Toast Man]

38. That's Nothing New.

Them and Huffpo do it all the time.

[Turborama]

40. The Huffington Post "do it all the time"?

Evidence, please.

Just askin'

[bvar22]

41. K&R

Meet Hamid Karzai
or as Obama calls him, "The Government of Afghanistan".

He was appointed by Bush the Lesser to run Afghanistan.
He was one of the most despicable criminals in The World,
But NOW we like him so much
that our children will be dying to keep him in power.

[elleng]

44. Thanks SO Much for this, Tubor.

As ever, what Wes has needed is 'publicity.'

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Wes Clark is experienced and smart, but above all else he is a good man who loves his country

without being blinded by patriotism. I will always be proud of my support for him. We had some great men running for President in 2004.

[Cha]

55. Yes, we did.

[Whisp]

57. does Raw have a forum for feedback?

Has anyone blasted them on this there? I don't go there, just wondering.

[Cha]

58. Good question..some of us try to contact

the corporatemedia when they manipulate and manufacture..why not all the cherry pickers?