Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fox Criticism of Clark is Silly, Stupid & Cowardly

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
 
IowaBiker Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:05 PM
Original message
Fox Criticism of Clark is Silly, Stupid & Cowardly
Edited on Fri Jan-23-04 02:08 PM by IowaBiker
This whole thing where the Fox commentators are down on Wesley Clark for not defending Bush is ridiculous.

Didn't Clark (and Kerry for that matter) do enough fighting for these pantywaist conservatives who wanted the Vietnam war but were too yellow to fight?

Now Clark has to defend the Coward-In-Chief once again. What's a matter? Bush too yellow to do it himself?

This whole new movement on the right is embarrassing in the way they think the whole world owes their royal tail ends something extra. Like they are somebody better than people who went into combat for us.

I think we ought to put Kerry and Clark on the ticket together, and publish a poster with them against the Chickenhawks Bush and Cheney then have the poster ask, "The White House. Where eagles soar, or chickens roost?"

I get so sick of the clucking of those chickens.

Cluck, cluck cluck is all they did -- sickening

--Brian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. You nailed it.
They think they're better than everyone else, and that they're entitled to have more as a result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Silly, Stupid & Cowardly would make a great FAUX slogan
and certainly far more accurate than "Fair And Balanced"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonDeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. I agree! If Democrats would stop watching them they'd go away.
Really. Too many Democrats watch that stupid republican propaganda laden dumbing down of America channel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Well, unfortunately, we have to. All the damn debates are on that channel!
Which itself is a crime. How the fuck did a network openly hostile to Democratic values end up with exclusive rights to air OUR debates??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. They Are Going After Clark As They Did Cleland
They can't go after Clark's military experience so they are attacking him in other ways.

They know that they can stop Clark only in the primary - because the arguments they make about Clark don't work in the GE. Republican voters won't care about these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Yes.
Their best attack lines agaisnt Clark work best with Democrats. If Clark emerges as the Democratic candidate, the Republicans have a big problem on their hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. An Excellent Point, Mr. Rinaldo
The general electorate does not give a fig whether Gen. Clark voted for a Republican almost two decades ago; in fact, they would be more likely to view that as an indication he is a fair-minded fellow who does what he thinks best, and can be taken most seriously in his present allegiance. It also gives him a point of identification for, and makes him a role model for, many people who have done the same as he has, and we most definitely want to vote against the criminals of the '00 Coup this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueStateGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. I would have love dit had he said " I don't know where Bush was during the
war, but I know where I was."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schmendrick54 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. I say bravo to Clark for defending Gen. Turnipseed.
Edited on Fri Jan-23-04 02:18 PM by Schmendrick54
Peter Jennings appears to be calling Gen. William Turnipseed a liar. Gen. Turnipseed, who was Col. Turnipseed at the time, has stated that Lt. Bush did not report for duty for a period of over a year.

What are the "facts" that Mr. Jennings claims do not support the charge that Bush was a deserter? Did Lt. Bush show Mr. Jennings the service records which he refused to release during the 2000 campaign? Can Mr. Jennings substantiate his implication that General Turnipseed (as well as other military officials who have made statements about this topic) have lied? If not, shouldn't he apologize?

Schmendrick,
A Dean supporter who thinks Clark did a great job on this question and hopes all of the other candidates come to his defense by demanding that Mr. Jennings identify his "facts" or apologize.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I hadn't thought of that aspect of the issue --
Seems to me the word of the officer in a position to know would be important to General Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. Yes, I hope the next time the question is asked in an open debate
our candidates will say, "Gee, the appearance of desertion is there, but perhaps you can ask Peter Jennings...he seems to know for certainity that is not the case."

I e-mailed my letter to Mr. Jennings politely asking him to investigate the charges. Seems the truth of the matter is for his profession to find out and probably is not of particular interest to our candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildForKerry Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. LBJ was a pantywaist conservative?
Clarify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IowaBiker Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Two things
#1. I was referring to today's population of chickenhawks on the right who feel the need to bash 'Nam veterans in order to justify their current philosophies.

#2. As far as LBJ goes, his Gulf of Tonkin resolution was to 'Nam as Bush' WMDs are to Iraq. Something our candidate, Kerry, knows well.

Why is it Texans can't ascend to the Presidency by any other means than dubious? And once they get into office, lie to get us into BS wars?

--Brian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. You just summed up fox in three words...
Silly, stupid & cowardly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush loves Jiang Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
13. Revenge!
Remember when Clark embarrassed that mentally freeptarded Fox "reporter"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. The Repubs are scared of Clark. So it's kinda flattering.
Remember when Clark was getting NO coverage at all? None. Zero. Zip. Fox and other media were trying to ignore him, thinking maybe he'd go away. When he didn't, they decided to aim for him.

That's okay. That verifies what I've known all along. He's a winner who can beat Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. What's to defend, anyway?
Where was Bush? Why aren't they asking that question and attacking the real scumbag? It's pitiful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndersGamer Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
16. It would have been better
if Clark had defended a "brother in arms" and then attacked Bush's policies and programs. Instead he was made to look like a doofus defending a clown (Moore).

As a veteran, I would never disparage the service of another. For those of us who remember those days, it was extremely easy to avoid service. So Bush signed up, took flight lessons. It has no more bearing on his foreign policy today than does his preference in breakfast cereals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. "A brother in arms"
that's funny. Thanks for the chuckle, EndersGamer. Clark looks like a doofus? Rich.

Welcome aboard, I look forward to more of your insights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. you joke, 'right'? READ www.awolbush.com
'the service of another'

THE POINT IS Bush got into TANG and then DID NOT-NOT-NOT SERVE for over a year.

READ BEFORE YOU POST
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 Sat Oct 21st 2017, 05:31 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