Last night, every single broadcast outlet distorted General Clark’s remarks. Every single one. Apparently the “liberal media” forgot the talking points Howard Dean supposedly sends out every morning.
Again.
Related
The “Liberal” Media Is So Stupid
The Liberal Media Strikes (Voldermort Edition)
Another Reason The Right Isn’t Taken Seriously Right Now
they all suck
I kinda blame Obama for this. by rejecting Clark he signaled that Clark was wrong. but Clark was right.
Gee, a loophole big enough to toss Hillary’s entire wardrobe of pantsuits through:
So Obama won’t personally question McCain’s patriotism, and will hit back at anyone who questions his. But what will he do if one of his proxies does that to McCain? Say, a high-ranking campaign staffer?
The silence is deafening.
J.
C’mon, Jay. We’ve already seen what happens. they get booted. Period. Too bad the same can’t be said for the other team.
“But what will he do if one of his proxies does that to McCain? Say, a high-ranking campaign staffer?”
Which of Mr. Obama’s proxies did that, Mr. Tea? Show your work.
I think the situation here is plainly obvious to any clear-thinking person: Gen Clark was factually correct, but his statements were very ill-advised.
I think the situation here is plainly obvious to any clear-thinking person: Gen Clark was factually correct, but his statements were very ill-advised.
True. We’re (Americans, that is) generally touchy as hell about any perceived slights to military service, validity aside (though I don’t recall many up in arms to defend Kerry when the shit started flying his way).
So… when Schieffer said that Obama had never been shot down in a plane, Clark should have said, “Gee, now that I think of it, you’re right. How can anyone be president without getting shot down in a plane?”
One of the few times I can proudly agree with you, Scratchy.
So… when Schieffer said that Obama had never been shot down in a plane, Clark should have said, “Gee, now that I think of it, you’re right. How can anyone be president without getting shot down in a plane?”
George W. wasn’t shot down in a plane either, and he’s been in a plane! Perhaps he did shots in a plane, but I’m not sure that counts.
Gen Clark was factually correct, but his statements were very ill-advised.
Which statements were ill-advised?
Well, Schaeffer’s statements, actually.
4 years ago libs expressed “outrage” that anyone would dare question John Kerry’s military credentials and now….
4 years ago libs expressed “outrage” that anyone would dare question John Kerry’s military credentials and now….
And now what, Mr. Ghost?
Four years ago, good Americans expressed outrage that evil liars made shit up about John Kerry’s war record. Now, Republicans express phony outrage that a retired general honored John McCain’s service but said it wasn’t enough to qualify him for president.
If you can’t see the difference, GreyGhost, you’re too stupid to breathe on your own.
Quaker, any statement that could be predictably used to claim an attack on McCain’s military service is ill advised. Remember, we’re not talking about what is true or not, we’re talking about what the story will be on the tv and web.
BTW, just so there’s no confusion, what I’m saying is “true” is that McCain’s service does not qualify him to be President. It is definitely in the plus column, but it is not sufficient to make him a good President.
any statement that could be predictably used to claim an attack on McCain’s military service is ill advised.
Clearly, John McCain is beyond criticism. He is the Alpha and Omega, etc. b.s.
any statement that could be predictably used to claim an attack on McCain’s military service is ill advised.
OK. Which one? Let’s have it.
You see, the reason I insist on asking, Scratch, is because we’re fast slipping toward NOT talking about what Mr. Clark said, but just assuming it’s all his fault anyway.
Go back to the transcript. Find the original comment you think “could be predictably used to claim an attack on McCain’t military service,” and explain it to me. What rational, thinking person would have predicted the storm of fake, phony outrage we’re seeing?
Mike
Insulting people who disagree with you must do wonders for your ego. Anyway, I get it now, serving your country and being shot down in a plane doesn’t mean you should be president, but supporting a man with zero military experience does. Again, libs expressed OUTRAGE when anyone dared question John Kerry’s military experience, but now….
The point everyone seems to miss here is the Bob Schieffer is (still) an utterly useless tool.
(But also, Clark said nothing wrong and the Media Village fell for the Wingnut Pearl Clutch Gambit yet again, afraid to be called UnAmerican and what have you. We’re so fucked.)
“4 years ago libs expressed “outrage” that anyone would dare question John Kerry’s military credentials and now….”
No. We were outraged that people would lie.
There’s a huge difference.
Nobody is questioning McCains service. Unlike the right with Kerry, nobody is saying his wounds were self inflicted or faked.
Clearly, John McCain is beyond criticism. He is the Alpha and Omega, etc. b.s.
So Oliver, you’re happy with how this has played out for Obama? It has not served his cause well, and was therefor ill advised.
If I had to compare this event to something from the 2004 election, it would be Kerry’s remark about Cheney’s lesbian daughter. There was nothing wrong with what he said, and there is nothing wrong with having a lesbian daughter, but the comment, quite predictably, blew up in Kerry’s face.
It’s all well and good to get indignant about how things play on tv, but when you’re, you know, speaking on tv, maybe you should take such things into consideration.
Right Scratch, blame the victim. Don’t hold the pearl clutching right wing or complicit media accountable. Great idea.
Fine Ed, send Obama an email and tell him to spend the campaign complaining about the media, and see where that gets him. He’ll be on the defensive the whole time and never be able to get his message out, but after he loses the election at least he’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he was right.
“It’s worth noting that the McCain’s point man in deflecting allegations that weren’t made is Bud Day, one of the original Swift Boat Veterans who smeared John Kerry. (More on Mr. Day and McCain here.) John Kerry was a decorated Vietnam War hero, and yet he was smeared continuously as a traitor by people like Bud Day, who now feign outrage and lie about Vietnam War hero Gen. Wesley Clark. Everybody tut-tuts that McCain is being “swiftboated”, everybody knows not to notice that McCain is in bed with the original swiftboaters, and has been for some time. He’s got such core principles, don’tcha know.”
thepoorman.net yet again
Insulting people who disagree with you must do wonders for your ego. Anyway, I get it now, serving your country and being shot down in a plane doesn’t mean you should be president, but supporting a man with zero military experience does.
If 51% of voters support him as well, then yes, that’s correct.
If I had to compare this event to something from the 2004 election, it would be Kerry’s remark about Cheney’s lesbian daughter. There was nothing wrong with what he said, and there is nothing wrong with having a lesbian daughter, but the comment, quite predictably, blew up in Kerry’s face.
1. That was Edwards.
2. Nobody cared, since no one watches the VP debates.
Shorter Scratch:
“I know the media distortion is wrong, but I don’t care because it plays well for MY candidate. That’s the anti-American way!”
4 years ago libs expressed “outrage” that anyone would dare question John Kerry’s military credentials and now….
No one’s questioning McCain’s military credentials. We’re questioning his presidential credentials. Big difference there, bud.
Zython…
I’m fairly certain I remember Kerry making the comment. I can even remember his awkward pause before it spilled out, as if he knew he was on dangerous ground.
As for the “shorter Scratch,” I didn’t say or think anything like what you said.
ed…
I haven’t heard anyone claim that McCain is being “swiftboated.” Of course, I don’t hear everything. But to me, the definition of being “swiftboated,” and the reason the group was so successful with John Kerry, is the coming forward of people who knew him at the time and didn’t like what he was doing. With all of the talk I hear about the Swift Boat claims being “debunked,” it seems that most of the “debunking” is in the form of fairly minor peripheral facts that are in dispute. Yet there are still a few dozen people who say, “I knew John Kerry and did not like the way he behaved,” and that can’t be debunked. Granted, it needs to be taken on balance with everyone else who has worked or served with him and has something to say, but it’s pretty powerful. As far as I know, there is no such large group making similar claims about McCain.
I haven’t heard anyone claim that McCain is being “swiftboated.”
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/30/wesley-clark-on-face-the-nation-cnn-accuses-clark-of-swiftboating/
was the first hit from Googling “wes clark some say swiftboated”
Scratch, you are either profoundly lazy or profoundly disingenuous (but certainly not profound).
What rational, thinking person would have predicted the storm of fake, phony outrage we’re seeing?
You underestimate the power of self-righteous fake outrage.
Tell you the truth, Quaker, if my party has some (admittedly inexplicable) problems with the military demographic then I’m damn tight with my words that have anything to do with that subject. He didn’t have to serve up the ‘getting shot down in a plane’ sound byte on a silver platter. How many families/soldiers on bases heard just that on Armed Forces Radio (which carries Limbaugh, as I’m sure you know) and said “Those traitorous Democrats are at it again.”
There’s a very wise point in the film ‘A Civil Action’ where the old lawyer says you never ask the other guy’s witness ‘why,’ because it lets him grandstand with great pathos and indignation at your expense. The same principle applies here, I think – You never let the other guy grandstand at your expense.
I’m fairly certain I remember Kerry making the comment. I can even remember his awkward pause before it spilled out, as if he knew he was on dangerous ground.
I must have missed that television exclusive. The Presidential candidate debating the vice-Presidential candidate. When was that?
As far as I know, there is no such large group making similar claims about McCain.
They were on the Forrestal.
if my party has some (admittedly inexplicable) problems with the military demographic then I’m damn tight with my words that have anything to do with that subject. He didn’t have to serve up the ‘getting shot down in a plane’ sound byte on a silver platter. How many families/soldiers on bases heard just that on Armed Forces Radio (which carries Limbaugh, as I’m sure you know) and said “Those traitorous Democrats are at it again.”
1) He didn’t “serve it up,” Mr. Schieffer did.
2) He’s a general and former supreme allied commander of NATO. And yet being a “traitorous Democrat” outweighs that distinction? Like I said: “What rational, thinking person….?”
Zython, Scratch:
Both right!
Edwards referred to Cheney’s daughter in a debate without incident. Kerry referred to Cheney’s daughter in a Presidential debate–after the Edwards/Cheney debate–and the fake, phoney outrage ensued.
How many families/soldiers on bases heard just that on Armed Forces Radio (which carries Limbaugh, as I’m sure you know) and said “Those traitorous Democrats are at it again.”
So wait, we deflect arguments about “questioning McCain’s military service” by questioning Clark’s military service? How does that work?
1) He didn’t “serve it up,” Mr. Schieffer did.
That’s a fair characterization. If my recollection is accurate, though, Schieffer gave him the beer league underhand and Gen. Clark knocked it over the rightwingnut field fence himself. I listen to Limbaugh in the car once in a while, and the focus of outrage is Clark’s half of the comment, the getting shot down quote. Do you suppose people inclined to frequent the news outlets that cropped the context are generally the type to do the five seconds of research required to know the full story? If so, I admire your optimism.
2) He’s a general and former supreme allied commander of NATO. And yet being a “traitorous Democrat” outweighs that distinction? Like I said: “What rational, thinking person….?”
I could make an unbearably snarky comment here, but I think I will refrain.
So wait, we deflect arguments about “questioning McCain’s military service” by questioning Clark’s military service? How does that work?
Somewhat similar to the GOP’s Bush/Kerry strategy, I guess. If something about the other guy is going to be appealing to your base, find a way to knock it out from under him. There seems to be a general feeling that ‘Clark is a joke’ and ‘not respected by the military establishment’ among the most extreme of the usual suspects.
Whatever, says I. If we was a Republican with the same military record the Hannitys and Limbaughs would introduce him as ‘General, Former NATO Commander, proud patriot and career military man Wesley Clark’.
listen to Limbaugh in the car once in a while, and the focus of outrage is Clark’s half of the comment, the getting shot down quote.
You have no idea what was actually said, do you?
You have no idea what was actually said, do you?
If this makes you feel any better…
“”When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.
“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”
“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.”"
Because I’ve forgotten the xhtml tag for setting off a quote, it’s Parthenon again. I read this story the night after it was published, but haven’t gone over a transcript. If you think the above selection is somehow misleading based on what you know of the event, please do me the favor of enlightening me.
But assuming it isn’t, in case my position is somehow unclear, I don’t see anything wrong with what Clark said, except that it was politically unwise given the American (particularly but not only conservative) hair-trigger for self-righteous indignation at any perceived slight to military service. I felt the last sentence was easily misused by those looking to reinforce the ‘Dems hate the military’ myth. Should it be that way? No, of course not. But that doesn’t change the fact of it.
Scratch General Clark off the VP short list.
I felt the last sentence was easily misused by those looking to reinforce the ‘Dems hate the military’ myth. Should it be that way? No, of course not. But that doesn’t change the fact of it.
If it wasn’t this remark, they would have found another to suit their needs.
If it wasn’t this remark, they would have found another to suit their needs.
This could be so. But unless I’m mistaken Sen. Obama seems to have done a pretty good job of tap-dancing around the Dem/military lie. They try to take shots at him but they’re much more obviously blanks, relative to the rhetorical structure of Clark’s comment, which it seems loads of people (including the GOP presidential candidate) are interpreting as ‘he’s taking shots at a vet’s service. Typical.’
And yet, Clark being a vet, and a pretty high-ranked one at that, does not insulate him from getting shots taken at his service.
Odd how that works.