babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Wesley Clark hammers Fox "interviewer"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Wesley Clark hammers Fox "interviewer"
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 19 November 2003 04:07 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This clip is pretty enjoyable
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 19 November 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You'd think some techie at Fox would've clued in to the concept of buffering by now.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 19 November 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good for Clark, it was definitly a twisting of words and a political attack by the Fox interviewer.

He (the interviewer) said he was only "repeating your own statement", but it was the interviewers statement "do you think we should be calling this a sideshow while our men and women are dieing over there", that was the statement in question, not Clark's.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
NP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 226

posted 19 November 2003 05:25 PM      Profile for NP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, mad props to Wes Clark for that interview. I was cool to him before, but if he can show that amount of emotion when criticising the Bush administration in the future I think he could give Dubyah a run for his money.
From: The city that rhymes with fun | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 19 November 2003 08:14 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow.

A little scary to think that one of the great hopes for getting Bush out of there is a general. At least he isn't afraid to speak out.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 19 November 2003 09:49 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a bio of Clark in the Nov. 17 issue of the N. Yorker.
quote:
...when he became a commentator on CNN...(Kosovo) was often the lens through which Clark viewed the contemporary world. He spoke of the "lessons of Kosovo," and when he became a Presidential candidate his criticism of the Iraq war was framed by his Kosovo experience.

The Kosovo experience was also partly how George W. Bush defined himself when he was creating a national profile in 2000. At the time, Bush scorned the use of America's military in the cause of such adventures as the overturning of tyrants and warned against the hubris of attempting to nation-build in places like Kosovo. In a way, Clark's candidacy is an extension of that argument, with a stark reversal of roles. Now Bush is defending the untidy aftermath of the Iraq invasion, and, because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, Bush supporters increasingly justify the war as a humanitarian intervention. Clark, who led a war against a tyrant who brutalized his people, now finds himself opposing the war that overturned Saddam Hussein.


.

[ 19 November 2003: Message edited by: bittersweet ]


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bluto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1308

posted 20 November 2003 01:57 AM      Profile for Bluto     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, the clip is gone now. Click on the link takes you to an ad for faux news and the beginning of a segment about "a four-star general".
From: Left Coast | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 November 2003 02:24 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I saw Clark on the weekend being interviewed on NBC. Not quite so confrontational an interviewer, yet there were lots of back peddling and equivicatory moments for Clark when the interviewer quoted Clark from the days of the passing of the Patriot Act, and the build up to the invasion of Iraq.

Even if Clark was being earnest in his restatements and "clarifications", it still made him look hypocritical.

Hypocricy, while a positive character trait for the right, somehow works the opposite for those on the left.

I'm not sure Clark is the guy to go with here, but he may be the best of the bunch for toppling the draft dodging, send your kids to war Bush administration.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boydfish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3667

posted 20 November 2003 03:33 AM      Profile for Boydfish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clark would be an unmitigated disaster as a US president.

His botched (And luckily thwarted by the British General who he tried to order to start World War Three) attempt to use British Armor to attack Russian paratroopers in Kosovo shows that Clark lacks the ability to make rational choices under pressure. He'd happily start a world war over a third rate airport of no value.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 20 November 2003 03:46 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From what I've heard and read, I'm inclined to agree. This is a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 20 November 2003 04:07 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those Russian paratroopers shouldn't have been there in the first place!
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 20 November 2003 04:31 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well yes, the Russians wanted to show off, but sometimes you have to let the baby have it's bottle.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 20 November 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just to be clear, I don't suggest Clark should be the candidate. I merely enjoyed watching some frat-boy Fox slimeball having his innuendo shoved back up his ass.

Strategically speaking, though, Clark might be a good running mate -- the Dems need innoculation against the perceived weakness on defence issues, and this interview shows Clark can be effective in pushing back at the usual right-wing tactics. I wouldn't want him in charge, though.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
canadianpatriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4556

posted 20 November 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for canadianpatriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bittersweet:
There's a bio of Clark in the Nov. 17 issue of the N. Yorker.

.

[ 19 November 2003: Message edited by: bittersweet ]


Ahhhh The Irony!


From: National Capital | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 20 November 2003 01:54 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boydfish:
Clark would be an unmitigated disaster as a US president.

His botched (And luckily thwarted by the British General who he tried to order to start World War Three) attempt to use British Armor to attack Russian paratroopers in Kosovo shows that Clark lacks the ability to make rational choices under pressure. He'd happily start a world war over a third rate airport of no value.


Yes, as opposed to the peace and tranquility we find ourself living in under the thumb of our gracious master G.W. Bush!!

How could Clark possibly be any worst than what is currently in office??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 20 November 2003 02:08 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just watched the clip. It's preceded by an ad, but the clip's still there.
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
humbleman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4522

posted 20 November 2003 02:31 PM      Profile for humbleman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am not sure about Clark either that stunt with the airport makes me a bit nervous. But he makes no bones about iraq being a fraud and that the war on terror has been hijacked. I have alot of respect for him for speaking the truth. This is his testimony on april 9 2003.


http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/ClarkTestimony030408.pdf

But this is at bottom not a dispute about NATO; rather, it is a debate about the nature of America's interests abroad and how we should
persue them. This is a question about American leadership. In this debate, one group apparently believes that with the end of the Cold War, our
purposes in Europe were essentially finished, that the countries there have no
real choice but to support the broad outlines of American policy, and that therefore our most important work is now centered on the Middle East
and Asia, where we are most likely to fight. They have looked there, rather
than the old countries of Europe as the vital areas of engagement. They see troop deployments oriented toward potential theaters of war as critical; they are prepared to use military power in coercive diplomacy and preventative conflicts; and they would reduce much of our half-century-old military presence in Europe.

quote:
This strategy did not emerge in response to the terrorist strikes on New York and the Pentagon, but rather took advantage of those events to gain ascendancy
."

From: Oakville | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 20 November 2003 03:25 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've seen a few articles on Counterpunch about this guy. The Counterpunch people seriously don't like him. I find them somewhat persuasive, but see what you think.

This one describes him as a sneaky pompous amoral politicking brown-noser with poor military skills:
http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html

This one asks Michael Moore what he sees in the guy:
http://www.counterpunch.org/lodge09172003.html

This one calls him a war criminal:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen09172003.html

This one dates from Kosovo:
http://www.counterpunch.org/genclark.html


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 20 November 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
How could Clark possibly be any worst than what is currently in office??

He probably wouldn't. But he's not the only Democratic candidate, you know.

Side note: And I expect that, whatever I might think of the guy, the clip was probably worth a look.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 20 November 2003 06:52 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've heard it said that many people would vote for Dracula if he had a chance of getting Bush & Co. out of power. A baloney sandwich has also come up as a preferable alternative for president. In that context, Clark might not be so bad.

However, there are about 1000 people I'd prefer. I don't get a say in American politics though (not being an American), so its not up to me. I hope the Dems pick someone who can actually beat him.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boydfish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3667

posted 20 November 2003 11:39 PM      Profile for Boydfish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Should the Russian paras have been there? No. It was a ploy by the Russians to try and shoehorn themselves into a position of advantage. The point is that the British General did the right thing by laughing at Clark and refusing Clark's orders: The British General had a divisional level force literally moving around the company of Russians in all dimensions with superior firepower, logistics, numbers and equipment. The Russians could not attack the British, they could not prevent the British from moving and they couldn't really do much more than hope that the British didn't wipe them off the planet.

Now, in comparing Clark to Bush, that's not the important question: Can Clark be trusted to not start World War Three the first time a nation tosses a handful of troops into an unimportant area? Not based on his previous actions...


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 21 November 2003 02:47 AM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Fox interviewer got it Wrong? Sorry But Clark referred to Iraq as a "sideshow" thus indicating that US servicewomen and men were being killed in a "sideshow" not worthy of their invovlement (most career servicemen and women would heartily disagree). Clark backtracked and then attacked the interiviewer when it was pointed otu taht Clark had been as ass (Seems Clark has been an ass for quite a long time according to his military compatriots).

By the way, Clark has no chance against Bush. Clark does not even have a chance against Kerry
Who "has been running a god-awful, ham-handed losing campaign" (Mike Murphy).


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 21 November 2003 05:04 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seemed to me that the sideshow comment was referring to the War on Terror in general. As such, it was suggesting that the Main Event should be in Afghanistan and Pakistan until there is credible intelligence that OBL is elsewhere. By going into Iraq, on flimsy pretext that isn't even referred to by GWB or TB these days, the US is not focussing their attention where they should.

That's what it seemed to me that Clark said. It's understandable why a 34yr veteran of the Army would consider a suggestion that he is insulting US troops as twisting his words.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 21 November 2003 12:20 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We mustn't forget that Wesley Clark is a good friend of Ratko, the famous Serbian butcher. I do not think that Clark has yet bought a membership in the Democratic Party. My American friends who are ex-military have a special distaste for Clark, and I am not exactly sure why. Something to do with his military record.

The Democrats have a good candidate in Dr. Dean. The media is pumping up Clark so Dean's momentum can be stalled.

This can only be good for George W. Bush. Bush is Bush. No one is challenging him in the GOP, and he'll have his $180 million election warchest.

The longer the Democrats are spending money fighting each other over who would be the best candidate, the less money and energy they will have left to fight Bush.

I hate to say it, but it looks from here like a Bush landslide in 2004. I don't think the Democrats will carry any of the Southern States, and they may even lose California.


From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bluto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1308

posted 21 November 2003 12:45 PM      Profile for Bluto     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sisyphus -

quote:
I just watched the clip. It's preceded by an ad, but the clip's still there.

I still don't see it. I get a long ad of various newsreaders "asking tough questions" and then one of them saying "Well, it's not easy to call a four-star general weak...". Then the clip stops, the slider goes back to the beginning, and an ad for a story about Michael Jackson runs. YEAH! Give us some REAL news!?!

I'd really like to know what Clark said to his faux interviewer.


From: Left Coast | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 21 November 2003 01:31 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bluto: I will admit, it kinda confused me at first.You get about 30 seconds of promo (includes my buffering time ~5 sec.), during which time the little progress marker travel right to the end.

This is the confusing part.

Then the dark-haired, glasses-wearing knob who interviews Clark comes on and introduces the General.

The little progress indicator will have reset itself by this point. If your buffering times are long, it might appear as though the clip has ended after the initial promotional stuff. Be patient.

[ 21 November 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 21 November 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by hibachi:
We mustn't forget that Wesley Clark is a good friend of Ratko, the famous Serbian butcher.

Really?


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 November 2003 05:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you mean Gen. Ratko Mladic, I'd be interested in hearing the evidence for this, too.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 21 November 2003 05:20 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just do a Google on Wesley Clark Ratko. They have photos....
From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 November 2003 05:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This Observer article refers to the incident.

Interesting -- a failure of judgement -- but not necessarily significant of much else. I doubt I'd vote for Clark, anyway. But neither do I see any reason to believe that he is a friend of Mladic, or that he supported, or supports, ethnic cleansing.

[ 21 November 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 21 November 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr Clark's 32-year military career is apparently filled with these 'distinguished' failures in judgement. Watching the video, I see him rising up to take the interviewer on. This was pretty dumb. I would have calmly made the point and got on with the conversation. It made him look argumentative.
From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca