Clark on C-Span right now

[FrenchieCat]

See Clark on C-Span.......

[_NorCal_D_]

1. Thanks for the heads up!

B-)

[FrenchieCat]

4. Also check out

my post in Political Campaigns...to get link to excellent review by the Nation magazine of Clark's book. Three page review!

[Spazito]

34. Thanks for the link to the review

it is a great read!

[FrenchieCat]

2. His throat is still bothering him....

must be cause he's no used to talking everywhere all of the time. Poor thing.!

Speech to Council on Foreign Relations.

[_NorCal_D_]

5. Yes,

it is a little scratchy.

[DemExpat]

3. What's he saying?

DemEx

[FrenchieCat]

6. Giving a speech to

the Council on Foreign Relations, on edit: not Podesta's group.
just the older established Council......

He is mapping out his entire Foreign Relations plan.

Talking about the coming danger with Terrorism and how he would put together "International Doctrine of collective responsibility".

It's a speech he gave on Thursday.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Clark is just totally

the anti-Bush in reference to his vision of America and the rest of the world.

I'll see if I can find the text to the speech for you DemEx.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Here's the speech DemEx......

http://clark04.com/speeches/012/

[DemExpat]

32. Thanks, Frenchie!

DemEx

[chiburb]

7. Did you see the New Yorker piece on Clark?

Overall, a pretty negative picture of his Army days. As someone who is undecided (but leaning toward Clark or Dean) I wanted it to be more positive than it was.
I'm sorry I can't link to it, but the NY is pretty stingy with their online content.
Disclosure: I have never participated in ANY candidate bashing thread, and won't. I posted this only to encourage you to read it for yourselves.

[Julien Sorel]

9. The New Yorker piece was crap.

Even the whores at Slate, no fans of Clark, rebutted it.

[Renew Deal]

10. If you know it's

crap, why would you encourage anyone to read it. Have you seen this. I encourage you to read it. http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/

[chiburb]

13. You talking to me?

Where did I say I thought it was crap? I called it "pretty negative overall", but encouraged you to read it for yourelf.
Maybe you meant to reply to the poster who DID call it crap?

[FrenchieCat]

15. The New Yorker article was crap....a smear job...

The New Yorker got tons of mail about it....

both Slate and American Prospect came in defense of Clark and totally refutiated the New Yorker article "and" it's author.

You're a bit late, doncha think?

[chiburb]

26. A bit late?

I just read it last night. I must've missed the thread in GD that refuted it at the time.
You know, I read something of interest (from a non-RW source), thought others would be interested too so mentioned it.
Sorry I bothered. Talk to you after the primaries are over...
Till then, both sides (Clark/Dean)can enjoy this place better without me.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Didn't mean to offend...

but we were writing letters to the New Yorker early last week....so to me, that was ages ago.

I guess I can get excited....because yes, when we are in a Clark Thread watching him on C-Span, it's a drag to have a "Smear" of an article land right in the middle of it. Especially one long ago written.

[FrenchieCat]

12. The American Prospect also denounced...

the New Yorker piece and discredited the author:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/11/yglesias-m-11-14.html

Boyer Plate
Who is New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer -- and why is he after Wesley Clark?

By Matthew Yglesias
Web Exclusive: 11.14.03
Print Friendly | Email Article

his week's New Yorker contains a profile of Wesley Clark with a striking thesis -- that the general's "military career, the justification for his candidacy, may also be a liability." Author Peter Boyer argues initially that Clark's plans for a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic during the 1999 Kosovo conflict were too aggressive; then Boyer argues that the target list of sites to be bombed by NATO jets was not ambitious enough; then he faults Clark for pushing too hard to draw up plans for a ground war against Milosevic. Clark critics, such as former Defense Secretary Bill Cohen and former generals Tommy Franks and Hugh Shelton, get plenty of space in the piece. Meanwhile, those members of Clinton's national-security team who supported Clark's conduct of the war, such as Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke, are not heard from at all. Perhaps most incredibly, after heaping derision on Clark's theory that the mere threat of ground forces would be enough to bring Milosevic back to the bargaining table, Boyer doesn't bother to note that Clark's plan worked. The New Yorker staff writer goes on to present Milosevic's eventual fall from power as a kind of coincidence, rather than a consequence of America's -- and Clark's -- successful campaign against the Serbian dictator. (You can read Boyer's whole article here.)

[chiburb]

19. Thank you for that...

I remembered reading Boyer's piece on Tommy Franks a few months ago, but was not aware of his other work, especially the Frontline stuff.
Makes me wonder why the New Yorker employs him? Usually the magazine has an anti-Bushco lean, and this guy seems out of character...

[Myra]

37. chiburb please don't take offense

A lot of people here are just tired of
the right wing's heavy handed attempts
to smear General Clark, so we probably
react rather sharply. When a prominent rag like
the Wall Street Journal or the Washington
Times/Post (take your pick), or the NY
Times, or the New Yorker (oh the list is endless)
follow Roves script to discredit Clark, who
appears to be one of the candidates they most
fear, it's just infuriating.

I'm not saying Clark's perfect; I'm saying
these rags aren't going to fairly report on
Clark, or any Dem. They're mouthpieces for the GOP.

I don't know about the NYers employment of
Tommy Franks. But the NY Times (the preeminent
propaganda rag) employs Paul Krugman (the
preeminent truth telling columnist). In fact
they have a couple of good columnists.
So it happens.

[robbedvoter]

42. Another great analysis of the New Yorker piece here:

http://www.forclark.com/comments/2003/11/10/91851/735/10#10
This guy was smearing Clinton and Gore before - so, it seems it's Karl's "big gun"
Another clue that this was ordered by memo: NY Post had Frank's quote from the article on Clark the same day it printed in the New Yorker (and don't tell me the NY Post stuff reads the New Yorker!).
Here's my letter to the Post:

The article is here:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/10397.htm

First of all, thank you Vincent Morris for that title. I didn't realize how grand "Prez Clark sounds. President Clark is even better.
As to the breaking news that Pentagon generals announce publicly that they are against Bush's rivals - duh!
Last we heard from Franks he was apologizing for being right about troop deployment in Iraq and was assuring us that Rumsfeld has everything planned about the war and aftermath, and everything he, Franks said to the contrary was wrong, wrong, wrong!.
Some beg to differ
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1081191,00.html


Boyer smeared Clinton, Gore before that.

[chimpymustgo]

14. I love his measured, dignified straightforwardness.

Very reassuring.

[FrenchieCat]

17. The man just

has totally presidential presence of carriage and of rethoric.

This has got to be the guy.

[Renew Deal]

16. That was a great speech.

He is such a great speaker. He really knows the foreign policy stuff, to the point where he is compelling.

[chimpymustgo]

Angry now, defending his character.

He does anger just beautifully. God, he's good.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Damm,

the just did a job on Generals Curly, Larry and Moe......

Really told that CBS reporter......

Got applause for telling it like it is.

That's my General Smackdown!

[_NorCal_D_]

23. Bellicose interventionism....

Well said Clark!

[chimpymustgo]

24. Oh Frenchie - LOVE it: General Smackdown.

I want a bumper sticker!

[_NorCal_D_]

20. Clark is responding to questions quite decisively.

B-)

[maddezmom]

21. thanks

I enjoy listening to all of the candidates. :)

[FrenchieCat]

22. China question now....

He's got the economics on China and trade agreements down pat....

and he knows how to fault the Bush Admin without being angry...really backs up his position with history...and facts.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Talking UN question now.....

Is really saying that without Bush, UN would get in line.

Comparing and contrasting Iraq to Kosovo.

[FrenchieCat]

27. The other candidates....

Just cannot and should try not to compete with this man's Foreign policy plan.....he's too good!

[hellbound-liberal]

28. Al Franken will be on C-Span2 at 9:13 tonight

and again at 2:00 a.m. for those of you who might need to tape it.

[chimpymustgo]

30. But he's also doing great on the ecomony, the dollar, jobs.

Now talking about AIDS.

Lord, have mercy.

[Kahuna]

39. No you didn't, Chimpy! Did you just say...

'Lord, have mercy?' :wow:

:pals:

[Kahuna]

38. Well, haven't you heard? Kerry's wife says...

Clark has no foreign policy experience...... BWAAAAAAAAA HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA... She should be on stage, telling jokes like that.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Talking Bio weapons ....and AIDS...

Said he would fund AIDs Fully.....unlike Bush.

Needs an agency to help failing states.....bring research, development, and experts to help solve the problem. To help prevent conflict is more important and if done in systematically experimental scientific way, we can gain some real knowledge to help nations.

[FrenchieCat]

33. He's so good at

putting in his digs about the Bush Administration......

Talking PNAC now....in responding about Iran and Syrian question.....

[AmericanDem]

35. Hey Thanks for the info

I missed the first airing of this program. it has just finished and it was well worth watching. Many thanks to you.

[FrenchieCat]

36. All those people in the audience...

bunch of heavyweights......really really happy that Clark just spoke. Had big smiles on their faces......!

[robbedvoter]

40. Thank you. For latecomers like me who missed it, repeat tomorrow

at 6:30. And please, more details on today's smackdown! Please!

[FrenchieCat]

41. They asked him about his dismissal and

generals Larry, Curly and Moe.

Clark got a real strong tone to his voice...and he did a great job saying there was nothing to this but rumors...hadn't heard anything about it until he started running....it's one of those reactions you have to see for yourself. Was forceful like on Fox, but way better in terms of keeping everything controlled exactly right.... By the time he was through, no one in that audience would doubt who was smearing whom.

Man, he sure knows how to scare somebody when he needs to, that's for sure!

He really, really did well.....got applause at the end....and this was a journalist's questions!

excellent, excellent, excellent!

Damm.....General Smackdown, We love you!

WE WELCOME ALL TO THE WES WING

[TacticalPeek]

43. He knows.

Just give 'em the truth and they'll think its hell.


:yourock: