Clark says he's "Product of Military Industrial Complex?" Quote/"Nation"

[KoKo]

And some of you thought my post comparing him to Eisenhower was "off base?" :shrug:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It had always troubled me that people opposed to the war could have seen
something in Wesley Clark. Because it seemed to me that no person who
found the Iraq war morally repugnant could have gone on television and talked
sunnily about how this or that weapon was ravaging Iraqi defenses. I
remember watching Clark on CNN, and at one point he was actually playing
with a model of an A-10 tank-killer airplane, whooshing it back and forth over
a map of Iraq, like a child playing with a new toy on Christmas morning. A
person who was genuinely opposed to the war as wrongful killing would be
sick even thinking about such a thing.


Clark's new book, Winning Modern Wars, is 200 pages long, all about the
Iraq war. Yet there is only one instance in the entire book in which he gives a
physical description of the death of a human being, that being a mention of
some Marines in Nasiriyah who were found with bullet holes in their heads.
Everywhere else, human beings are described as "targets" or "objectives" or
even "high-value targets," and their deaths are rendered with sports/ football
metaphors ("going 'downtown' with air power," "Red Zone" attacks, "the Big
Win," etc.) and bloodless euphemisms for words like "kill" or "assassination"
("destroy," "decapitating strike"). Moreover, he never mentions civilian
casualties without qualifying his statements--the "alleged mistakes of the
bombing campaign," the "hapless women and children reported to be victims
of the bombing."

If this kind of talk sounds familiar, that's because it is. Clark doesn't hide it.
"I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned
you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH
campus in Manchester. The general assumed--correctly--that the term no
longer inspired revulsion in young audiences. He says it's something else, but maybe this is what Clark means by the New
American Patriotism. New faces, no memories. Fresh recruits to replace the defeatists. A new base for Big Win thinking.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=5&s=taibbi

Edited: To add paragraph within rules, and to "bold" his comment about "MIC."

[SeveneightyWhoa]

1. Ouch!

This doesn't inspire much confidence in me..!

[ShaneGR]

46. Since I own and have read 'Winning Modern Wars'

I can tell you that there is definitely more than one part of the book where he talks about injured or dying soldiers and civilians. In fact, he devotes about three chapters, in blunt detail, of the military operation in Iraq and later in the book, Afghanistan. He talks about both sides, which is part of the reason I liked the book. Basically it's a discussion on how America should handle the post-Iraq period. By the way, the whole book is a big interrogation of the reasons we supposedly went into Iraq in the first place. It's nothing that would piss off even the most biased leftist. Unless you're so anti military that any talk of warfare bothers you.

[IndianaGreen]

2. That article is utter crap!

It has been dissected in the Editorials Forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23136

[Pastiche423]

3. Dissected?

Hardly.

[IndianaGreen]

5. A sampling of this 'journalism' about Clark: "His eyes are blank."

You can see something in the eyes of most all the Democratic candidates... Not Wesley Clark. His eyes are blank. Like a turtle resting on a rock in the middle of a pond, he simply seems never to move, no matter how long you stare. But then, just as you're about to pack up your picnic basket and go home, you catch him: His head pops out, and he slides off into the water...

What a fine piece of yellow journalism, worthy of a Hearst or a Goebbels!

What utter crap!

[dkf]

7. Tweety is freaked out because Clark doesn't blink.

He keeps on mentioning this.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Look again.....

please...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23136

[Rowdyboy]

4. Even staunch Dean supporters

can't stomach this crap, and many said so.

[seventhson]

10. Why would a Green person support an admitted product of the

Military Industrial Complex?


I think this is a damn good article and I hope it makes some folks THINK before they cream their jeans over this general picked by the repubs to stand in for Bush when he goes down in 2004.

[IndianaGreen]

14. This is nothing but trash journalism at its worse!

such blurring of the lines that separates fiction from non-fiction. This piece is so subjective that it properly belongs in the Editorial pages.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Because you are believing lies....

and I thought Greens were skeptical like me...looks like you are easy to manipulate...what, one article from a extremist's elementary school girl essay and you out? Guess beating Bush is not your priority....why don't you read this article and at least balance your reading:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html
BUZZFLASH: What advantages do you perceive, both professionally and personally, that Clark brings to the table that could really give him the edge in not only getting the nomination, but also defeating Bush?

LYONS: What I wrote a long time ago was we didn't know if Clark had the "political hunger." We didn't know if his value as a symbol would be equaled by his value as a politician -- as an actual candidate with the nuts and bolts of going from town to town, trying to sell yourself to people.

And some of those unknowns I think have been allayed. I think what they call it in the army -- his command presence -- is very noticeable. When you meet him, even privately, one-on-one, or in small groups, his personal charisma, which is very real and also very different from Clinton's, is apparent.

It's also true that quality of command presence is partly theatrical. You get to be a general partly by acting like a general. You command respect by acting authoritatively. At the same time, he's affable and approachable.

Clark's intellectual brilliance may be more apparent than Clinton's, because Clark doesn't do the "aw-shucks Southern country boy" act the way Clinton can do it. So you're struck immediately with how intelligent he is. At the same time, he listens to people and pays attention to what they're saying, and responds like a human being.

I want to be careful how I say this, but he has an almost feline presence -- and by that I don't mean "catty," as in bitchy. I mean like a big cat. I once encountered a mountain lion in the Point Reyes National Seashore in California, on a rainy day in winter, when I was all by myself. We stood stock still staring at each other for a few seconds. And there was this moment of "Gee, that's a cougar, this is really cool." And then an instant later, came the feeling of "My God, that's a lion!" There's nothing between me and him, no fence. Clark has a little bit of that kind of presence. You sense a tremendous personal authority about him held in and contained by self-discipline. Not somebody to fuck with, is another way of putting it.

[Kahuna]

12. Not only that. I attended that speech and that is not what he said...

He said, "I know those guys in the Pentagon. I was one of those guys. And when I'm president, I will not approve spending because someone puts a rubberstanp, "private" on it." He received thunderous applause to this remark.

Now saying that one was 'one of those guys,' is quite different from saying, "I'm a product of the military industrial complex."

Now I'm off to review the video I made and contact the nation and let them know what a LIAR, this author is. I will even send them a copy of the video so that they can see it for themselves.

[KoKo]

22. Kahuna, I'm glad you are going to do this, because if "Nation" misquoted

him, I want to know why also. This article is really a "trash Clark" screed. If it's the truth, though, we need to know....if it's not......they definitely need to print a retraction. AND! We need to know why "Nation" even sent reporters in "clerical collars" to spy on this address by Clark. Why not be "upfront" and sit with a notepad?

If what he said is accurate we need to know....if it wasn't the "Nation" needs to hear it from all Clark's supporters. I'm definitely with you on that.

[Tinoire]

25. I read that thread but fail to see where it was dissected;

it was angrily pounced upon and denounced but nobody even discussed the points of the article.

The author has a biting tongue but he makes some very good observations:

At one of the Clark meet-ups in Boston, at a bar near Faneuil Hall, we volunteers were addressed by a man who was introduced as the highest-ranking Massachusetts politician to have endorsed the Clark campaign--a member of the state Democratic committee named Steve Driscoll. Here is how Driscoll opened his remarks:

"The thing is," he said, "being electable means having certain qualities. And unfortunately, many of those qualities are superficial qualities." He paused. "General Clark has depth, but he also has those surface qualities. He appeals to people who don't have time to think about the depth part."

Jesus, I thought. They're just coming right out and saying it.

====

This is not a slam at all Clark supporters because I think that a lot of them are very thoughful people but that's here at DU. I thought the same thing when I watched one Clark event on TV and saw a sea of
mostly White young males gushing about how this was the President they were promised as a child- a line which, by the way, we often saw at DU before anyone even knew what any of Clark's positions were.

Since then he's developed many positions and they look great on paper which brings us back to the depth part. Paper and campaign words are not depth.

If someone gave me the job of shopping around for a candidate who had "it" physically and intellectually, I would pick Clark and that's exactly my impression, that they shopped around for a candidate and are developing his positions based on polls. Something about his entire campaign is surreal and very unsettling (this could have something to do with the fact that one of the guys who works (ed?) with him is the founder of something called "Extreme Campaigns"- a name that has a negative ring for me).

Did you see his cousin's last post (that I can recall) here? It supplements what this reporter is saying about the people on his campaign staff and how they're making him come out as something he's not.

As much as I don't like Clark, because of his past, the people behind him, and his extremely late arrival to the Democratic Party, I do believe that if he ran as himself he'd get a lot further than with the bumbling fools around him who aren't coaching/prepping him properly and saying things like that disastrous quote above.

Your sense of justice though is a sight to see :) I feel a little bad for enjoying the article but it echoes so many of my thoughts in a humorous way and after all the heavy stuff we have to wade through, I enjoyed the easy writing style.

If Clark is who his supporters think he is, it's not coming across well at all which was his cousin's primary complaint- that he was being mis-handled. His act leaves me, as a Leftist, so cold that it's only because of the respect & trust I have for 2 people here who like him (one was stationed at Fort Hood under him) that I have begun to try to understand his supporters more and and respect many of them as sincere people different from the commando squad that invaded this site a few months ago.

[KoKo]

32. Agree Tinoire, that there are some DU'ers who support him that I respect

enough to try to look more closely at what he says. Thanks for the post and pointing out that his "handlers" are the ones who may be responsible for making him seem a murkey figure to many of us.

Also, looking at the handlers helps us know what kind of President he would be. I've not seen much about his handlers that give me alot of confidence that he isn't DLC with a Military twist, but there's still time for him to define himself better to those of us who are skepitcal of his Candidacy.

[Tinoire]

34. Here's an article about exactly that which I just found

Manager warns Clark

Chris Cillizza in an Oct. 16 article in Roll Call reported that in a letter sent to retired Gen. Wesley Clark late last week, former campaign manager Donnie Fowler warned that the presidential candidate ran the risk of losing his momentum and appeal as an outsider by paying too much heed to his Washington-based advisers.

Fowler, who left the campaign after just two weeks on the job, wrote that Clark has begun to "adopt some bad habits of past presidential efforts."

"While all campaigns are rough-and-tumble, your advisors have begun to exceed the usual efforts to exercise influence without accepting responsibility," Fowler continued. "Many have taken that a step further by refusing to give up their clients or move to Little Rock."

The last sentence appears to be a direct shot at several former Clinton administration officials who are serving as informal advisers to the Clark effort, including Mark Fabiani and Ron Klain, both of whom are strategists in the campaign but not employed in an official capacity.

<snip>

"You should demand a commitment from those who wish to direct your campaign but who hedge their bets against the possibility you will fail," Fowler wrote.

<snip>
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/10202003/col_capi/56197.htm

Just thought that was interesting. Came across it about 5 minutes ago while googling for a transcript of the speech at UNH

Peace :hi:

[KoKo]

48. Tinoire, from reading this sounds like Clark lost a good strategist when

Fowler left the campaign. His comments about the "Draft Clark" volunteers being pushed aside is interesting. And, that Clark is being influenced to appeal to the Beltway Insiders rather than the "troops" he needs. Interesting. Thanks!

[FrenchieCat]

62. Go look again...

Plus this article was posted yesterday...and I think the day before that as well.....here are the links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=92700#92701

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=23136

and now this thread........

How many more will one article garnet????????? Is it just me or is a negative story on Clark worth it's weight in gold here?????

Why don't you read this instead:

Now here's another 1st person narrative to read from a sane UCLA Political Philosophy Professor and prolific writer.....
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
November 26, 2003
How I became a Clark supporter
By By Andrew Sabl

My support for Clark has not come naturally. I'm a partisan and liberal Democrat, no great lover of old Clinton staffers and smug New Democrats. I'm prone to value experience in democratic politics over the hierarchical values of military service. And when I heard that Clark had voted for Reagan, praised Bush, spoken at a Lincoln Day dinner, and said that he'd have been a Republican had Karl Rove returned his calls (no, I don't believe that he was joking -- though he may have been trying for sarcasm), I judged him an amoral opportunist and borderline con artist. In angry e-mails to a pro-Clark friend, I called the general an "ambipartisan" and summarized the Lincoln Day revelation as "Game Over."

But I figured I owed the largely unknown candidate a chance. Being a professor, I decided to read his book, Winning Modern Wars. After finishing it, I figured out what Clark is about, and why his candidacy is both baffling and compelling.

Bottom line: Clark is a throwback, a Rip Van Winkle, a pluralistic, optimistic, Greatest Generation-style politician lost, like Howard the Duck, in a world he never made. He's further outside the mainstream political culture than can possibly be imagined. This is what makes him so striking, so hard to parse, and so clearly the best candidate.

Sabl teaches political philosophy in the Department of Policy Studies at UCLA.

[imhotep]

26. Indiana Green

what happened to you? Its like you are the opposite of the Indiana Green I first saw when I joined DU.

[MoonRiver]

33. It really is unbelievable, how these people go on and on,

and with such fanatic desperation, in their attempts to discredit Clark. I can understand having intense passion about one's preferred candidate, but to spend so much time and energy going after another candidate is bizarre. They'd be better served fundraising for Dean than doing Rove's work on the cheap. :eyes:

[dkf]

6. C'mon - he was only joking! See, he was smiling when he said it.

[Kahuna]

13. No! He wasn't joking. I was there. He never said that.

see my post above to see what he really said.

[democracyindanger]

8. Writer says he directed "Asian Ass Vixens 6"

and the "East St. Louis Street Hookers" series.

That's also in there, so right away you know this is quality reporting. And before a mod considers deleting this because of the headline, consider that I pulled those titles directly from the article.

[Tinoire]

9. You've got to be kidding me

Each candidate had a half-hour to speak and answer labor-related panel questions. Edwards went first and did so-so. Dean went later and did better. Kucinich was the star, leaving to uproarious applause; he sounded like the second coming of Sam Gompers. Last in line came the unknown, Wesley Clark. And what a very strange performance it was.

In a room full of people in satin jackets embroidered with union acronyms, Clark entered flanked by a pair of boosters dressed in shiny red VFW jackets. Seeming harried, he gave a short address that was laden with military metaphors: "I'm going to go on the warpath to stop that," "We have to attack on the employment front" and so on. As his speech went on, it became painfully clear that Clark had the idea of workers confused with soldiers. "As I stand here today, I tell you that in the Army, we knew that the unit was never any better than its parts," he said. "The generals weren't any better than the soldiers. When you're in uniform, you're part of a team..."

Heads turned in shock all throughout the audience. What the hell was he talking about? But Clark plowed on. He began to recount his biography, noting that the Army had allowed him to "be all he could be." Five minutes later, he said it again. "Every part of this society," he said, "has to get the support that they need to be all they can be."

After the conference, I chased after him in the parking lot. "General," I said. "You're not seriously going to make 'Be all you can be' your campaign slogan, are you?"

He smiled, then gave me a little nudge with his elbow, apparently thinking I was with him on this one. "Son," he said, "it is my campaign slogan."

-------------------

That kind of talk turned me off in the Army, I can't imagine it having much success on a campaign trail.

Fascinating article. Am going to read the whole thing. Some of the author's observations are exactly my own- especially the part about seeing the act a few times. So they've got the 23-28 White male vote. That part's been pretty obvious and I noticed that it's that same group from the Dean supporters that gravitates towards Clark- it's rarely the females. "We've got the 23-28 white male vote sewn up. I mean, we have that absolutely whipped." (Yoken)

It's going to be a long, bumpy ride until the Primaries!

[IndianaGreen]

11. The issue here is that this article is not credible or unbiased

The author discloses a tremendous amount of subjectivity that borders on the fictional. I have a great deal of difficulty with authors and reporters that claim they know what a candidate feels or senses. Such drivel is better left to the likes of Sylvester Stallone's mother, the woman that claims her dog predicts the future.

[Pastiche423]

15. What about what

the candidate says?

His military analogies are down right creepy!

[Clark Can WIN]

64. ONLY if you are a knee-jerk reactionist

Whe believes that any person who has ever worn a military uniform is a blood thirsty criminal.

That's like saying Bretr Farve shouldn't use football analogies. :eyes:

[Tinoire]

27. The subjectivity definitely comes across

but I have no problem with that because after seeing what the media has done to certain candidates, there's no pretence of objectivity any more. I only care about the facts and the quotes. Some of the Clark supporters are saying he didn't say that and no offense to Clark supporters but the last 9 months on this board have been a string of "he didn't say that" from various camps.

It would be better to provide links and transcripts so that we can judge for ourselves because as much as I like some of the Clark supporters here, I can't very well count on them to be objective either.

[Donna Zen]

16. Then I saw her

even through the burnt yellow haze, the sort of haze that rises during the worst of times, ever so close to the last of times. I saw her with the blacken bucket filled with lies, lies and inuendos. On the side of bucket a stringy paper flapped as she walked toward the bunker marked "Last Call for Water Carriers."

[SeveneightyWhoa]

17. Why does The Nation..

..allow articles that basically smear Democratic candidates? Shouldnt that be reserved for The Weekly Standard?

And doesn't Hitchens still write for The Nation? Should HE also be at the Weekly Standard by now? To think, I almost subscribed to The Nation a few months ago..

[Donna Zen]

30. The Nation is Green

n/t

[rumguy]

18. This article is nothing but hipster trash

Oh look how ironic I can be as I make fun of everyone. Notice how describes the Dean campaign? This is not real journalism...

[KittyWampus]

19. Correction! Poorly Written Hipster Trash

:D

[Kahuna]

20. Hey Cryingshame! The quote is supposedly from the..

speech I tape on 10/22. You know the tape you asked me to copy for you? :7

Remember I said that Clark said, he knows those guys from the pentagon and that he was one of them. The author has purposely made it look like clark said, "I am a product of the military industrial complex." Both he and The Nation are going to receive a copy of the video (if the software I ordered does the trick :7 ).

One of us Clarkies need to also be ready to provide video or audio backup to confront the lying media.

[Tinoire]

35. There was also a visit to UNH on October 28 & 29 I think

so make sure you have all the transcripts.

Why aren't his speeches on his web-site? I searched and haven't find them yet... Maybe at C-Span...

[Kahuna]

37. You think wrong. I know of no UNH visits other than the..

one I attended. It was his economic policy address.

I'm not making this up. I reported this at the time about the pentagon remark. Cryingshame can back me up because he/she asked me to provide a video. Which I will... Just have never transferred from camera to dvd and I'm having a problem with the driver tonight. If push comes to shove, they will get a good old fashioned VCR tape.

[Tinoire]

41. I think you're right. Those appearances were in Durham

-Gen. Clark visited NH on October 29, 2003. He held a "Conversations with Clark" on health care at SeaCare Health Services in Exeter; and participated in the Every Child Matters Forum at Huddleston Hall at UNH in Durham.


-Gen. Clark visited NH late morning on October 28, 2003. He delivered a major policy speech on health care, third of four New American Patriotism speeches, at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Overnight in New York.


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/clark/clarknh.html

[KoKo]

24. Agree, the tone of the article is "hipster trash." No doubt about it.

"Tongue in Cheek" would be an "overly gracious" appraisal. But, is it true. That's the problem.

The style is one that I hope we never see again in the "Nation." It's offensive.

[KoKo]

21. Look, when I started the article I thought it was "Trash," too. But, the

more I read, the more it seemed to have a point. It sounded like it could have been from a right wing rag, but, it's from the "Nation." I wasn't there, so I don't know about the writers. Agree, that dressing up with "clerical collars..whatever" was very bizarre, but the article is worrysome.

I'm not totally "anti-Clark." Many of his supporters think if you don't love the guy then you should be trashed. I'm honestly looking at all the candidates. Clark, could be an honest, sincere, savior of us from Bush.

But, I still have worries enough, that I think we need to keep an open mind on our candidates. There are disturbing things about all the candidates. There are.....I've tried to read most of the critical articles with the good. Clark's lateness to the Campaign is the thing which still keeps niggling at me. "Who cares what I think? I'm only one vote?"

Well, I'm here on DU because this next election is so important. I don't want to make a mistake any more than any of you do. If there are unfavorable articles then they need to be addressed. Did Clark say what's quoted in this article or not? What was the motivation of the writer and the "Nation" to put out such a RW appearing article. That's what we need to look at.

Who are the "movers, shakers and manipulators behind our Dem Candidates. The more we know about the "people behind the curtain" the better the choice we will make. Who was behind this "trash article" about Clark?

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. koko01

Just put a reply near bottom of your earlier thread. Mostly my personal observatons, but I did say I would try to write more to you. I appreciate the attitude you are showing.

[Zero Division]

23. This article makes you "think"?!!! Same old over-the-top anti-Clark crap..

is more like it. I guess if you believe that Rush Limbaugh helped make us "think" about Clinton, then you'll believe that this author is trying to make us "think" about Clark. :eyes: In fact this article is remarkably like a Limbaugh or Coulter piece on a Democrat or Liberal.

It's painfully obvious that that author had an extremely negative view of Clark long before he decided to "take a look at Clark" and had an a priori mission to come to the most negative conclusion he could possibly make about Clark and those who support him. It follows the formula of the typical Clark smear rant: take some statements and associations out of context, blow the negative implications way out of proportion, draw the worst possible conclusion you can imagine, and completely ignore anything that demonstrates that Clark is dedicated to Liberal principles.

[Pastiche423]

28. Oh for cripe's sake!

What liberal principals did he have before he finally decide he better become a democrat, since he had already entered the Democratic primary?

[KoKo]

31. Pastich, that's the problem, it's his "credentials," even though article

is written by some odd dudes.

[Donna Zen]

29. Read more books

It had always troubled me that people opposed to the war could have seen something in Wesley Clark.

I was reading the blog by a professor of history from the USC, who like me, has read Clark's writings and the congressional record. He said, and I agree, that of all of the candidates in the upper tiers, only Clark was against this war. Now how did he come to that conclusion?

Because only Clark was advocating that the war was not the war we should be fighting. Rather, the US needed to stay and finish the political and military operation in Afghanistan. That was the location and the center of terrorism.

Dean on the other hand was advocating to continue the inspections of Iraq for another 30 to 60 days and then go to war.

Who was against the war in Iraq? Clark, Kucinich, and Sharpton. That's it.

Really, it's time to do some homework.

[The Magistrate]

36. That Was, And Is, The Correct Strategic Judgement

It is, and remains, the soundest ground on which to oppose the venture in Iraq, and the one that will make the greatest appeal to people who have been in some degree swayed to support that venture.

[dkf]

39. If there were no weapons found, how could Dean support going to war?

Dean has said that he would go to war if Saddam had weaponized biological weapons that could reach the US or if they were very far in their nuclear plans.

Inspectors would have found no evidence of this.

Therefore, the threshhold was never reached and Dean would not have gone to war with Iraq.

Your statement is misleading.

[wyldwolf]

38. Good for the Goose: Article by same author about Howard Dean...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031006&s=taibbi

Dean-a-palooza!

Called Dean the liberal Elvis...and continued, "Along comes Howard Dean, a well-spoken, obviously intelligent man who opposes the war in Iraq before it is politically expedient to do so."

He compares Dean to a mirage:

Six months ago, when I first started investigating the Democratic candidates for 2004, Dean seemed to me the only one whom I would trust not to steal my silverware. Now I'm not so sure--but that might not be Dean's fault. As I found out on the Sleepless Summer Tour, no candidate with "momentum" looks good up close; and the realities of modern campaigning make it hard to spot a mirage, even at close range.

All in all, not a real favorable article.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Bingo! You just proved that Matt Taibbi is a biased tabloid trasher

I wonder if Taibbi has written similar trash about other candidates and if so, who else?

[Kahuna]

44. Do a Google for this guy. He writes for Counterpunch..

and is the editor of Exile. He is nothing but a flamethrower. I wrote to the Nation and offered to send them a video of the speech where this clown claims Clark said he was a "product of the military industrial complex." I hope they take me up on my offer.

[IndianaGreen]

47. I found an article in which Matt Taibbi bashes ALL the Democrats

One Penis, Under God
The candidates believe the children are the penis.

Curiously, traditional Democratic dial-survey words like "compassion" and "healing" have given way this election to "tough" Republican words emphasizing strength and fatherly qualities. Last week I did a test to see if any candidate could give a speech without using some combination of the following words less than a total of 100 times: challenge, responsibility, leadership, hope, values, opportunity, principles, future, patriotism, protect, tough choices, change, action. Turns out I overestimated things–slightly. I don’t have the final results yet, but it looks like the average for a stump speech is actually about 50. (The Clark address last Wednesday came in at 61.)

If you ever want to pass an amusing half-hour, download a candidate’s speech and use the find/change function to replace all of those words with the word "penis." The results will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about modern political speech. Here are some samples:

Clark, Oct. 22: "The New American Penis is not just about matters of war and peace; it’s about jobs and penis and penis right here at home. It’s about taking penis for our shared penis. It’s about reclaiming what’s been lost, but also about building a better penis for all our children."

Dean candidacy announcement, June 23: "The Americans I have met love their country. They believe deeply in its promise, our penis and our penises. But they know something is wrong and they want to take penis. They want to do something to right our path. But they feel Washington isn’t listening. And as individuals, they lack the power to penis the course those in Washington have put us on."

http://www.nypress.com/16/44/news&columns/cage.cfm

[Kahuna]

42. I just listened to the video I made of the speech referred to..

in the Nation article.

The exact quote is:

"I wore a uniform for a long time,. I was part of that military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about. So, I know all about it and how it works. I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I'm not going to tolerate billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency because someone stamps a label "secret" on it."

[IndianaGreen]

45. Thank you for posting the actual Clark quote, Kahuna.

I am beginning to think that Matt Taibbi should be given a drug test. How else can we explain his distorted account of the same speech?

:think:

What a jerk!

[KoKo]

49. Thanks to those of you who "Googled" Taibbi and also checked the video

of Clark's speech. Looking at what Taibbi writes I'd say he's a total cynic and as someone else said a "Hispster" in his writing style. He should go work for the tabloids. His "Candidates and Penis" article someone posted here is a case of someone who's too "full of himself" to be trusted, and the Nation shouldn't have hired him. Maybe they were trying to attract a "hipper" audience, but if the guys a misquoter then it doesn't do the "Nation" favors publishing his trash.

I'm glad to see the quote cleared up. What Clark really said, according to the video transcript from Kahuna is certainly quite a bit different from what Taibbi put out there and negative impression one is left with from his misquote.

[Kahuna]

51. My camcorder...I'll never leave home without it.

We should all do the same to make the media accountable for their lies and distortions. Eventually they will get the message that....hmmm...see all of those camcorders out there? Maybe I should not try to spin this story.

[Kahuna]

50. Thanks!

:pals:

[Donna Zen]

59. Point of trash

The point of this trash is to wear down the image, and this election will all about image. Rove knows that the way to get to the left is from the left. Clark is painted as a member of the MIC, when in fact, he is threatening their kingdom with help from within.

Only two candidates have proposed budget cuts in defense; Clark and Kucinich. Only one of those two has the gravitas to get that done once in the White House. Only one of those two knows the inside out of the Pentagon budget.

Background info:

This country is facing a crisis...worse than the one we catalogue here on a daily basis. There is very little money left in the Federal Budget that is deemed discretionary. As SS grows, the number of people in the work force shrinks in ratio to those paying in. And there is no "lock box" there never has been. We work with a unified budget, and very soon, there will be no money. 2012 will be the date when there will be a 2:1 ratio. By 2030 there will be all discretionary spending will be going to SS and Medicare/Medicaid. That means, no roads, schools, Pell grants, nada. How long will the work force tolerate that scenario? A day?
If you can follow the dots, you will end up with either a wreck country, or literally starving seniors in the street...or hey, how about both.

The only money floating around unaccounted for...trillions damnit...is in the defense budget. The BS posters who break their keyboards patting themselves on the back for not supporting someone who has been a member of the "oh gosh" military, will be old someday, and wondering WTF went wrong. Only Nixon could go to China, only Clark can bust their balls.

Expect more of the same, from the left, from the right (Shelton) and from this board, because their grip on absolute power is being threatened.

[Zhade]

52. That is just creepy.

"I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH campus in Manchester.

Why did I picture a wolfish smile just now?

I really, really, REALLY wish he'd used a phrase other than "New American Patriotism". I don't want to hear "New American" ANYTHING ever again. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too PNAC-ish for my tastes. And I say this as a member of California Peace Action, which used the term "New American Foreign Policy" - which I also winced at.

[IndianaGreen]

53. Clark never said such thing

This story has been debunked. Read the entire thread.

[Zhade]

56. Um, I DID read the entire thread, thanks.

And it has been confirmed by Kahuna that Clark said "I was part of that military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about."

The Nation story said, "I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about..."

So the exact difference is "part" versus "a product", and the addition of "you" after "warned".

Okay. So there are a couple of small differences, making it less than 100% accurate. And there is the matter of context, no question. Fair enough.

It is NOT, however, the same thing to say that the story has been debunked. That's a disengenious comment. Clark did state almost every word written in that article. We can argue about the slant, and the meanings revealed by the changes in the argument, but it is misleading to suggest that Clark never said this.

[Kahuna]

54. See my post number 42 for the exact quote. Your pal..

Taibbi is a big fat LIAR! I was at the event at UNH with my camcorder and recorded the speech that Taibbi misquoted from. My post contains the correct quote that I transcribed from my video tape this evening.

[Zhade]

57. Please see my response above.

And, for the record, just because I express a different view does not mean Taibbi is my "pal". I don't know the guy. I don't know much of his work.

I DO know that this quote was not horrifically misquoted. You provided the proof of this conclusion above. Yes, there can be a discussion about bias or context, but Clark clearly did say very close to what Taibbi quoted him as saying.

At least, that's what your above post revealed to me. I'm always willing to concede that I was wrong, or that there could be a miscommunication somewhere.

[Bertrand]

58. The article is horrid

You say "Yes, there can be a discussion about bias or context", yet use the initial quote from the article to formulate the opinion expressed in post 52 - after Kahuna presented the quote he heard from the tape.

The quote, as Kahuna transcribed, was:


"I wore a uniform for a long time,. I was part of that military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about. So, I know all about it and how it works. I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I'm not going to tolerate billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency because someone stamps a label "secret" on it."

Without going into the obvious intent of the author to misconstrue the meaning by chopping off the fact that Clark made that point to show that he knew how to eliminate waste, pork, etc. from the Pentagon, he changed "I was part" to "im a product" - notice the shift from past tense to present - because the latter gives the impression that Clark is saying he's a believer in the MIC, while the former indicates he was a mechanism within the machine, much like all of us are within the free-enterprise capitalist model. The entire article is a crudely constructed hit-piece designed to sway those that are ignorant of Clark away from him. The author even says:

"For the two weeks or so that I had been a volunteer, I had tried, unsuccessfully, to get a rise out of my fellow Clark supporters."

The whole thing is a joke by a horrible journalist - something that counterpunch has been a stable of for some time. Whats even more pathetic is that Katrinas "Nation" would run it as the cover story.

[dsc]

55. Utter garbage

One only needs to read the following (pg 3 para 1-5) to see what utter nonsense he is willing to write.


article | Posted November 26, 2003

PAGES prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 next


Clark's True Colors
(page 3 of 5)


Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors

or the two weeks or so that I had been a volunteer, I had tried, unsuccessfully, to get a rise out of my fellow Clark supporters. Just to see how they would react, I had introduced myself at the first meet-up as an adult-film director named Rondell Abrams. Massachusetts campaign staff member Dave Rubin, a skittish young Brandeis grad, gritted his teeth when I told him I'd just finished making Asian Ass Vixens 6.

"I also did the East St. Louis Street Hookers series," I said.

He nodded. "Well, uh, we're glad to have you."

For this second meet-up, I'd upped the ante, showing up with a friend: She and I were both wearing cervical collars and walking with the stiff posture of personal-injury plaintiffs. I explained to Rubin that I'd been kicked by a donkey, while "Anne" had been thrown off by one. "Wow, that's tough," he said. "But thanks for coming, in that condition."

Dave Yoken, Rubin's former classmate at Brandeis and another Draft Clark veteran, took it more in stride. "Hey, at least it wasn't an elephant," he cracked.


end of quote

This is utter crap and from a supporter of Milosovich to boot. We at DU, as well as Nation readers, deserve better. I remember, not all that long ago, when the Nation was a serious magazine for serious people. Now it is just a serious mess.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Here the Nation's same author with his thoughts on Dean....

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&c=2&s=taibbi
6 pages of total delight!
Dean-a-palooza
---------
In the past six months the very success of Dean's campaign has become, for some, an indictment against him. Anything this popular has to be phony. Iconoclasts of all stripes have lined up to attack him, including voices of the left like Alexander Cockburn and Norman Solomon. On the liberal side critics have pointed to his refusal to support cuts in military spending, some seeming inconsistencies in his campaign finance positions, his support of the death penalty in some cases, his refusal to energetically disavow the corporate economy.

These criticisms have provoked a discussion over just how much may be overlooked in the effort to unseat George Bush. This debate--the Howard Dean problem--has gathered such redundant steam in recent months that one now sees on the Internet articles with such extraordinary titles as, "A Case Against the Case Against the Case for Howard Dean."
---------------------
Then there was the Imageering 101 political staging, a subject of much snickering in the press pool. At most every stop Dean had a statistically accurate multicultural microcosm await his arrival on stage, usually against a background of a giant American flag. Milwaukee, the second stop on the tour, was the most painful: seventeen supporters of various races (in proper proportions: three blacks, two Hispanics, etc.), frozen and seemingly afraid to move or make a face against the backdrop of a mammoth Old Glory. Watching them wait for Dean gave me shivers; they looked like sausages nailed to a giant red, white and blue crucifix.