A minor complaint about Wes Clark

[dsc]

Clark was on with O'Reiley both times he spouted lies about WW2 soldiers. The first time, Ok Wes didn't know. The second time he should have. O'Reiley is a known liar. Anyone who debates him needs to be up on things. Clark should have looked into this after the first time so he could answer it. It isn't a huge deal but he really should have.

[IndyOp]

1. .

:popcorn:

[heartofthesiskiyou]

15. me too

[nickshepDEM]

18. Scoot over and pass the dip!

[imlost]

27. me three..

[guidod]

98. It's like I've always said,

Clark would make a great president but a terrible candidate. For me, he comes across as someone who is unaware and slow in thinking.

[dogman]

99. You seem to be ignoring the facts.

Is this as far as you have read in this thread?

[Jai4WKC08]

100. Who cares about facts when you've got a chance

To take a dig at a Democratic leader who isn't your favorite? Attacking a Democrat is WAY more important, and a lot more fun, than discussing facts.

The idea that Clark "unaware and slow thinking" is one of the most ludicrous things I've heard in a while. Even his enemies on the right will usually admit he's one of the smartest guys around. I've sure as hell never heard anyone on the left who enjoys any credibility, to include the ones who may not like him for one reason or another, imply any differently.

[guidod]

101. Who said anything about

Clark not being smart. If you read my entire post you would have seen I said that I think Clark would make a great President, you also will see that I said "for me". It's not a dig, it's my perception. Feeling a wee bit touchy today aren't we?

[Jai4WKC08]

103. It sounds a lot like quibbling "to me"

You wrote above, "For me, he comes across as someone who is unaware and slow in thinking."

Do you expect me to accept that you only meant that you perceive him that way, but he really isn't? Because unless you mean now he really isn't, then it is a dig. And it's the same as if I were to defend my subject line as saying, you only appear to be quibbling to me, but you're really not.

Back to your main point... apparently you think someone can be "smart" but still "unaware and slow in thinking." Sorry, but I don't think so. Maybe I define "smart" differently than you. But it's a moot point, because I think Clark is plenty fast on his feet, and is one of the most knowledgable guys in the party, on the broadest range of subject. Maybe that's not what you mean by "aware" either?

If you read down thru the thread (and no, it's not required, but it's certainly a "smart" thing to do before you insult someone), there are some very good reasons Clark might not have corrected O'Reilly about Malmedy. Perhaps you think we're all just making excuses for him, but considering that overall he kicked Fehlafel-Boy's ass, I'm willing to accept his judgment on which points are worth making and which ones would be a waste of limited air-time. And if he just didn't know the details, which the more I think about it, the more I tend to doubt, then that's ok with me too.

And yeah, I'm "touchy" when people jump into a thread to pile on Clark for some perceived fault when he has done somthing good for Democrats. It happens all too f'ing often. I've been known to defend other good Dems just as angrily when they are attacked for no good reason.

[guidod]

113. You have to turn off your sensitive button.

Let me say it again, "For me, he comes across as someone who is unaware and slow in thinking." Are we, as members of th is party, suppose to walk in lock step with each other like the OTHER party? He's not the worse dem running, but he's not the best either. If he were the only dem running he would have my vote.

For you to say I insulted someone is way out of line. We all have our favorite candidates for the 2008 presidency, why should I sit here and agree with you that Clark is the best person running? Democrats talk about subjects, not insist that everybody think as they do.

I don't have to read all of the posts in the thread to make an opinion of my own. It's time for you to grow up and realize that we have a very large party and we have to OPENLY talk to each other so we can come up with a candidate that will win in 2008. We have to get through 2006 first though.

You should quit closing your mind to ot her peoples thoughts. Peace

[Jai4WKC08]

119. Well, suppose I were to say to you...

To me, you come across as someone who is unaware and slow in thinking.

Would you feel insulted? I guarantee most people would. If they alerted on the post, it would almost certainly be deleted by the mods.

So you're not being reasonable saying that I'm out of line in saying you insulted someone. You, otoh, are out of line in saying that my mind is closed to the thoughts of others, that I insist you think as I do, or that I expect you to agree with me on anything (all your words). I said nothing that could be reasonably construed as any of those things.

If you think Clark is not the best person running (actually, no one is running yet, but whatever), you have a right to that opinion, altho it's more than a little closed minded to flatly declare "he's not the best either" since that's only a matter of YOUR opinion. You also have a right to say, he said this and that's wrong, or he did this and I don't like it. But to make a purely subjective and insulting statement about his mental capacity is... well, it's your right as well. But as they say, not everything you have a right to do is the right thing to do.

I said above, but I'll repeat since you appear to have missed it: Of course you don't have to read all the posts in the thread to form your own opinion. But if you want your opinions to be based on on facts and as much new information as possible, then it would be smarter for you to do so. But if you think you have all the information you need because your mind is already made up, that's your choice as well.

And finally... no, I don't "HAVE to turn off my sensitive button" (emphasis added). It's my right to be as sensitive as I choose. You can either ignore it or live with it, but you are not "the decider" of how I can react. It would be "smarter" (and more in keeping with Democratic values, imo) for you to try to understand why I'm sensitive, since I went to the trouble to explain, but you are not obligated to do so.

[guidod]

124. Now you're beginning to sound

like we're married. I choose ignore, thank you.

[guidod]

102. I'm responding to the opening post.

I was unaware that I had to read everyones post before I could give my opinion. I like Clark, I just don't think he's a very good politician.

[dogman]

105. If your mind is set, there is no reason to read further.

Accepting the OP on the face of it, without looking at the possibility it is mistaken, seems to show an interesting lack of curiosity. It would leave one unaware of the facts and likely to be making an uninformed judgment.

[guidod]

114. Who the hell said my mind is set.

I have 2006 on my mind right now NOT 2008. One election at a time please, we have plenty of time to talk about this after November 2006.

[dogman]

121. You are the only one bringing up '08.

You are the one who said reading the OP was sufficient for a response. If you feel the OP is discussing '08, you might want to discuss it with him.

[guidod]

125. I'm getting the strangest

feeling we're going to lose in '08.

[CarolNYC]

106. Of course you don't have to read through the whole thread...

to give your opinion...It's just that you might have a better informed one if you had. That is, of course, if informed is what you're looking for.

And, don't get upset, I'm not saying you have to be well informed to have an opinion either. Plenty of uninformed folks have opinions and aren't shy about voicing them loudly.

[guidod]

115. The only thing I want to be informed about

right now is November 2006, I suggest you do the same. Is it possible that you could put 100% of your time into next November and worry about 2008 after that election? It sounds like you're the one that is uninformed about what's happening right now.

[CarolNYC]

117. I'm not quite sure what this thread has to do with 2008...

Perhaps you should take your own advice about 2006. I believe you're the one who brought 2008 up. I was only commenting on why reading through the thread may have mattered here.

And I have no idea why my comment would give you the idea that I am not informed about what's happening right now.

Talk about touchy.

Peace, OK?

[guidod]

126. Call it what you want,

I have to get '06 out of the way before I can even think about the White House. Peace :shrug:

[CarolNYC]

127. You might find that easier...

if you'd stop bringing 2008 into threads that have nothing to do with 2008. Just a friendly suggestion, you know? ;)

[guidod]

129. Sorry, I didn't know that you

had to enter a thread with a muzzle on. Thanks, I thought we had freedom of speech here at DU. I have the right to say I don't like to talk about '08 elections while we have '06 staring us in the face. If I can get others to stay focused, I will.

[CarolNYC]

130. Ay carumba!

There are a plethora of 2008 threads in these forums in the last week or so and you come into this one which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 2008 and start giving your opinion of Clark as a candidate and/or President…and then start chastising others for worrying about 2008 and knowing nothing about 2006. As far as I know, Clark is not a candidate for anything in 2006 and we are not, unfortunately, electing a President this year either. Oi!

I don’t want to muzzle you or anything but you might want to stop digging now. I’d guess you're in well deep enough already. :eyes:

...unless, of course, you want the last word...which you're more than welcome to....

[Jai4WKC08]

136. Maybe he thinks anything about Clark is about 2008

Maybe he's totally ignorant about how much campaigning and fund-raising Clark is doing for 2006 Congressional candidates. Maybe he can't see how smacking down the right wing media (O'Reilly in this case) contributes to 2006. Maybe he won't admit getting the truth about Haditha, Abu Ghraib, etc to the Fox audience is helping to remind voters that a Republican Congress will not exercise checks on the executive branch.

Maybe he's just unaware and slow thinking...

Or not. ;)

[CarolNYC]

138. unaware and slow thinking...

Perhaps that's it....He's unaware and slow thinking...which, I'm told, cannot be considered an insult. ;)

[guidod]

139. Nah. You can have the

last word, it looks like I don't have a choice. It's been fun rattling your cage. :hi:

[deaniac21]

120. I've found that he is a slow blinker. It's kind of scary to watch!

[dogman]

122. Since blinking is associated with lying, I find it comforting. N/T

[NCarolinawoman]

123. Psychologists say Fast Blinking means you're lying.

Maybe you're too young to remember Nixon and his "fast blinking". I've noticed that Shrub does his fair share of "fast blinking" as well. I can even think of a couple of Dems, (who shall remain nameless), who blink a lot.
:eyes:

[Texas_Kat]

128. Actually that old meme has been proven just another lie

WesPAC has video.... months of video.... multiple venues.... care to count?

[deaniac21]

135. Still gives me the creeps. I'm not repeating a meme. I am

just stating the sensation I get when I see him speak. Sorry.

[Texas_Kat]

137. Yes, you are repeating a meme.

and a false one at that. Check your assumptions at the door. You too have been a victim of right wing spin.

Like I said, hours of video....

[deaniac21]

140. I've seen him in person 5 times here in Arkansas. I've met him and

talked to him at Central High School and at the Clinton Library. I have a brain and eyes. I also have the ability to think for myself.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. If anybody on earth knew about Malmedy, it would be Clark.

He knows more about military history than just about anybody. It was pretty apparent from the interview that he was trying to stay on the topic of Haditha and not get distracted by arguing with DildO about a historical event. While it certainly would have been satisfying to watch Clark kick Bill's ass, Clark did what he always seems to do, which was to make the best use of the time he had and stay focused on the specific issue under discussion -- which was whether American soldiers had intentionally killed civilians, not soldiers.

[dsc]

5. I listened to the crook and liars version of the second encounter

and Clark clearly said things such as if this is true and later assuming it was true saying what a different senario it was. Incidently, that isn't an invalid point, but it is hard to watch that tape and not assume Clark didn't know.

[Jai4WKC08]

29. I think you ought to listen again

The only thing Clark said "if this is true" about was Haditha. Actually, Clark never specifically addressed Malmady at all. Perhaps he should have. He appeared to me to be trying to make the main point that what happens in the heat of battle is totally different than breaking into homes and murdering civilians.

It's a little hard to follow, because of the cross-talk as O'Reilly was trying to cut him off, but according to the transcript at WesPAC, here's how the exchange went:

O'Reilly: ...In Iwo Jima, in the Battle of the Bulge, Malmedy, all these things, and you're a military historian. You know these happened. It happened in every war. It's happened in every army, and you're right, it's a breakdown caused by stress, and a breakdown has to be dealt with by the military extremely quickly, effectively.

Clark: Yes.

O'Reilly: Murderers, if, if they're deemed guilty in a, in a military court of justice have to be punished. But to draw a wider implication, General, when 95%, and I think you'd agree with that figure, of American forces overseas under tremendous stress are performing heroically every day, to draw a wider implication at this juncture brutally unfair, both to our forces and to our country. What say you?

Clark: I say that, first of all, you'll have to show me and prove to me that there were ever any American soldiers in Belgium and Normandy or in Iwo Jima who murdered civilians.

Secondly, I think you're too low when you say 95% of the forces are performing effectively. I'd say 99.5% of the forces are performing effectively, maybe higher.

But when you have incidents like this, and you have chains of command under enormous stress, that is an indicator that things aren't going right. You've got to be sensitive to those indicators. You've got to fix the problem, otherwise it's going to get worse.

O'Reilly: Okay. Listen, nobody-

Clark: This is a long-term problem.

O'Reilly: Nobody is disagreeing with that.

Clark: Well then, that's my position.

O'Reilly: But I, in, in Mal-, in, in Malmedy, as you know, US forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air, and they were unarmed, and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record, been documented. In Iwo Jima, the same thing occurred. Japanese attempted to surrender, and they were burned in their caves.

Clark: Bill, that's a lot different than this.

O'Reilly: Okay. Listen-

Clark: These are no forces-

O'Reilly: What I'm trying to say to you is neither of those things, in the Battle of the Bulge or on Iwo Jima, reflected negatively on our military as far as its total performance was concerned. It was men under stress snapping. That's what this is. This isn't Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was cowardice, in my opinion, off the chart, irresponsible cowardice to do that. Here, I think we have to-

Clark: I think we have, we have to see this investigations unfold, Bill, really, because-

O'Reilly: Right, and but Murtha isn't doing that, General.

Clark: There's a big difference between-

O'Reilly: But Murtha isn't doing that.

Clark: -being in a fire fight and some guy who suddenly, after he's been shooting at you, throws up his hand and says, 'Woop! Now you can't shoot me, because I've put down my weapon.' That's one thing. It's another thing, if it's true as reported, that they broke into homes and shot-

O'Reilly: Okay, but whoa, whoa.

Clark: -men, women and children

O'Reilly: I don't wanna, I don't wanna judi- Listen-

Clark: That, that's not, that's not the same thing.

[dsc]

39. That is an accurate rendition of the conversation

so explain what Clark means here.

O'Reilly: But I, in, in Mal-, in, in Malmedy, as you know, US forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air, and they were unarmed, and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record, been documented. In Iwo Jima, the same thing occurred. Japanese attempted to surrender, and they were burned in their caves.

Clark: Bill, that's a lot different than this.

end of quote

That's antecendet has to be the stuff O'Reilly is saying while the antecedent of this has to be the Iraqi situation. Then he describes a situation where a soldier is surrendering and gets shot and says (correctly) that it is way different than civilians. There is literally no other meaning here than his arguing assuming O'Reilly knew what he was talking about.

[Jai4WKC08]

55. Like you say, it is different

Making that point was rather obviously foremost in Clark's mind.

You may be right that Clark wasn't familiar with what happened at Malmady. Or perhaps he wasn't as confident of the details that he wanted to get into it and risk making a error. Or maybe the poster below is correct who says Clark may have first heard it as "Normandy" (since he repeated that earlier, sounds more than plausible) and if so, he already had in mind how he intended to respond, and O'Reilly's describing Malmady didn't register. Or Clark may have made a conscious decision not to get side-tracked when his main message (and this is important) is that incidents like what is alleged at Haditha, as well as the cover-up, are indicative of the disintegration of discipline/morale and signal major problems with the chain of command. That they are not just something that happens to men under the stress of combat.

It may be significant to this discussion than in an appearance on Fox' Cavuto the next day, Clark said essentially that last, and attributed it to the military not getting support from the administration, while Cavuto was trying to blame everything on the "liberal media."

Clark: ...I think this is just one of those indicators that people say, 'Is the United States in trouble?' And they seize on it, and they say, 'This could be an indicator that discipline's breaking down in the force.'

Cavuto: Do you think that's the case?

Clark: Could be an indicator that there's deeper problems. It's an indicator of a command failure in some respect. It's a, the notion, you know, from you're a political guy, and you know that the coverup is always a problem. And in this case you've got only, not only the massacre.

It didn't happen yesterday. It happened in November. So, there's allegations of coverup.

Question is how far up did the chain of command know this. Was there a coverup?

So, there are a lot of disturbing aspects of this. I stand 100% behind our troops over there. I think they're terrific. They've come up with some incr- they've done incredible things over there that they were never trained to do, they're not equipped to do.

And to be honest with you, and I've said this on many of these Fox programs, they don't get the support that- from the administration that they really need in terms of a regional diplomatic strategy to protect them.

Cavuto: From the administration.

Clark: Absolutely not.

Cavuto: They don't get the support in the world press, General. That's what we're talking about here.

Clark: They don't get support from the administration.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1056

I don't think there's ever been a speech, interview or Q&A with a political leader, especially those I respect most, whom I've listened to where I didn't say to myself at some point, damn, I wish he/she had made this point, or said something this way instead of that. But that's easy to say from the comfort of one's living room. I can remember thinking I'd wished Dean had handled Stewart differently on the Daily Show when I saw the re-run last week, altho overall I liked his performance. And unlike O'Reilly, Stewart is not exactly a hostile interviewer, looking for a way to humiliate Democratic guests.

In the case of Clark's O'Reilly appearance, I personally would have liked him to say make a bigger point that Haditha happened over 6 months ago, that there was certainly a cover-up at some level, and that it makes you wonder that the chain of command is at best out of touch with what's happening on the ground, at worst culpable for trying to hide the facts. But these conversations go the way they go, and Clark, or anyone in a similar position, knows he only has a limited amount of time to get across what he considers to be most important.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I think you're over-reacting. Perhaps because when you first heard it, you thought that Clark had said that O'Reilly's version of Malmady may have happened? I don't know, but that's what you claimed above, and Clark said no such thing.

The important thing is that Clark handled O'Reilly very well overall. He got his message across, and in a way the Fox audience is receptive to. He let O'Reilly bluster on, get red in the face, and generally look like an idiot -- also a good thing given the audience, and possibly most important in the long run, if it contributes to a smaller audience. If he didn't make a single point you think is important, well, he may have had his reasons, or he may have just missed an opportunity, but I don't see that it matters compared to what he did accomplish.

[dsc]

61. Dean does poorly with friendly interviewers for some reason

I think he likes the rough and tumble of debate. Stewart also is a poor friendly interviewer. I have rarely been happy with a Dems appearence on that show. Conversely he is a terrific hostile interviewer. He is great with conservatives. Your point is well taken, and frankly had it been a one time thing I would have said nothing. But this was the very same lie told twice which was the problem for me.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Well, Stewart will always go for the joke

It is a comedy show. And he, like many in the media, likes to appear that he's as tough on Democrats as Republicans, or at least makes an attempt to be. And I agree that Dean is at his best when he's confronting some right-wing jerk as opposed to trying to get along with a "friendly" interviewer. But I was just using that show as one example.

You're right that it was the same lie told twice, of course. But I don't think Clark dwells much on a interview once it's over. You can count on one hand the number of staff WesPAC employs. And his schedule is unbelievably busy, quite literally on the road almost daily, much of it raising money for '06 Democratic candidates (there was a really good DU thread on that just a week or so ago... perhaps someone here has saved the link). One of us in his grassroots base probably should have raised the issue to him the first time. Altho, like I said, I don't know that he didn't choose to ignore O'Reilly's lie. :shrug:

To tell the truth, the way it worked out was probably for the best, because Keith Olbermann did a marvelous job of exposing it all, with very nice visuals to make a bigger impact. Granted the typical Fox viewer doesn't watch Countdown, but since his expose, the story has gotten picked up by a few print sources, is all over the internet, and I'd be sort of surprised if it doesn't get discussed around the water-cooler, as they say.

[Cosmocat]

97. The problem is that O'Reilly is ...

such a simmering idiot ... The moron mixed up Normandy and Malmedy, I knew it at the time, and from Wes' face, he knew it too ...

NOW, had it been any of us, we would have taken the freakin idiot apart ... But, what good is that going to do, really ... Even after one of his own called him on it, he did the pompous I knew what I was talking about the whole time thing ... The man is arrogant enough to talk the way he does to a four star general to begin with, ain't nothing ANYONE is going to say to make him admit/realize he is an idiot ... AND, you could spend YEARS pointing out all the crap that comes out of this guys mouth ...

As others noted, Wes had an agenda, and only had a five minute segment to get it done ... He stayed on point ...

[saltpoint]

3. Well, let's just throw him to the lions. It would be a better world

if Bill O'Reilly was not permitted to spew his distortions and mean-spiritedness across the public airwaves.

Until we get to that better world, there are going to have to be Democrats on FOX News shows, and Clark showed up.

I didn't see those interviews, but putting myself in the place of any Democrat being interviewed, I can't imagine doing a better job.

We can't expect 100% perfection in public officials. They rise out of the general population and have the same human traits we do.

So whether a Democrat is on this or that network, and does well or not, we need to promote the discourse he or she represents.

They're in there fighting for all of the rest of us.

[JNelson6563]

14. Oh c'mon

The OP did say "minor" point amd it wasn't a horrible attack or anything, just an inquiry on a valid point. No one said anything about "100% perfection", no one expects it. Asking why a military expert like Clark didn't correct O'Liely's false statement either time, is certainly not worth getting into a lather over.

Julie

[saltpoint]

21. Yeah, understood. But I'm in the camp that doesn't want to slight

General Clark's -- or any other contender's -- chances for a win in 08.

We have 06 more immediately in front of us. A lot of us are happily invested in that election. In the meanwhile, I wonder if General Clark might have made some good points, perhaps even some good points in an agile way, demonstrating wide range, deep grasp, and political acumen.

Am I to believe he's not capable of those things? I've heard hiim myself on many occasion on C-Span or other programs, and he sounds pretty terrific, actually.

I'd argue that we need to start with the positive. That was my point.

[dsc]

32. And I am in the camp that wants our spokespeople to be competent

One of our real problems is that Democratic spokespeople repeatedly mess up on TV. We can't afford that. Way too many stories about both Gore and Kerry ended up not refuted at all or not refuted competently due to Democratic bungling.

[saltpoint]

33. My take on Clark is that he is pretty consistently clear and

articulate.

His comments on the Bush administration have been consistently insightful, I think.

That's not to say that we shouldn't hope for the best possible television news commentary by our party leaders, but nor is it to subtract what Clark has accomplished.

I'm not worried about him, in part because I think he's extremely bright and much more prepared for 08 than he might have been in 04.

[dsc]

35. That is why I raised this as a minor point

He does have a history of doing well. This was, in my opinion, shoddy. We must be willing to critique our friends when it is necessary.

[Auntie Bush]

93. Please tell me why your negative OP was NECESSARY criticism.

Constructive criticism is important if it helps our candidate do a better job. But this OP was just plain criticism and I don't think it helps anyone in any way whats so ever! So why make it? Do those at FR ever just criticize Republicans? Maybe we can learn something from them.

[Clark2008]

43. And I suppose YOU could have done a better job.

:eyes:

[dsc]

45. That is irrelevent

Though I do think if I debated O'Reilly once and he lied about something which got covered in the media and then turned around and told the very same lie again, that I would have known the second time. But unlike Gen. Clark, I am not a military historian. I can assure you that there is no way a statement about math would have gotten by me twice.

[Clark2008]

56. And you would have bought time how?

It would take anyone 10 years to refute everything O'Lielly lies about. Wes was staying on message.

[dsc]

58. It would have taken one sentence to say

you are wrong about Belgium as you were the last time you brought this up but even if you were right . . .

[Clark2008]

81. And he DID spend one sentence on it

He said, "I say that, first of all, you'll have to show me and prove to me that there were ever any American soldiers in Belgium and Normandy or in Iwo Jima who murdered civilians."

So there.

[Jim Sagle]

109. He didn't exactly bungle this one.

[JNelson6563]

36. I agree

no need to be harsh on any of our potential candidates right now. Just as there is no reason to be harsh with those who ask civil questions.

Just my .0125

Julie

[saltpoint]

42. Didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings.

[Texas_Kat]

22. The OP asked a civil question

the OP got an civil answer. Please don't turn it into something that it's not.

[dogman]

91. Apparently it wasn't "minor".

Given the explanation in post #54 received no response, it seems the author of the OP was merely setting up a claim of victimization. If a military expert like Clark had corrected O'Vilely it would have been leaving the path of the discussion and entering a minefield. Quite possibly if Clark had said that Malmedy was a massacre of US troops by the SS, BO might have said that surely Clark knows of the reported following massacre of Germans by the US. Then BO would claim to be teaching Clark the history of WWII. If Clark were to say something critical of the US troops in WWII, Dole would be attacking him once again as being an elitist General, out of touch with the common soldier of "the greatest generation". Clark did good, real good.

[CarolNYC]

95. steps ahead

Yep, seems to me a good bet that the killing of the German POWS following the Malmady massacre factored into Clark's response. Thanks to the OP for helping bring that to light in his own convoluted way.

As usual, looks like Wes was a couple steps ahead of everyone...again.

[Schema Thing]

4. Look into it?

geez, Clark is an expert on war history. He doesn't need to look into.

Give him a break, he has a primary message, and he can't chase down every bit o' shit a fox pundit throws out. This last time, he did address it quickly, peripherally, and moved back on topic.

[dsc]

6. listen to the crookandliars tape

of the second encounter. Then tell me he knew what this was.

[tishaLA]

7. One has to pick one's battles

If Wes Clark--or anyone--spent his life correcting every O'Reilly fabrication, he'd never get to defend Murtha and say why the investigation into Haditha is important. THAT was his task on the show, not Bill's wistful revisionism.

BTW, I think it's kinda funny to hear people here saying that Clark should have looked into the Malmedy stuff after his last appearance as if he didn't know O'Reilly was wrong. He DID know he was wrong ("I say that, first of all, you'll have to show me and prove to me that there were ever any American soldiers in Belgium and Normandy or in Iwo Jima who murdered civilians.") and, as KO said last night about Bill-O, "Last October Bill O‘Reilly railed against a ruling that more photos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq might be released. His guest on his program was Wesley Clark. Clark is a retired four-star general, was for four years supreme allied commander of NATO in Europe. First in his class at West Point, wounded in Vietnam, earned the Bronze star, the Silver Star and has streets named for him in Alabama and in Kosovo. Therefore, naturally O‘Reilly knows much more about the military than General Clark does. "

I suppose the prophets here who think that Clark should have "looked into" something he knew to be false have placed themselves in a position parallel to Bill.

[dsc]

8. That isn't what O'Reilly claimed

He claimed that they had killed soldiers. And it should be further mentioned that he went on to specificly say it was much different to kill soldiers than to kill civilians.

[tishaLA]

10. To repeat: Clark didn't need to "look into" it

He knew the truth. O'reilly was playing a game; Clark didn't take the bait. I really should send your post to KO so he can see that it's not just O'Reilly, but DUers, who think they have greater expertise than Clark and presume to know what he should "look into."

[dsc]

24. The man argued as if what O'Reilly said was true

at no time did he say O'reilly was wrong. Sorry, but any person who hears the charge the first time as Wes Clark did, and then lets it slide a second time evidently didn't know it was false. There is no other rational explanation for clark saying later in the interview that shooting unarmed soldiers was different than shooting civilians. Full disclosure prior to this I had never heard of that place in Belgium but unlike Clark I wasn't on O'Reilly's show when he first made the charge. Incicently you still haven't answered the point that what Clark asked O'Reilly to prove and what O'Reilly charged our WW2 soldiers with doing were two different things.

[tishaLA]

25. Yes, what he asked him was about

killing civilians, not about war atrocities in general. Why? Because he wanted to drive home the point that we deal in specific ways with killing civilians. Rules of engagement are different with other troops, of course.

Clark wanted to stay above the fray and not argue about moral equivalence--that was O'Reilly's attempt at a bait and switch in his argument. Clark was to smart to take the bait, but the great minds here at DU are convinced, somehow, that a man who has studied military history and was first in his class at West Point doesn't know enough about recent military atrocities so he would need to "look into" them so he'd have a better grasp of the facts. KO would be impressed, indeed.

[dsc]

30. He does argue moral equivalence

sorry but the tape is very clear in this. Clark says, not once but twice, that what the troops did in Iraq is worse than what O'Reilly said the troops did in WW2. If that isn't arguing moral equivalence then I frankly don't know what it is. Also I didn't say he had to look into recent atrocoties but the long ago one. At least read my posts before you claim it is I who is ignorant.

[tishaLA]

47. In military history, Malmedy is "recent history" n/t

[Catchawave]

9. BOR edits his show....

who knows, maybe Clark's corrections were snipped :)

[Donna Zen]

11. Clark said: "Prove it."

And then he moved on. Clark does stay on message, and his message was that Murtha has both the right and the responsibilty to call out the Pentagon. Clark also quickly reviewed the rules of engagement. He also zinged O'R by welcoming him to "our side", those who believe that this war is unnecessary. That's a pretty good night's work.

[dsc]

19. No he didn't

He said prove they killed CIVILIANS. Which is, as Clark pointed out, very different.

[Clark2008]

82. Yes he DID.

He said, "I say that, first of all, you'll have to show me and prove to me that there were ever any American soldiers in Belgium and Normandy or in Iwo Jima who murdered civilians."

And I'll keep repeating this until you understand that he DID spend ONE sentence on it and moved on. He said, "prove it," and then he stuck to his message, which is what you're asking him to do.

What don't you understand about that?

[Texas_Kat]

12. Nawww, Clark handled it perfectly

1) Clark was not in the studio. From Clark's response it's obvious he was "guessing" BO said "Malmady", but over an earpiece... it may have also sounded like "Normandy" -- he covered both in his answer. Even then he demanded O'Reilly produce facts, not bloviating.

2) Clark doesn't need to get 'strawmanned' into an argument over WWII history when he's making a point about what's happening today. BO makes so many mistakes that if Clark stopped to correct them all, the issue being discussed would never GET discussed.

3) It's not the first time BO has said the same thing about "Malmady" but the Clark netroots beat him up about it in October of 05 when he did it last time. Keith apparently knew about it, since KO "forgave" the earlier (possible) mistake.... The opportunity to smack BO around about obvious errors of fact is almost overwhelming. Clark knows we have his back.

4) For BO to look like a fool to vets (particularly Fox-watching vets) is always an upside.... why correct someone who's making an ass of themselves and everybody but the ass knows it.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Actually, I'm not sure that Wes Clark heard "Malmady".....

I believe that Wes thought that O'lielly had said "Normandy".

If you read Wes' reply, it does indicate that he heard "Normandy"...although O'lielly did say "Malmady" (guess that Wes would not even listen for "Malmady" since what O'lielly described was so backwards).....But this would explain why Wes didn't correct O'Lielly on that particular issue...but rather asked O'lielly to "prove" to him that American Soldiers had committed murders in the instances named...

Here's Clark's response:
""I say that, first of all, you'll have to show me and prove to me that
there were ever any American soldiers in Belgium and Normandy or in Iwo
Jima who murdered civilians."

Beyond that Clark rarely allows for the real issues to be diverted to some other topic by the likes of someone like O'lielly....which is probably why he didn't spend but a sentence or two on it. I believe that he heard "Normandy".....he therefore chose not to argue for the rest of his segment dealing witih lowlife's O'lielly's accusations.

Watch the tape again, and you'll see what I mean.

[yurbud]

16. I'm not sure what the point of going on that show is

what would happen if Democrats and those further left just ignored Fox?

[Texas_Kat]

20. The latest Pew survey show that the Fox audience

is composed of 21% self-identified Democrats and 22% self-identified independents. It plays in most commercial waiting rooms, restaurants and bars in red-states.

Look at where Clark is campaigning for Democrats in 06 .... he's in a virtual one-man battle (so far as national political figures anyway) to turn red states blue.

[yurbud]

26. thanks for the stats!

[heartofthesiskiyou]

17. n/t

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[phylla]

23. Ya know, Wes knows when to let a fool make a bigger fool out of himself

Did you notice the incredulous look that came on Wes's face?
Wes is sharp.
This was his subject-Military history. He taught it.

If Wes had created a scene, would KO have had that beautiful chance to put O'R in his place?
Nope, right?

Wes played the whole scene just brilliantly.
Don't think for a minute that he was uninformed- He jumped on O'R the first time- telling him to "prove it"

This time he played the sly fox that let the lil strutting rooster serve his own self up.

[ArkySue]

28. I had the chance to ask...

Gen. Clark about his Fox appearances last summer. He said on the remote broadcasts it was difficult to hear. Just sayin'.

[dsc]

31. and that might be the reason

though if that really is the problem he should insist on studio interviews when possible.

[IndyOp]

38. I thought he was in a FOX studio, but still remote...

And if he only does the show when he is in the same town as O'Rielly he won't be on nearly as frequently -- and while I personally, am not a big fan of Wes Clark -- I suspect that he has single-handedly moved conservative thought from pro- to anti-Iraq war with his frequent appearances on FOX. Most Amurkans get the majority of their news from TV and a huge proportion are glued to FOX. Wes Clark has been, as far as I am aware, the *only* voice against the war on FOX for a long, long time who has spoken out clearly and consistently against the war.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. Hadn't really thought of it that way, but

You may be right.

I'm sure I've read that Fox News gets higher ratings than all other cable news networks combined. As someone up-stream pointed out, almost half of those viewers self-identify as either Democrats or independents, and one could assume that some significant percentage are moderate Republicans.

My opinion is that the reality of what's happening in Iraq, as well as Bush failures in many other areas, is the primary reason for the shift to anti-Iraq war sentiment. But that said, Fox viewers don't exactly get an unfettered view of reality. And with what they do see, sometimes it takes a nudge, or the seed of a thought, for them to take it in with the proper perspective. Clark has been giving them that nudge and planting that seed, as have the Iraq War vets whose campaigns he's been instrumental in promoting.

Plus, seeing a retired four-star criticize the war, especially one who is articulate and informed, and who clearly supports the troops, gives Fox viewers a certain level of "permission" to criticize it as well, because they can allow themselves to realize that it's NOT unpatriotic to do so. Which is not only beneficial to putting pressure on Bush and Congress, but makes them more receptive to the rest of us who are critical.

I'll tell ya one thing tho. Whatever influence Clark has had on the shift about the Iraq war, I really believe that he has had much more on the recent Bush "flip-flop" on talking to Iran. NOT because he's the only Democrat to be saying we need to do that--he isn't... altho he was probably the first to see the crisis coming, back during his '04 campaign. But because he's said it so often on Fox (and while campaigning for Dems in red districts) and all those moderate Repubs etc who watch Fox, even some much farther to the right who still support the Iraq war, are beginning to wonder, what the fuck is Bush thinking? There's no doubt in my mind that if the GOP wasn't worried about '06 voter reaction to a Iran confrontation, Bush would still be just as hard-line about having one as he has been all along.

(Edited because I mis-remembered the stats on Fox viewership)

[sutz12]

34. To be honest, it went right by me, too.

And I'm a bit of an amateur historian. I have at least read quite a bit.

I felt kinda dumb when I read the rehash, though. I should have caught that. I would guess that it slipped by Clark because he would never believe that O'Liely would spout such an obvious falsehood.

One thing is true. BillO probably would have loved it if Wes had shouted out, "That's a lie!" and let the discussion wander completely off topic. That is a known Neo-con trick, changing the subject. O'Liely was getting jobbed, and he probably would have loved to argue something else, even if he was on the wrong side.

[dsc]

40. He had spouted the same falsehood

in Clark's presence, once before.

[Totally Committed]

37. Look...

when the performances by other Democratic spokespeople is put under a microscope, too, I'll be more willing to nit-pick the hell out of every word uttered by every Democrat everywhere.

Where's this level of concern when Joe Biden goes on every stinking Sunday morning talker and verbally masterbates himself on our dime?

Where's this level of concern every time Jane "I'm the best Republican the Democratic Party has" Harmon goes up against some half-wit from the Republican Party and just rolls over and les there dead for all of America to see?

Wes Clark's performances on FOX have been some of the most honest, insightful, intelligent, and INFORMED that this Party has ever enjoyed ANYWHERE -- let alone on that bastion of RW Bullshit!

Knock this b.s. off and concentrate on taking back both houses of Congress in '06, so we can DESERVE to win the WH in '08! We owe this to ourselves as a Party!

TC

[dsc]

41. They are put under a microscope all the time

Dean can't go on TV without dozens of threads, Kerry same thing. Sorry, but your guy messed up here, he isn't Christ.

[Texas_Kat]

44. IndyOP has it right

in comments about correcting O"Reilly's idiotic statements.

You must have missed the 'episode' where O'Reilly began giving Clark advice about troop placement and movement. O'Reilly, of course, commenting as: "As a political consultant".

You have the impression that Clark is on Fox to debate the big-head. He's not. Clark is on Fox to talk to the Fox-watching voter. Getting into a debate over history with the Falafal king (as self-satisfying as that may be) is not furthering the objective of persuading Fox watchers to the Democratic view of current events.

Clark could have spent the balance of the time arguing over what happened 60 years ago or he could spend the time making a point about what the administration's policies have done to "his army" and defending Murtha.

Obviously you would have rather he spend time giving BO a lesson in history.... it would have been a cheap victory. His objective wasn't to make BO look bad, it was to win over the viewer. It's the difference between tactics and strategy.

So far as I'm concerned, it was much more important to spend the time allotted getting in statements like:

General Wesley Clark: I'm glad you've come around. Iraq was an unnecessary war. Here's the other point. It's, it's a failure, by the way the President defined the mission. The problem is how do we move gracefully from this position. What we've said is, we need to turn this over to the Iraqi government and-

Bill O'Reilly: Alright.

General Wesley Clark: -begin responsible redeployment, but we've got to protect the men and women in uniform and the integrity of our institutions.

Bill O'Reilly: Okay.

General Wesley Clark: John Murtha's worried about that and so am I.

Bill O'Reilly: I don't- I, I think you're

General Wesley Clark: And you should be too!

Bill O'Reilly: You're, you're bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll admit.

[dsc]

46. One can do both

Clark could have said, "Bill you are wrong about the Battle of the Bulge and even if you were right", and then go on with what he said.

[Totally Committed]

49. So, one sentence would have made this entire thread unnecessary?

I repeat: nit-picky minutia like this will keep us from focusing on other thngs, especially winning back The House and Senate in November.

TC

[dsc]

50. Yes

One reason we continually lose elections is that we let Republicans continually define narratives unchallenged.

[Totally Committed]

51. But, no one has challenged them more than Wes...

and one sentence??????? Can we agree to disagree that this was woth an entire thread that could have been used to discuss, say, the need for a better defined, and better disceminated Democratic message? You have criticized the most consistently solid non-politician/spokesman the Democratic Party has had on matters of war and peace and international policy.

Perspective and priority is needed here... That's ALL I was saying.

TC

On Edit: I'd like to remind you of a sentence in your OP -- "It isn't a huge deal but he really should have." Seems like it really IS a big deal to you. When I read your OP, I thought this was going to be a really short thread, no big deal, matter opened, answered and closed quickly. When I saw this morning that the thread was still going and you were still unsatisfied, I realized that sentence was a bit disingenuoous. Maybe you just didn't know how upset you really were when you wrote it, but this thread and the scope of it is totally out of proportion to the problem as you see it.

[high density]

88. Yeah but few care about WW2 misinformation

I'm more concerned about the lies about current events, and I suspect Wes Clark is as well.

[Texas_Kat]

57. It would have been a distraction.

There have always been reports that some US soldiers shot Germans after they raised their hands in surrender. Not at Malmedy, but during the aftermath. I'm sure Clark didn't want to turn it into a "Did so/did not" debate.....

It takes discipline not to get distracted into having red-herring discussions. Something a lot of our Democratic candidates could learn.

[dsc]

59. Gore tried that discipline

and it got him a loss. Gore's campaign counted on the public to see through the storyline and it didn't.

[Texas_Kat]

64. Which storyline is that?

That O'Reilly is an idiot and knows little about military history?

or the more important storyline... that US soldiers do not have 'permission' to kill civilians, that Murtha is correct to speak out about this issue, that the war was a huge strategic blunder and that O'Reilly has now recognized and admitted that.

Your argument is beginning to sound a little strained.

[dsc]

68. that war is equal opportunity bad

and that only a few bad apples crap. That was O'Reilly's storyline that night. Exposing the fact it was built on a lie would have been helpful.

[Totally Committed]

48. I didn't mention Dean...

for the most part, I like him just fine.

And, I never said Wes was Christ or even implied it. If and when he says something I don't agree with, I say so. I just think we are nearling apoint in the electoral process where nit-picky minutia like this will get in the way of other things (like winning the House and the Senate back in November).

Jeez, Louise!----- mellow out!

TC

[dsc]

52. Unlike you I don't have problems with criticism of Dean

nor Kerry. I just pointed out that what you stated, that Democratic spokespeople are never criticised is just plain, totally, and utterly wrong. It happens all the time to them, Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold and others.

[dogman]

53. Your real agenda is showing here.

"he isn't Christ." Who said he is?

[dsc]

60. people who are unwilling to acknowledge any mistake on his part

[Donna Zen]

63. Mistake?

Was that the mistake Clark made when he (nearly alone) defended John Murtha?

Or since O'Lielly included at least incidents where he accused the troops of killing unarmed people? General Clark called him on it and explained the rules of engagement. Was that a mistake?

Was it a mistake to refer to O'L's change of perspective about this war by welcoming him to the ranks of those of us who are against this war?

____

It is a mistake to assume that General Clark does not speak to the producers of O'L off camera...he does. He said that they argue with him all the time.

It is a mistake to compare General Clark's decisions on how to handle the rightwing nutz to the results of political handlers.

It is a mistake to believe that General Clark doesn't set goals. He is most definately a goal-setter. And while his goals may not meet with everyone's approval, he sees them through. He obviously decided to defend Murtha and he did. Note: he said that his Pentagon sources agreed with Murtha. He'd made the calls.

It is a mistake to accuse someone of backing down when they obviously did not, and will not.

It is a mistake to decide that if someone disagrees with you, they are somehow stupid.

----

It would be a mistake for me to question your motives. But if I see a situation differently, it would be a mistake to remain silent.

[dsc]

70. It might help to actually read posts you reply to and within the thread

You make two mistakes in your post, that had you bothered to read this thread before posting you wouldn't have. All of O'Reilly's examples were of killing surrendering soldiers not unarmed people. A transcript is in this thread listing all three examples. As wrong as at least one of them was they all were unambiguously clear on the point that the victims were soldiers.

You also falsely claim I accused Clark of backing down. I would like either a quote, and a quote from this thread or the other on this same subject, where I use those words or words which can be read to mean that. Barring that an apology is in order.

I could read into your motives, but unlike you, I won't.

[Donna Zen]

74. I did not accuse you of anything.

The title of this thread refers to a complaint about Clark's preparation to deal with O'L. You are only responsible for those words. You have a problem with Clark's performance; I'm fine with it. In fact, considering how vigorously he defended John Murtha, I'm more than fine with it. Also, I loved the General's closing.

Maybe someone who sees Wes soon, will ask him why he chose to say what he said.

[dsc]

75. To whom did this line refer then?

It is a mistake to accuse someone of backing down when they obviously did not, and will not.

The post in question was in direct response to mine and I am the OP. If that line wasn't aimed at me, then why was it written in response to me?

[Donna Zen]

86. Sharing my general philosophy

n/t

[dogman]

66. I still see no mention of Christ except yours.

Read my post #54 and understand that you might be the one who is mistaken.

[CarolNYC]

80. dog, it looks like your post,

which kind of changes the storyline from Clark knew too little into perhaps Clark knew a bit too much, is pointedly being ignored...

[dogman]

83. I noticed the persecution complex prevails.

Let's not discuss facts. Let's play victim.

[Jai4WKC08]

69. I think it's kind of unfair

To say that people who don't think the way Clark handled O'Reilly's lie was a mistake, are "unwilling to acknowledge any mistake on his part."

Most of us are honest about what we think are mistakes by Clark. Sometimes, but admittedly not always openly here at DU, where there are a number of people who will attack Clark for any little thing, quite often make shit up, and almost never hold their own favorites to the same standard. Not saying you're one of 'em. I think you asked a reasonable question. Altho I do think you've belabored the point probably more than it's worth. But then, so have some of us... myself definitely include. ;)

[dsc]

71. Reading this thread, sorry I don't

I have had my motives challenged at least five times in this thread. I also posted one post and all the rest were responses. Yes, I do tend to respond to what people say, that seems the right thing to do in what is billed as a discussion forum.

[Jai4WKC08]

73. Good point that this is a discussion board

Gives me an excuse as well. ;)

I just think you could be a little more understanding about why Clark supporters get more than a little defensive when they see an OP like the one you posted, and some of your comments down-thread.

You say Clark could have called O'Reilly on his lie with a single sentence or phrase. Likewise, you probably could have defused a lot of the suspicion of your motives by saying something positive in your OP. You know, assuming you saw anything positive in it. Not trying to put words in your mouth.

That's not to excuse anyone who may be jumping to conclusions about your motives based on run-ins with others in the past. Just saying we all need to be on the same side, and generally supportive of all of our leadership who are trying to do the right thing.

[Totally Committed]

72. Let me say this slowly and clearly for you...

I

don't

think

Wes

made

a

mistake.

You do, and that's okay... you just said in the OP it wasn't really a big deal, and you have proved you weren't totally honest about that. It was a big deal to you. And, it appears there is no making you feel any better or dissuading you from that opinion. Period. So it's moot. You wanted to put your criticism out there for others who agreed with you, because if they don't they have a Christ Complex about Wes. I get it. Next time, just say that's the case, and I won't waste my time trying to discuss it with you.

What an effing waste of time.

TC

[dsc]

76. What is a big deal to me is people who criticise others

and then whine when called on it. I posted a reasonable question. I didn't call Clark Hitler. I didn't call Clark's supporters Hitler. In return I get called names, I get my posts misstated even after repeatedly pointing out what was said. Yes, I do get pissed when people make up stories about what I typed.

[Totally Committed]

78. I have never called you a name!

First we are defending him becaus we think he's Christ and now you say we are saying you called him Hitler? Whoa. That about does it for me! This discussion has come to the borderline between controversial and bizarre. I get off here.

Whatever. Believe wht you gotta believe to keep it real for yourself.

Peace to you, dsc, and I mean that sincerely.

TC

[Auntie Bush]

94. I repeat...CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is OK...just CRITICISM isn't!

[dogman]

54. Possibly Clark knows more about the subject than you do.

Research reveals a larger story, and maybe even KO has it wrong.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/dachauscrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02.html

Snip>Thus Fragmentary Order 27 issued by Headquarters, 328th Infantry on 21 December for the attack scheduled for the following day says: "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight."

In his book called "The Other Price of Hitler's War: German Military & Civilian Losses Resulting from WW 2," author Martin Sorge wrote the following regarding the events that took place after the massacre:

"It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards. The guilt went unpunished. It was felt that the basis for their action was orders that no prisoners were to be taken."<snip

O'vilely Could have been referring to this, and rather than debate this point, which is moot to the argument at hand, Clark brushed it aside and returned to his point. Clark has learned to stay on message.

[CarolNYC]

67. I thought this same thing....

when I heard someone talking about this on NPR this morning. They weren't discussing O'Reilly, just the Haditha thing and this whole Malmedy and it's aftermath issue came up. I'm not sure if Clark heard O'Reilly correctly or if he chose to ignore what O'Reilly said to instead make the point he was trying to make, or if, knowing as much as he does about the incident and the events afterward, his mind jumped to these 60 German POWs and he thought that may be what O'Rielly could have been referring to.

In any event, I do think that he refused to be distracted by getting into a discussion about a side issue. Making O'Reilly look like a fool may be satisifying but I think Clark has bigger fish to fry than BillO. As you say, he's learned how to stay on message. dsc should understand this. He has a bone to pick with Clark and will not be distracted from it no matter what information anyone brings to the table. ;)

[dsc]

77. It is cowardly to call names behind someone's back

but I guess you never learned that.

[CarolNYC]

79. Wow, kind of looks like....

you've totally gone around the bend at this point. This post makes less than no sense but it does kind of put the rest of your posts in this thread in perspective, I guess.

[FrenchieCat]

85. I'm not sure who's calling who names, but in reference to your OP

I will say this:

Those who want to criticize what Wes Clark said, can.

In fact, here's an OP started by a Clark Supporter (note the Avatar) in essence with the same themed OP as you......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2659376&mesg_id=2659376

so I guess that Clark supporters DO questions the General and don't think he is the 2nd coming....which would debunk your claim (so is it alright for you to make false blanketed Claims--or should one start an Op on that one, no?):shrug:

In addition, those who profess themselves to be "experts" on Malmady, and know exactly what Clark's response should have been in order for him to pass their seal of approval should read this and realize that the discussion on Malmady would be an hour long show, not a rebuttal on O'lielly's smears on Murtha's statements on the current issue which was the topic:

The Inspector General of the American First Army learned about the massacre three or four hours after the first survivors were rescued. By late afternoon that day, the news had reached the forward American divisions. In his book , entitled "The Ardennes, The Battle of the Bulge," Hugh Cole wrote the following:

Thus Fragmentary Order 27 issued by Headquarters, 328th Infantry on 21 December for the attack scheduled for the following day says: "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight."

In his book called "The Other Price of Hitler's War: German Military & Civilian Losses Resulting from WW 2," author Martin Sorge wrote the following regarding the events that took place after the massacre:

"It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards. The guilt went unpunished. It was felt that the basis for their action was orders that no prisoners were to be taken."

America had signed the Geneva Convention of 1929 which required the treatment of German POWs according to the rules of the convention. In the Dachau trials of concentration camp staff members, the judges had ruled that Germany was required to follow the rules of the Geneva convention, which they had signed, even with respect to Russian POWs, although the Russians had not signed the convention and were not following its rules.

No American soldier was ever punished for the killing of German POWs; the accused Germans were not even allowed to mention in court that German POWs had been murdered in cold blood by American soldiers, including those killed during the Battle of the Bulge.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/dachauscrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02.html

Was Wes Clark prepared to debate O'Reilly on Malmady? I don't know, but I would think that "lack of knowledge" was NOT why Wes Clark didn't respond in the way that you thought he should have in order to be "on point"--

In 1971 the Clark family moved to West Point where Clark took a three-year teaching position. Although originally assigned to teach principles of economics he took over the political philosophy class after the assistant professor was reassigned. Clark was in a familiar element in an academic environment, finding a gift for teaching that resulted in his promotion to assistant professor within a year. Fellow instructor Col. Jack Jacobs remembers, “He was an extremely knowledgeable, compelling teacher and he was extremely well-liked by his students.” Col. George Osborn reviewed Clark as “generally quiet and reserved, but has an excellent sense of humor and almost unfailing cheerfulness. He has mastered the Socratic discourse as a technique of teaching, and uses it with outstanding effect in the classroom. In an old-fashioned sense, this man is a teacher whose students love him…” Clark also coached the debate team and was assistant coach of the swim team. He was awarded an Army Commendation Medal at the end of his assignment.

During his time at West Point, Clark was recommended for selection to attend the Command and General Staff College, which was granted. He graduated first in his class, earning a second Masters degree in Military Arts and Science, and was promoted to Major in 1975.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Wesley_Clark


Did Clark want to debate O'Reilly on the issue of Malmady? I don't know, but that wasn't the topic in O'Reilly's opening piece which indeed did smear Murtha's public statements of what happened in Haditha in November of 2005.

Did Clark even hear O'Reilly say Malmady...or did he hear Normandy? I don't know, but Clark's answer indicates that he may have heard Normandy when he listed back what appears to be the same battles (three of them) that O'Reilly listed....with the only exception being Wes said Normandy, and O'Rielly had said Malmady.

So in the end, There are enough possibilities as to what, why and how Clark's O'Reilly appearance went down......to the extent that what you have determine can be YOUR opinion....but it doesn't mean that it should be everyone's......

Which means although you may have a point as to what you may consider to have been a missed opportunity on Clark's part in putting O'Reilly in his place.......others have different opinion as to what Clark's tact and what his goal should have been.

In the end, you are welcomed to criticize General Clark for what you feel he didn't do......and others have the right to praise him for what they think he did accomplish in respect to O'Reilly's opening remarks vilifying Congressman Murtha's take on one of the biggest stories coming out of Iraq...and a story that may prove instrumental in ending the War in Iraq, IMO.

Is Wes Clark perfect? No, I don't think so, But he certainly is one of the best that we have...... :patriot:

[NCarolinawoman]

84. Clark's obvious point was to differentiate between the killing of soldiers

and civilians. Thanks for posting this, Dogman; it clarifies things for me. I notice that the last couple of times that Clark has been on Faux, they are trying to get him to say something bad about Murtha, and Clark won't do it.

It has dawned on me that someone might have the opportunity to ask Clark about this discussion with O'Reilly (perhaps at the fundraiser that he will be attending for Eric Massa in NYC). I have never met the General, but from what I've seen and read, he always gives a straight and honest answer without the BS. He is similar to Howard Dean in that way; which is why I like both of these gentlemen.

[saltpoint]

87. Another consideration might be that General Clark was not given

a choice of which commentator would interview him. And more to the point, he didn't arrive with a set of trapdoors for others, as O'Reilly routinely sets up for his guests.

Clark likely agreed to come on the program without placing demands on the network for terms. O'Reilly, in part, is trying (form the transcripts upthread) to get Clark to position himself against Murtha.

The consideration would be then, that had General Clark chosen the topics and commentator, a different outcome would have been realized.

O'Reilly, at least every single damned time I've ever read a transcript or caught a snippet of his show, turns Right at every intersection, no matter the destination of the topic.

He's not only a piss-poor excuse for a journalist, he's rude. He's on there in the first place because FOX knew he'd stir up ratings. The show should be called "Character Slam -- with Bill O'Reilly."

Maybe Clark didn't meet every single person's expectation on this one appearance. Big deal. Taken from the other angle, Bill O'Reilly and FOX News fail daily in their prescribed mission of journalism because they've twisted it into a propaganda outlet for the Bush administration.

They're the bad guys. Let's put it where it goes.

[Clarkansas]

89. Edwards letting Cheney say "We've never met before" in one of the debates

even though it was completely false. Now THAT was something that perplexed me. Clark's performance... not so much. Politicians are human, they make mistakes.

[saltpoint]

90. It took every bit of 60 minutes in time for photos to appear on the web

with Dick and Lynne and John and Elizabeth.

My strong, strong hunch is that Edwards knew he had a longer-term point and decided right on the spot to let Cheney over-reach.

And of course Dick Cheney is famous for over-reaching.

Politicians are human, as you say. And we humans out here in Voterland need to keep your admonishment in mind.

[Justice]

92. I think folks are missing the real point in this situation, which is

O'Reilly controls his show - no matter what, Clark was the guest and knew he had a limited time slot to make his points and deflect O'Reilly's lies and attempts to change the subject.

O'Reilly regularly lies, and gets away with it.

Keith controls his show, and had all the time he wanted to set the record straight, or make his own point.

The point of the situation is thank goodness we have Keith -- the show host controls what we hear about, how we hear about it, what facts or lies are discussed, etc. etc. Without KO, this story and so many others like it would never be addressed.

The point is we need more shows like KO and less shows like O'Reilly. We need sites like DU to get the truth out.

So Clark did what he could in the seconds he was given - watching that exchange, and reading the transcript, you see how hard it was for Clark to even make the simple but HUGE point about civilians versus soldiers -- O'Reilly kept interrupting him and didn't want him to say it.

There was no way Clark was going to be able to have a discussion that was complex and nuanced about what happened in WWII. Faux has taught viewers to see things as simple, black and white issues - when the reality is most issues are complex, have shades of gray and require discussion and debate - not 2 minutes of yelling and finger pointing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Clark had O'Reilly admitting he may be wrong on his own show

Really, how much of a superman does a Democrat have to be to now get dinged for lost debating points when he takes it right to O'Reilly and strongly defends Murtha in the process?

The minor complaint here has to do with the fact that theoretically Clark could have made O'Reilly look even more like a fool than he actually did. That would have been nice, but O'Reilly controls his show and anyone who thinks it is easy to trade punches with a demagogue in his own backyard, who can talk over you or cut you off without a seconds notice, is living in a fantasy.

Why is it that virtually no other leading Democrat can take on O'Reilly on his own show and consistently come out ahead on the exchange? It isn't easy, that's why. Clark wins because A) Clark knows what he is talking about and B) Clark is prepared ahead of time with the points that he intends to make when he appears on Fox, and he makes damn well certain that he gets to make them. In this case Clark knew he wanted to stand up for Murtha, he wanted to add his weight to the contention that the Iraq war is weighing heavily on our military, he wanted to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of American troops are doing the best job possible under extremely stressful circumstances, and Clark wanted to clearly state that murder is murder and no excuses can be made for it. If American troops murdered innocent civilians it is a war crime and must be dealt with as a war crime. Those were the points that Clark wanted to make on O'Reilly's show and Clark made all of them.

Clark could have wandered off into a side discussion with O'Reilly about World War II, and as a result he may never have gotten the time to make the points that he was there to make. What good would that of done? Maybe, just maybe he could have embarrassed O'Reilly a little bit more, but I bet most viewers would have seen that debate as merely a difference of opinion about something that happened 60 years ago. Instead Clark stuck to his game plan and scored real points against O'Reilly about something that is effecting Americans today.

Keith Oberman, from the safety and control of his own studio, can be depended on to make O'Reilly look ridiculous at any opportunity. Clark was there to tell the truth to America about what our troops are engaged in and up against now, not what happened in World War II.

[kiahzero]

104. Have you ever seen the SNL parody of O'Reilly?

His 'guest' will get onto making a point that O'Reilly disagrees with. He then says something outrageously stupid and ridiculous. I think rerun from last night had him saying something like, "We left troops in North Korea at the end of World War II as part of the Treaty of Versailles which was signed in 1909 by President Kennedy." The guest then just spends the rest of their segment debating O'Reilly's stupidity rather than talking about what they were there to talk about.

Same thing goes with the real O'Reilly. If he says something stupid that's tangential to the topic at hand, let it go and keep talking about your message. Let someone else correct him later (for instance, Olbermann), but don't waste your time in front of the audience talking about him and his ridiculousness.

[Tactical Progressive]

107. I'm glad Wes left that one for Keith Olbermann

Wes would have corrected O'Lielly with his usual Wes Clark good humor and respect for the person he is debating, as if their position was incorrect though well-intentioned.

Keith took it for what it was - a slimy, dishonest creep O'Lielly who had already been corrected on his bullshit and still wants to lie to smear people he disagrees with. Keith hammered O'Lielly into the ground like nothing I've ever seen on TV.

But yes, I wish Wes would have said something like "Bill, you're calling the American servicemen who were murdered by Nazi troops the bad guys? You can go to hell with that one Mr. O'Reilly." Doing it that way, without further explanation, would have left it open for Keith Olbermann to do what he did in explaining O'Lielly to the world.

[Donna Zen]

108. The story was repeated by Pat Buchanan

Today on the McLaughlin group (or whatever that show is called) the same rebuttal was used by Buchanan: troops have shot unarmed prisoners of war at Malmady and weren't charged. Something tells me this did happen as an earlier poster pointed out. If probably happened in retaliation, but that argument plays into O'Lielly hands. Actually Clark was correct in pointing out that there is a big difference between someone who has been shooting at you and then drops their gun, and civilians. Oh, I know it is not much of a difference when someone isn't armed, but it is different.

The point is that while people wanted Clark to chew our O'Liely about this, maybe there was more to it. Clark decided to point out that this is about killing civilians. Civilians were not at Malmady.

[dogman]

110. This is a GOP talking point.

Duncan Hunter repeated this on Larry King on Friday.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/02/lkl.01.html
Snip>But once again, Larry, this is kind of a crossroads for the American media. We had dozens of incidents like this in World War II, especially after the Germans mowed down a number of our prisoners of war at Malmedy. And we said, OK, we're going to investigate those where a prosecution should take place. And we'll do that, but we're going to keep our eye on Berlin and our eye on Tokyo. We're going to complete the mission, and we kept it in context.<snip

Remember Clark said that working at Fox lets him see the GOP talking points. I think it's apparent he knew the context of BO's remark and was prepared to brush it aside.

[CarolNYC]

111. Good point about the GOP talking points..

The piece I'd heard on NPR was actually about the how the media covers war and the effect of having embedded reporters on events of the war.

The historian being interviewed said that, when he was teaching at West Point and asked veterans of WWII in his class what their reaction to Malmedy was, they told him that after that incident they took no prisoners...well, they took prisoners but the prisoners wouldn't make it back to battalion. The historian's point in the context of the discussion was that this reaction was not reported in the media at the time.

Apparently the OP of this thread and Keith Olbermann and a bunch of others commenting on the exchange between Clark and O'Reilly were not aware of this "retaliation". It's debatable whether or not O'Reilly knew of it. But, considering that -- in that the killing of the German POWs was in retaliation for the massacre of US POWs and the killings in Haditha were apparently in retaliation for the death caused by a car bomb -- the cases parallel each other (except, of course for the fact that civilians were not targeted in WWII), I would bet that Wes Clark was certainly aware of it when he responded to O'Reilly's comment.

It kind of changes things when you have all of the information.

On thing I've learned is that, if Wes Clark says something I don't quite understand and I wonder if it's because he knows less or knows more than I do, it's pretty much always safe to assume the "knows more" option is the correct one. :)

BTW, the NPR interview can be heard here. http://www.onthemedia.org/ It's the first piece on the page....Transcript not available until Tuesday.

[Tactical Progressive]

112. Making the GOP talking-point whores even MORE WRONG

Their gambit is to essentially say 'So you believe the WWII GI's were bad people too?' as if war crimes against prisoners back then somehow justifies war crimes against civilians now, which I've no doubt the fucks really believe, as soulless and twisted as they are.

Except that, to the extent that we understand Malmedy and its repercussions, American GI actons were in RESPONSE to Nazi war crimes in Malmedy. Here, we are the ORIGINATORS of defenseless massacre, of civilians no less which is worse than surrendered combatants. Making our actions at Haditha a reflection of seminal Nazi war crimes more than it is representative of GI retaliation in kind.

At least that would appear to be the correlation from what we understand of it.

[SunDrop23]

116. IMO Clark handled it perfectly.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

118. Perfectly! Clark deflected O'Lielly's desperate debate tactic

O'Lielly had hoped to divert debate anddiscussion away from the real issue (Haditha massacre), in order to expend and limit Clark's airtime to make his points. Obviously, Clark chose focus on the real issues for debate. O'Lielly nearly slouched off his seat from his internal meltdown, when Clark refused to take the bait.

[LynneSin]

131. Why Wes Clark works for Fox News is way beyond me...

....it's like Hitler hiring a jew to help him deal with the Jewish Population during WWII

[CarolNYC]

132. Wes at Fox

Hey Lynne,

It'd be one thing if he went on there and spouted the GOP talking points....but he's in there doing good battle with the forces of evil in their own house and getting paid to do it so he can continue to help more Dems get elected this year....He's bringing truth to the masses, some of which, hopefully, are hearing it....Trust me, it's all good. :)

Now why Fox hired him....that's another story....

[LynneSin]

133. Perhaps Fox is the Hitler in my analogy

And Wes Clark is the Jew that agrees to work for him

It's a bad analogy!

[CarolNYC]

134. It's not so bad....

If the Jew then went and saved the lives of a bunch of German Jews while working for Hitler, then it'd be a perfect analogy....