Fox's Henneberg deceptively cropped Clark interview while claiming Clark "seemed to attack McCain's military service"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Fox News' The Strategy Room, Molly Henneberg asserted that Wesley Clark "seemed to attack [Sen. John] McCain's military service," and aired a video clip of Clark saying on CBS' Face the Nation, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." But Henneberg did not report or in any way indicate that, in making that comment, Clark was responding to Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer's statement that, unlike McCain, Sen. Barack Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
On the June 29 edition of Fox News' The Strategy Room, news correspondent Molly Henneberg asserted that "the McCain campaign is returning fire after [Sen. Barack] Obama supporter General Wesley Clark seemed to attack [Sen. John] McCain's military service." Henneberg then stated, "Here is part of what Clark said about McCain today," and aired a video clip of Clark saying on the June 29 edition of CBS' Face the Nation: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." But Henneberg did not report or in any way indicate that, in making that comment, Clark was repeating Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer's words. Indeed, Clark's assertion -- "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president" -- came in response to Schieffer's statement that, unlike McCain, Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
From Clark's exchange with Schieffer during the June 29 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?
CLARK: But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment -- and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
Shortly before that exchange, Clark had said of McCain, "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world." Clark continued: "But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?' He hasn't made those calls, Bob."
From the June 29 edition of Fox News' The Strategy Room:
HENNEBERG: Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is returning fire after Obama supporter General Wesley Clark seemed to attack McCain's military service. Here is part of what Clark said about McCain today.
CLARK [video clip]: I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
HENNEBERG: In response, retired Navy Admiral Layton "Snuffy" Smith, a McCain supporter, put out this statement, saying, quote, "If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to the country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates." Admiral Smith called on Obama to condemn Clark's attacks -- Bret.
From the June 29 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: With us now from Little Rock, Arkansas, retired General Wesley Clark. He was for Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Once Hillary was out of it, he announced that he was supporting Barack Obama -- and let's get right to it here, General. You heard what Senator [Joe] Lieberman [I-CT] said. He said that Barack Obama is simply more ready to be president than Barack Obama.
CLARK: Well, I think Barack -- I think Joe has it exactly backwards here. I think being president is about having good judgment. It's about the ability to communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, "The greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade." And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment -- you look at his meteoric rise in politics, and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together, and who has good judgment in moving forward. And I think what we need to do, Bob, is we need to stop talking about the old politics of left and right, and we need to pull together and move the country forward. And I think that's what Barack Obama will do for America.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you -- you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote -- and these are your words -- "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years -- how can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?
CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy-making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it" --
SCHIEFFER: Well --
CLARK: -- "publicly?" He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Well -- well, General, maybe he --
CLARK: So --
SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you? If --
CLARK: Sure.
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?
CLARK: But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment -- and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you this. Senator Obama announced yesterday that he's going to Europe and to the Middle East. Most people think that he'll probably stop off in Iraq where he hasn't been in more than two years. Why now?
SCHIEFFER: Really?"
Really, Bob Schieffer? How many of our ex-presidents have been shot down while riding in a fighter plane?
This Fox henneberg said that Gen. Clark "seemed" to attack McCain's Military Service... which, the way these people at Fox speak, is almost proof that they know Gen. Clark did not attack anyone or anything (or else they'd have said he did, instead of saying he "seemed' to): it's as good as proof there was no attack, henneberg's inclusion of the word "seemed".
When she quotes Adm. Smith, even his words do not accuse Gen. Clark of attacking anyone or anything: nor do they even mention the General's name: the Admiral's quote is about the Senator, and not the General.
But where she ends quoting for us what the Admiral said (about Sen. Obama), she then adds (apparently in her own words and not as a direct quote): "Admiral Smith called on Obama to condemn Clark's attacks"
I wonder if that's true.
If it is, then why didn't she quote the man saying that, seeing as she was already quoting the Admiral directly... why did she paraphrase, or otherwise choose not to directly quote the Admiral, when she said the word "attacks"?
And if you say that she was quoting Adm. Smith directly, and he did use the word "attacks", then why did she say upfront that "General Wesley Clark seemed to attack McCain's military service"?
These people are dishonest... you probably already knew that.
CNN outright accused Clark of swiftboating.
Rick Sanchez’s lead-in to his next segment just now on CNN:
I’m liveblogging. He goes on to say:
The whole schlemele is here at crooks and liars.
Snoop, regarding McCain's service I firmly believe we should show more respect to WWII veterans like old Johnny... ;>)
I thought Gramps was a veteran of the Spanish-American War.
"Remember the Maine!!!" :-)
Thanks snoopy
Snoop, an ironic event has taken place as a result of McCain's Media, also known as the Corporate Conservative Republican News Media, putting out this outright LIE about Clark's comments:
Liar McCain has recruited the old lying head of the Swift Boat Liars to lead a "truth squad" arm of his campaign.
This event alone has shown the mixture of both irony and audacity, with lots of hypocrisy sprinkled on top!
The McCain campaign had one of their campaign surrogates, General Snuffy Smith, say "If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates," Smith said.
So, the McCain surrogate says that if Obama wants to carp about McCain's service to his country (that's not what Clark did, anyway), Obama should do it himself. But it's okay for the McCain camp to pull out a surrogate to make a false claim about what Wesley Clark said. That's called hypocrisy.
CNN outright accused Clark of swiftboating.
To accurately swift-boat Grampy, one would have to start by saying that his extended stay in the Hanoi Hilton was really an extended stay in a Hilton Hotel.
CNN outright accused Clark of swiftboating.
To accurately swift-boat Grampy, one would have to start by saying that his extended stay in the Hanoi Hilton was really an extended stay in a Hilton Hotel.
Here is a press release today from McCain's web site about Admiral Smith's comments.
It's interesting that Adm. Smith is actually going after Obama , not Clark, by saying; "if Obama wants to question McCain's service to his country he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates."
Actually we could turn this around and accuse McCain of not being responsible enough to condemn his own "campaign surrogates" for spreading/creating false or mis-leading news stories. Is Admirall Smith saying this because McCain's campaign knows what Clark really said, and they are using Adm. Smith... "campaign surrogate"... to do the dirty work?
Statement by Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith on Gen. Wesley Clark's Attack on John McCain
ARLINGTON, VA -- Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, USN (Ret.) today issued the following statement on Gen. Wesley Clark's attack on John McCain's military service record today on CBS' "Face the Nation":"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates. If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks."
George HW Bush was, but regardless I did not see it as an attack.
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
From the U. S. Constitution - Article 2, Section I:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Gen. Clark is right. There's nothing in the Constitution about being a shot-down fighter pilot.
Or a fighter horse, or a fighter modet T, or a fighter troop train..
it does seem to me though, that one darling of the left hwas a president that had a plywood boat shot out from under him and became enough of a hero to use that as an added bonus in getting elected. How selective do you want to be in such matters?
His ability to communicate.
Uhhh...you don't believe that the President of the United States should be a great communicator? After George W. Bush and his failed presidency? The same George W. Bush who barely speaks English coherently? The same George W. Bush who eschews diplomacy?
Barack Obama is not just a great communicator, my friend. He's smart and tough, too. We could do a lot worse than Barack Obama as President. Luckily, we have survived worse...
He is both, though he has been pissing me off for quite some time and I will vote for him there is no doubt he is smart and tough.
His mild, casual manner often has some sly/ passive aggressive slaps embedded in them though he has been more direct of late (not a big fan of Passive-aggressive tactics, though they seem to work well)
Because he isn't an uptight, wound up tight, ready to spring jerk people seem to think he's soft.
not coming from Chicago he isn't.
This doesn't mean I like him by the way though I used to really "love" him and urged him to run.
right now I'm willing to be convinced but he is doing a piss poor job of it lately.
(I am voting for him of course)
Wasn't being the 'Great Communicator' Reagan's (the Right's iconic hero) claim to fame?
As I recall, it was a speech supporting Goldwater, in 1962 that launched his political career. Communication - not combat.
Despite many politician's promises to 'fight' for (or against) whatever policy they happen to be talking about in a stump speech, the truth is, they are going to have to persuade people to work with them as killing your political rivals has fallen out of style here.
I see.
strength of character + communication skills + strength of his judgment = Nothing.
Must be that "Fuzzy Math" our wonderful president talked about during the 2000 debates.
Oh wait. Here's some more equations.
John Kerry changing his mind in the light of new experiences/many years = Flip Flop
John McCain changing his mind on the views he held for a lifetime/the course of a few weeks =National Security Experience
Bombing Iran: Priceless
Yes, changing one's mind when presented with new information means Kerry had flexibility of mind. I consider that a much better trait than just stubbornly sticking to a view no matter what contrary evidence is presented.
Like Pretzelboy.....
That pic is priceless.
All it needs is a dunce cap on his head.
Pics like that are easy to find....
Obama is all talk and no substance.
And POV's posts are all typing and no intellect to back it up.
WZ
I see you are still trying to get a seat at the grown up table. Sorry little boy, posting funny pictures while avoiding any type of rational argument will not get you there.
What exactly does Schieffer mean by answering "Really?" Does he think Clark doesn't believe what Clark just said? That he, Bob Schieffer, disagrees? Does Schieffer want to use his interview with Clark to campaign for John McCain? And then there's , "Let me interrupt you." What the hell is wrong with these so-called journalists anymore that they can't so much as mind their manners and let an interviewee speak?
As far as FOX is concerned, nothing new in their cheap shot approach. One wonders why they bother to wait for any quotes at all - why not just hire look-alikes and stage it themselves?
I think it’s about damn time that the political right reaped what the Swift Boat Liars have sown. The glaring difference is, this attack was honest.
Pete,
I thought the swiftboating of Kerry was repulsive, and this wades in the same sesspool, in my opinion. Both McCain and Kerry served their county admirably, and that should be respected. McCain's judgments and foreign policy experience are definitely up for debate, no question, but swipes like this are uncalled for.
Exactly. No one has disrespected McCain's service. He simply said that his being shot down doesn't qualify him to be President, and it doesn't.
It's not like college, where if your roommate kills themselves, you get all A's for the semester simply because it might be too traumatic for you to continue. We shouldn't give McCain extra credit because he got shot down. The country appreciates his service, and he paid a great price, but it doesn't and shouldn't give him a leg up on running for President.
Obama has a lot of class on this subject as well. From today:
"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country - no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."
The comment drew loud applause.
Separately, in a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark.".
Separately, in a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark.".
The Obama campaign should also reject future interviews with Bob Schieffer.
No, he wasn't. Your saying that he was doesn't make it so.
Kerry's service was lied about. His actions were distorted and twisted to make them appear what they were not. Clark didn't do that. He didn't lie about McCain's service, or make his sacrifices appear to be anything that they were not. He only denied that those sacrifices qualify him to be President.
1. No, Clark simply said that he didn't think McCain's experiences qualified him to be President.
2. Are you admitting that the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were lying about Kerry?
Do you mean that the Swift Boat Vets For Truth told the truth about Kerry, just like Clark is telling the truth about McCain?
Or do you mean that Clark is lying about McCain, like the SBVFT lied about Kerry?
Any other explanation would mean that you're being inconsistent.
Absolutely correct.
This is another effort by McCain's media to attack any person or group that criticizes Liar McCain on this or any other issue.
Earlier this year, McCain's media attacked Progressive Talker Ed Schultz for calling Liar McCain a warmonger, and he IS a warmonger. Ed Schultz has pointed out legitimately that Liar McCain has voted against Veterans' Benefits 10 times since 9-11, and that Liar McCain continues to support Liar Bush's lie-based war, and that Liar McCain supports Liar Bush's descpiable regressive policies, both foreign and domestic.
Ed has NOT backed down from calling Liar McCain a warmonger, and he will not do so.
IMO it was more of a swipe at the people (and they are legion) who DO think that simply because McCain spent time in a POW camp that he's some foreign policy juggernaut.
I'm still trying to make the connection between POW and foreign policy expert. Many people in the media take it as gospel.
Check out this clip from MSNBC, where Clark was asked to defend his comments about McCain's lack of foreign policy experience:
link
The talking heads are sitting there incredulous. Basically, to them, John McCain has loads of foreign policy experience because, well...he's John McCain!
Obama, on the other hand, has been on Senate committees for Foreign Relations and Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, and is Chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on European Affairs.
McCain? The most relevant experience has been on Senate Armed Services and Commerce, neither of which have anything to do with foreign policy.
Tommy,
Gen. Clarke's statements are not comparable to swift-boating. Swift-boating were advertisements that had forethought and were misleading, while Gen. Clarke was off-the-cuff responding to a direct comment by the interviewer. The difference is the same between murder in the first and manslaughter.
Furthermore as others have already pointed out, in his opinion the point made by the interviewer (flying a plane and being shot down during war) was not relevant to the discussion. I think in his mind that such an issue is no more important than say wearing a flag pin or eating pizza every Friday night. He pointed that out, and people now compare him to aggressive 527 attacks questioning Kerry's patriotism, which I think is a bit far-fetched.
However, it was also a bit tactless. In a debate, it is not the side that wins that has the correct information (or we wouldn't have gone to Iraq), but the side that is most convincing. Such off-the-cuff remarks can be validly read as disparaging McCain's service, which is entirely below the belt. Obama did the smart thing in restating that such valid readings of Clarke's or anyone else's service-person disparaging remarks are not his stance. P.O.W.'s are American heroes for good reason, and their service should be pretty much sacrosanct as long as they did not commit war crimes. McCain with all his illustrious service to our military is the soldier candidate, and the only valid way to beat him is to point out that this country needs to move past the military-industrial complex (read companies) that Bush has re-invigorated in the past 7 years.
So, Tommy, getting shot down while riding in a fighter plane is a qualification to be President?
It's not disrespectful, it's the truth. It's not a qualification, no matter how you try to spin it. McCain's military service is certainly respectable and he should be (and is) commended for it on a regular basis. But it has no bearing on whether or not he will be an effective President.
Personally, I would think Wesley Clark would know more about this than Bob Scheiffer.
"So, Tommy, getting shot down while riding in a fighter plane is a qualification to be President?"
Did I say that? No. It was disrespectful and inappropriate nonetheless and what is the point in Clark taking that shot? You tell me.
What is the point of Scheiffer bringing it up? That's really the question.
Tommy,
I'm not asking a rhetorical question, I just want to know--why do you think it was disrespectful and inappropriate? I realize it sounds like a snarky question, but that is not my intent.
Why not reply to Watershed's post above?
Schieffer did bring it up in the first place.
Perhaps you want to check with the Obama campaign for theirs.
Quit passing it off to the Obama campaign, Tommy.
Just admit it. You cannot answer the question.
From Obama today, he says it much better than I do;
"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."
"Hi, my name is Barack Obama. I think Clark's comments were just fine but I am too much of a political coward to stand behind one of my spokespeople and say so, so I will publicy reject them and throw him under the bus instead"
Wow, so you would admire that?
I love how one day you call people "naive" and then another you're completely shocked at the notion that a politician who's under the microscope every day might not be able to say every single thing he thinks because it might get him in trouble.
I didn't say anything about "admiring" at all.
Nice "no comment".
So, do you have evidence that Obama is distancing himself out of political fear, or did you make it up so you can make it appear that he agrees with all the liberals here who think Clark was right on?
And now I need "evidence" to support what I say, while your opinion is just your opinion and nobody can question it because then they're not accepting your opinion. Thanks for the demonstration of what I said before.
How was that a non-answer? Politicians play political games, you say this sort of thing all the time. You can't use it as some sort of evidence that there's something genuinely offensive about what Clark said.
Yeah, I just love that double standard. You have to provide 'evidence' but Tommy can simply skate with some 'well, it's MY opinion, and that's that!' BS.
I see this from the Right all the time. Just like clockwork.
Obama's spokesman rejected the comments, as did Obama himself today, yet you want me to believe it was only done out of political fear. I ask you how you know that, you can't answer.
Hilarious! You're asked a dozen times how you think a comment was offensive and you can't answer. But I'm supposed to have some evidence of how the Obama campaign might be acting politically? My God.
I don't need evidence for that. It's a possibility that's distinct enough to say that you can't assert offensiveness from what Clark said. Why this is a point of contention with someone who talks about how people on both sides play political games all the time is a mystery.
"I don't need evidence for that"
Of course you don't, Obama and his campaign essentially said Clark's comments were over the line as they distanced themselves from it, but you assume that is just politics and they secretly condone his comments or something, there is flat out no evidence to support your little theory, and I guess because I suspect cynicism in politicians I am compelled to believe that? It may or may not be true, but the fact remains that Obama has rejected Clark's comments because of their inappropriateness, at best. That is fact, I agree with him - yet you and the others keep asking for me to tell you why they are inappropriate. Like I am of some far out ridiculous opinion when it is exactly shared by Barack Obama, even if you won't accept it.
Which is your usual problem with opinions differing from yours.
"Of course you don't, Obama and his campaign essentially said Clark's comments were over the line as they distanced themselves from it, but you assume that is just politics and they secretly condone his comments or something, there is flat out no evidence to support your little theory, and I guess because I suspect cynicism in politicians I am compelled to believe that?"
I'm not assuming anything. They can consider it dangerous whether they believe it's genuinely offensive or not, and there's no evidence either way. You are the one who is assuming that they genuinely see it as offensive. And yes, if you recognize that politicians say things they don't mean in order to protect themselves, then you can't take Obama's distancing as evidence for judging Clark's comment. Obama might not mean it, so it doesn't help your case.
"It may or may not be true, but the fact remains that Obama has rejected Clark's comments because of their inappropriateness, at best. That is fact, I agree with him - yet you and the others keep asking for me to tell you why they are inappropriate. Like I am of some far out ridiculous opinion when it is exactly shared by Barack Obama, even if you won't accept it. Which is your usual problem with opinions differing from yours."
Interesting that it's a "fact" that Obama rejected the comments for that reason. Don't you keep talking about how other people can't distinguish fact from opinion? It's also amusing that you take offense at being to justify something that's not "some far out ridiculous opinion", when the idea that Michael Savage is making a racist comment is supposed to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
All you've been asked is why it's inappropriate. Until you provide some rationale of your own, on what basis am I supposed to accept your conclusion? You're not giving me anything to evaluate.
You don't need to accept anything, why is that so damn hard for you to accept, I could care less whether you agree with me or not, it is irrelevant to me, can you not understand that? What you never understand is just because you don't accept my rationale only means you don't accept it, it doesn't mean that it's nonexistent, sorry to break it to you.
Clark was devaluing McCain and his service, he could have criticized McCain's foreign policy without saying that - he chose to swipe at McCain.
Accept the difference opinion or not, frankly you're beginning to argue like a child.
"What you never understand is just because you don't accept my rationale only means you don't accept it, it doesn't mean that it's nonexistent, sorry to break it to you."
You have not offered any 'rationale', THAT is the point we are making.
What do you mean I don't have to accept anything? I thought that was your complaint, that people weren't accepting what you were saying.
So pointing out your blatant hypocrisy and making relevant points is childish, but spouting off some opinion and criticizing anyone who just wants to know what the hell you're basing it on is mature. Got it.
Here's a fine example of those 'uneducated hillbilly folk' in action... in DENIAL of the truth:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998/
Now I do not know about you, but anyone who CHOOSES to believe in LIES instead of the TRUTH is STUPID. Just like some of those 'folk' mentioned in this piece.
Rabbit, thanks for the link. I especially liked this part about the neighborhood;
By 1980, patriotic displays had grown into an unspoken contest of one-upmanship. Sixty flags planted in one yard on Memorial Day; a living-room window painted red, white and blue; a Buckeye tree decorated with Christmas ornaments celebrating Americana; a gigantic plastic unicorn perched on a front porch and draped in an American flag.
The guy interviewed (who seems like a very nice old middle-America guy) claims he doesn't have time to read up on the candidates, and is having trouble reconciling what he hears at the supermarket and on the internet about contradictory lies about Obama.
Hmmm, wonder where he could find the time to get a little factual info.Maybe cut down on the f**king plastic unicorn patriot derby for a few days?
""Distancing himself from it just means he thinks it's politically dangerous. It doesn't mean it's actually a swipe." Now that statement is clearly a supposition with no evidence either way. Socrates then gives us this gem: "I'm not assuming anything. They can consider it dangerous whether they believe it's genuinely offensive or not, and there's no evidence either way" and us uneducated hilbilly folk always though assumptions were generally suppositions which would be a belief or guess with no evidence either way."
No, you're confused. Here are the two scenarios:
A)Obama thinks the comment is a swipe, distances himself from it because it's politically dangerous to embrace it
B)Obama doesn't think it's a swipe, distances himself from it if it's politically dangerous to embrace it anyway
There's no evidence either way, so it's impossible to judge Clark's comments based on the reaction. Does that clarify things for you?
I guess you are just used to slimy politicians saying or doing anything to get elected, well I feel Obama is different and have said so many times here, since you have such recall on my every word you know that. So I expect more from him, that is one of the reasons I like him, he does the right thing, I don't view him the same way you do, sorry.
I accept that he rejected Clark's comments for the same reasons I do.
I agree that he's better than most, but that doesn't mean he's going to step on a political land mine just because it's the right thing to do. I don't think he's so revolutionary that he can change the way campaigns are run and viewed all by himself.
You assume that he's making his comments for the same reason you are, not "accept". It conveniently supports your argument, therefore it's gospel.
Leave it to you to self proclaim yourself as abitrer of what is and what isn't in your lawyerly fashion. You made this statement in a declarative manner:""Distancing himself from it just means he thinks it's politically dangerous. It doesn't mean it's actually a swipe." only to turn around and proclaim that you weren't assuming anything by that statement. Your whole argument on Obama's rejection rests on your assumption that because he is a politician he would distance himself because by not doing so it is politically dangerous. Perhaps Obama just felt the comments were out of line and distanced himself from them because it was the right thing to do. Brabantio's argument is as follows a) Obama distanced himself from the comments because by not doing so it would be politically dangerous and b) Politicians play political games
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:
The small should read:
1) if A is true then b is true
2) B is stated to be true
3) Therefore, A must be true
Your whole argument on Obama's rejection rests on your assumption that because he is a politician he would distance himself because by not doing so it is politically dangerous. Perhaps Obama just felt the comments were out of line and distanced himself from them because it was the right thing to do."
So what you're saying is Obama thinks the comments were out of line, and that wouldn't make them politically dangerous? As if he would think "Wow, I can't believe he said something that insulting and demeaning...but I guess I could embrace that sentiment publicly without any controversy if I chose to..." You don't think he'd realize that to be disastrous without even having to analyze the situation?
If he really found the comments offensive, then "the right thing to do" and avoiding a political disaster go hand-in-hand. Does that make sense to you now, or do you want to keep digging in your vain search for a contradiction?
You're both just willfully running with the cropped soundbite and smearing a Gen. Clark because of his party affiliation, and you're doing it with the full context of what was actually said.
You don't need to accept anything, why is that so damn hard for you to accept ?(Tommy)
I think you should put this on your tombstone, Tommy. Self parody is immortality.
"...you and the others keep asking for me to tell you why they are inappropriate."
And you STILL haven't done so, why is that?
Y'know... it shouldn't be that difficult to back up what you believe. If it is then perhaps you need to examine your beliefs and why you have them.
You have issues with reading comprehension, I see.
I asked you two questions... you deflected and didn't even address them, instead, you come back with some 'you just don't like Obama's answer, blah blah blah' crap that has zip to do with what I and others are asking YOU.
Your debating skills need serious upgrading. Your grade for this thread: F
Tommy, YOU need to grow up and quit squirming. If you are gonna spout some crap off about how such and such is a swipe and it's inappropriate then at least back it up instead of being evasive.
Why is THAT so hard to understand???
Politics and campainging aside, why do you think Clark’s comments devalue McCain’s service?
You don't know why it was inappropriate, it just was.
That's an argument based on emotion.
I already did, to Pete, earlier. Do you think I should keep doing it until it's somehow accepted here, do you think I am that stupid? We have a disagreement on the comments, I could spend 100 posts and we would still disagree. Past military service should be respected, end of story. Comments like this from Clark do nothing but lower the discourse.
Ironic, so many here hate it when the media does that, but eat it up when a Democrat does it.
Your response to Pete didn't explain anything. You basically said the swipe was inappropriate and uncalled-for. No explanation of WHY it was inappropriate or uncalled-for.
Clearly, you have difficulties justifying your opinions.
No, what I have difficulty with is some liberals here accepting not only my opinions, but any opinion different from theirs. I can live with it quite easily, sorry to disappoint.
If you think that makes me question mine, well, no it doesn't. But thanks anyway.
Sorry, Tommy, no good. You are attempting to change the issue. BZZZ!
This isn't about 'accepting' differing opinions, it's about EXPLAINING them, which you still haven't done. Don't insult my intelligence.
My son is coming up on voting age and we were talking politics a few weeks ago and the subject of talk radio came up. He asked why Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the lot always were talking about the same things.
My explanation was that they were working to distract the voters from what is REALLY important, Iraq, Afghanistan, no-bid contracts, politically-appointed prosecutors etc, by raising a hue & cry about almost ANYTHING else.
I'm reminded of an old propaganda technique - feed a story to a number of smaller outlets and then break the story in a major outlet with the lead-in 'as has been widely reported'...
Another neat technique is the overused 'some say/ask/wonder', which allows the 'news' story to go off in any direction desired.
No, you didn't answer the question. You simply said that it's a swipe, and swipes on military service are wrong.
How is it a swipe?
Huh?
My question was...HOW is it a swipe?
That the best you can muster up? Not only are you failing to justify your opinions here your 'wit' is also slipping. Perhaps it's time for a break?
And it's only Monday.
Gives us lots to look forward to on Friday! That's usually the day his logic deserts him the worst. If he's struggling this bad on Monday.....
Did you literally answer the question "how was what Clark said a swipe?" with "because swipes are wrong?"
Because whether or not it's a qualification for president is irrelevant. He is minimizing it, sluffing it off, disrespecting it. I know you don't see it, but I do. Nor will you ever agree it, so be it.
All right, I will define what a 'swipe' is for Tommy since he is having mucho difficulty in doing it...
swipe (n.) - A verifiably true statement whose facts may be considered to be unflattering to the subject and the utterance of which violates some stupid 'unwritten social rule' of discourse. An examples would be: mocking Bush's difficulties with the English language because 'people are not supposed to disrespect the President - you should ALWAYS respect him even if he does horrendous things out of greed, self-aggrandisement, or outright stupidity'.
Bill Burton: "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark.".......courtesy of Snoopy.
Take it up with the Obama campaign, apparently they have more class than some of you here and don't view it your way.
You STILL have not explained why Clark's 'swipe' was uncalled-for.
Oh, and nice dodge too. You didn't even respond to the post. No points for you.
Yes they are distancing themselves from it and they shouldn't do that. The comments made by Gen. Clark have no bearing on the Obama campaign.
You know what this is starting to look like? It looks like Obama's people are starting to play the role that a group of wimpish Dems did when they denounced the MoveOn 'Betray Us' ad. Spineless.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344
I am happy to see this issue brought out now in the campaign. If it were done, as the Repubs probably had hoped, closer to election time, they could use this as the Democrats "swearing or swiping" McCain.
BRILLIANT political move...even if not planned. The Repubs fall for the trap once again. The Generals' comments are vilified as a smear and Obama denounces them. So Obama took this stand against this type of talk but the word got out. BRILLIANT. Looks like the Repubs have a lot of work to do.
P.S. Rush Limbaugh lied on the radio today, I quote, Rush said " Lets' be honest"..Go figure.
They just know to get out of a political minefield rather than enter it. It's pragmatic, unfortunately.
I don't have the same problem, nor do I think that that Obama's statement automatically justifies the Tommylogic behind "swipes are wrong, therfore what Clark said is a swipe".
You can't even offer a response, Tommy! You've been asked numerous times to explain it and you have failed numerous times. Now you want us to call up the Obama campaign and get their explanation.
Jesus, Tommy, take a break! Go outside, take a jog, ride a bike, shoot some hoops or SOMETHING!
I didn't see the swipe at McCain's military service either. Clark simply stated getting shot down isn't a qualification to be President.
Everyone appreciates McCains service to our nation, it was not a swipe you are correct. The questions hould be why did Bob Schieffer ask him that in that type of context?
Everyone here agrees that attacks on honorable military service are specifically and necessarily in poor taste.
However, what is NOT assumed or agreed upon, TOMMY, is that the comments in question constituted an attack, or "swipe."
You have merely established that you think swipes are bad, which we all doubtless agree on. You have NOT established why you think Clark's comments count as a swipe.
You'd be hard pressed to find any record of Clark speaking ill of McCain's service. In fact, quite the opposite. In a link I posted earlier, Clark goes out of his way to say that McCain's service was honorable. What he disagrees with is that McCain's honorable service to his country in a time of war necessarily equates a strength in foreign policy as compared to Barack Obama.
Tommy:
I ask you again, why was it inappropriate? You haven't explained why you think it was a swipe nor have you explained why it is inappropriate. What makes it a "swipe" on McCain? WHY do you think it was a swipe at him? I really do want to know--I am not attacking you, I am asking you for data.
He has no answer other than "check Obama's statement" or "I answered that already".
And my favorite- "It's a swipe because swipes are wrong."
Maybe "It was a swipe because I like McCain and I don't like Obama."
"Past military service should be respected, end of story. Comments like this from Clark do nothing but lower the discourse." --Tommy
Wasn't the bar of discourse lowered when Schieffer said that Barack was never shot down in Vietnam?
If Clark had said that McCain's plane was shot down because he didn't know how to fly and that he was a wimp because he spent all that time as a POW, then you'd be right.
At no time did Clark disparage McCain's military record. This was not "swiftboating", it was responding to a remark that Schieffer made. The fault lies with Schieffer for drudging that up in the first place.
what is the point in Clark taking that shot?
I'll concede that it was a shot (and it wasn't!) for the sake of answering this softball question. [Gen.Clark] simply pointed out somethign that should be obvious to all people, but which the media has done a good job of confusing eveyone on: That, just as he said, being shot down and being POW are not qualifications to be the President! If the press would stop acting as McCain's surrogate and simply ask the question themselves: "Um, sir, what does having military service and POW status have to do with being the POTU? No previous execultive, after all, was ever a POW." then the 'opposition' wouldn't have to. Instead we get constantly reminded of the fact, and it's nothing more than a tug on our patriotic heartstrings. Let's not forget that this "pro-military" candidate wants to keep our troops in a constant state of war, all while his party opposs pay raises and increased (or even adequate) health (and other) benefits. The media wants to obsfucate the real issue of repeating the same foreign policy blunders by playing to our emotions and patriotism. (Stock in trade for republicans since about 1980.) Clark was dead-on, and I hope to hear more people start pointing this out.
Why wasn't he a better president?
Military guys usually have a lot of tactical or logistical intelligence. But there are other intelligences that are perhaps better for a commander in chief. How about startegic intelligence or diplomatic intelligence? I'd rank those higher. You can always find lots of tactical guys like McCain. They are a dime a dozen. You can get them when you need them.
Now strategic and diplomatic intelligence is somewhat rare. Having a big picture, to me, is more important than a narrow tactical view which is McCain's strong suit.
Your comment has collapsed under the weight of debunked talking-points.
And then, of course, there was the strawman that broke the comment's back.
So what does qualify one to be president?
Geberal Wesley Clark: "I think being president is about having good judgment. It's about the ability to communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, "The greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade." And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment -- you look at his meteoric rise in politics, and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together, and who has good judgment in moving forward."
Snoopy, the McCains were just trying out Steve Martin's advice for how to be a millionaire and Never pay taxes.
First, get a million dollars.
Second, when the IRS tries to collect tell them "I Forgot!"
So what does qualify one to be president?
These are all the qualifications one needs to be president:
-Be a natural born citizen.
-Be at least 35 years old.
-Be a resident of the U.S. for at least fourteen years.
a state senator who mostly votes "present"
Since when does 3% equal mostly? By your logic McCain has 'almost always' been absent from the senate.
So, Tommy, getting shot down while riding in a fighter plane is a qualification to be President? That's a fair question. And, in light of how the right wing is creating issues surrounding Barack Obama they have nothing about which to complain.
However, I am shocked...shocked, shocked, shocked at the suggestion that FOX News would distort the meaning of Wesley Clark's comments! FOX is a fair and balanced news organization that upholds high journalistic standards. Harrrrumph... ;>)
Clark was unceremoniously asked to step down from his command as SAC in '99. He then retired out of the military less than a year later. Clinton gave him cover by not "replacing" him, (when that is exactly what he did) so ask Gen Clark why he could not get along with JCOS and SOD Cohen. While you're at it ask Clark why he didn't secure Pristina airport?
I served in the CAOC under Gen Clark (not directly, thank God) and I can tell you he was as political a Flag Officer as I ever saw. This didn't stop Clark from running for POUS, so how he can now say McCain's service disqualifies him?
Was the above not a "swipe" against Clark and his service?
(I'm trying to understand this, but it's getting very odd here.)
Gov, if you think that is a swipe then you are ignorant of any military operation and especially the inner workings of a place like the Pentagon where inter-service squabbles are happening on a daily basis.
My assessment of Gen Clark is valid and voiced by many during his tenure as SACNATO. EVERY general officer has to play politics to get to that position. I think we can agree on that. It is what was done while in command during a specific operation that many take issue with.
One more point. Gen Clark served for 34yrs and had a very distinguished career. In thirty four years any person can stumble. Even Patton had his detractors and his men at times loved and hated him. I can assure you Gen Clark's men did not "love" him in the Patton, MacArthur, and Schwarzkopf vein.
"I was not commenting at all on his military record, Governor. You are so simple."
But Hogprint was, and based on his comments, you labeled and dismissed Clark as a typical Clintonite. You were basing your assumptions on the opinion of Hogprint that Clark's as a general was overtly political, and commenting based on that.
I believe, according to your (non?) definition, you are taking a swipe at Clark.
John Kerry's whole campaign was based on the fact that he served in Vietnam. If memory serves me correctly it was Clark at the Dem convention in 2004 that praised Kerry's service and listed it as a major qualifiaction for Kerry's presidency. To now appear as a military expert and disqualify McCain's service as having no bearing on McCains qualifications is hypocritical and disrespectful.
Don't expect the Libs to figure it out though. I hope Obama himself and not through some spokesman disqualifies Clarks comments.
Max Cleland, you mean.
Scott McClellan.
To now appear as a military expert and disqualify McCain's service as having no bearing on McCains qualifications is hypocritical and disrespectful.
Allow me to rephrase the above.
To now appear and claim McCain's service does not lend qualification to his presidency is hypocritical and disrespectful
To now appear and claim McCain's service does not lend qualification to his presidency is hypocritical and disrespectful
You're comparing apples and oranges. Clark stated the obvious while the swift boat vets lied about Kerry's service. If they had simply said that being in the Vietnam War is not a qualification to be president I don't think anyone would have objected to that (I wouldn't have).
"...so how he can now say McCain's service disqualifies him?"
Jeeez, do you read and comprehend the English language? Clark did not say that McCain's military service disqualifies him from being President. All he said, in response to a specifically worded question, was:
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,"
Clark also said that McCain lacked command experience. Not once did Clark say that McCain's service disqualified him from the Presidency. Clark's point, as I read it, was that McCain's particular military experience did not ender him any more qualified than his opponent
Gen W. Clark:
"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
I don't see how you can interpret that statement any other way Irony?
"While you're at it ask Clark why he didn't secure Pristina airport?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm
Looks like Clark was dissuaded from doing so by Gen. Sir Mike Jackson which was a good thing because we could have ended up in a nuclear war.
"This did not stop Clark from running for POUS, so how he can now say McCain's service disqualifies him?" - Hogprint
This was an interesting lie. At NO TIME did Clark say anything even RESEMBLING your remark. He NEVER said that McSame's military record DISQUALIFIED him from serving as President. This was simply a demonstrable lie on your part.
Talk about Swiftboating!
You are committing a logic error.
Notice 2 things. Clark didn't mention McCain's service, just his flying/POW status and he didn't say that EITHER of those would disqualify for POTUS.
Clark did not say that military service disqualifies McCain (as Fox implies), he said that being shot down & captured are not qualifications (which is irrefutably true).
Saying 'the answer is not A' is not the same as saying 'the answer is B'.
What is disrespectful or inappropriate about what Clark said? He and Schieffer had a give and take about McCain's qualifications to be president. Schieffer adavanced the idea that McCain's miltary experiences, including riding in a jet fighter and getting shot down, make him more qualified than Obama. Clark disputed that idea. Clark also prefaced all this with a sincere appreciation of McCain's service.
Where was the outrage from the MSM and Republicans when John Kerry's military record was not only not appreciated; it was outright attacked? This double standard is exactly why so many no longer look to the MSM for any kind of fairness.
By the way, can someone explain to me why, exactly, getting shot down in a fighter plane makes one qualified to be president?
If they weren't hiding something, why deceptively truncate the context of the quote? It's propaganda at it's best, that's why. There's no other reason to do it except to leave a certain impression with brain dead people who constantly need reinforcing of their "opinion".
I hope more people like General Clark will ask why McCain is qualified to be president based on being a pow? What is inherently worthwhile about that in regards to the office that McCain seeks? And why does Bob Scheifer think it's pertinent? If I were General Clark I would have asked him why it is pertinent.
And there was no swipe, no disrespect. But of course people trying to dissemble will get a long back and forth going out of it. But I say go ahead, at least it keeps them off the other threads.
Fox's so called "'news correspondent" couldn't find the truth if it bite her on the a**.
Bob Schieffer was trying to equate riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down as excellent qualifications for President, General Clark disagreed and said exactly what HE thought were excellent qualifications.
I think being president is about having good judgment. It's about the ability to communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, "The greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade."
NO ONE is trying to belittle McCain's service but not everyone believes his service makes him qualified for President. The last fighter jet crap the media tried to sell, resulted in "mission accomplished", 3,900 Americans killed and billions spent in an ongoing 6 year war.
"Fox's so called "'news correspondent" couldn't find the truth if it bite her on the a**."
LOL... C'mon, Pearlene, don't hold back... I love it when you become indignant. You go, girl... ;>)
This does not bode well if Clark is named VP... which I thought would be a good choice for many reasons but particularly his military strength that will bring some of the repub's who have had enough and those who are worried about experience due to military issues.
The swift boating will definitely start.
I think maybe a canpaign is in order on this at somepoint. (if it continues) I just read over at C7L that CNN has also started the meme, Mika this morning also used it. (she ticks me off more and more, luckily I'm not awake most morning to be bothered by her.) And now I hear that Obama has spoken against it.
ugh.
He's pissing me off more and more as well.
I'm reasonably sure Gen. Clark isn't intimidated by words: if people used words with him, he'd just use them right back... and if they're sharp words, then his would be too: Sabre Sharp.
Gen. Clark is U.S. Army.
They're not intimidated by words (as we would not want them to be).
As a matter of fact, it's even a part of an Army Officer's Training and Education at West Point... the motto there, inscribed in stone (true!) is:
DEEDS, NOT WORDS
Schieffer's "really" was more vivid on the video compared to when I read the text. That comment was very unprofessional or an attempt at a gotcha. Surely he must have expected that being shot down would be dismissed. Does he really believe that being shot down is a major qualification for the presidency----naah . It was just bait thrown out to get a soundbite. BTW is Face the nation a subsidiary of Fox News?
One further pedantic thought. When one expresses an opinion, the speaker(poster,et al.) is supposed to have considered all sides of an argument before arriving at his opinion, then making up his mind. If not it is just an attitude. This seems to apply to the ten cents a post posters like Tommy.
Do rightwingers really believe that the last 7 years of them endlessly trashing veterans - from Kerry to Cleland to Murtha - have suddenly vanished and now their new found respect for military service should not only be treated as sacred but, in some bizarro world, as actually a single-qualifier to be president?!
And taking that ridiculous, rightwing perversion of reality even further - are we supposed to believe that the GOP chicken hawks who never served and mocked John Kerry by wearing purple band-aids at their 2004 wingnut fest, wouldn't have mocked Kerry or smeared his military service if ONLY he'd been shot down!
The insanity of rightwingers, after 7 years of treating the 2 draftdodgers who got the US bogged down in qaugmire as heroes, knows no bounds in it's patent absurdity!
Right now with the Military occupation of Iraq being exclusively a mission on the ground, conducted by the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps (and whatever helicopters are involved in the mission, they're almost exclusively Army), there's a far greater premium being placed on the opinion of a Soldier in the U.S. Army (or even a Marine), about the mission in Iraq, than there would be placed on the opinion of someone in the Navy, or Air Force, or a naval Aviator, or anyone else you might characterize as "riding in a plane"... that's nearly as true about Vietnam, as it is about Iraq: there were bombing missions ove North Vietnam (and Cambodia), but mostly those guys would come back, and their de-briefing would be along the lines of "I flew the plane, and dropped the bombs... on target I'm reasonably sure." The debriefings of Fighter Jocks in Vietnam might have included more, but that doesn't change the fact that
the Soldiers on the ground in Vietnam were doing nearly all the fighting and nearly all the dying: it's the same in Iraq today.
I detect a sense of reserve and even respect these people are giving, to what Gen. Clark said... I think they know that he knows a lot more about these things than they do, or that John McCain does.
I don't think they really want to get into a fight on this matter, with Gen. Clark: He's U.S. Army... fighting is what they do... their job on the ground is different from up in the air... it's just not a matter of "pushing buttons and flipping switches" to a U.S. Soldier fighting on the ground, in Iraq or in Vietnam either...
I think Gen. Clark has more authority here than they wish to question: Iraq is an Army mission, involving also the U.S. Marine Corps.
General Clark could effectively manage any part of the Iraq occupation, whether it be an exit maneuver or any other maneuvers: he knows all about it...
He's U.S. Army.
And if John McCain were tasked with the management of any part of the Iraq occupation, you know what he'd need to succeed?
Someone like General Wesley Clark, that's who.
Because it's an Army mission in Iraq, not a sortie over North Vietnam.
Hey Tommy, you have an issue with this?:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/begala-calls-republican-donors-dirtbags-2008-06-30.html
They've been waiting for this opening to use the subject that Krusty never brings up, except hourly. Wild attacks are inappropriate to a reasonable and honest criticism by Clark.
There is much that needs to be looked at in his record: suicide attempts, what psychiatric drugs he used after release, lack of anger management. McCains care givers want to insulate the geriatric from any closer look at what probably makes him unfit for the presidency.
Thought it was IdiOats the breakfast of madmen.
Obama on the other hand could take a hit as not eating an AMERICAN breakfast. Oh no the orange juice was just a tip of the ugly iceberg. So far unreported in the msm. He.. well he prefers the Candian action cerial Body Checks. And don't ask me what he's doing with those free hocky pucks.
Now this is to be expected of Fox. They ceased to be (if they ever were) a legitimate news organization a long time ago. Making up news, mis-reporting stories, not reporting at all, anything to fill the air time and be able to sell advertising. All too typical of MSM.