MSNBC analyst Watkins falsely claimed Clark attacked McCain's patriotism
SUMMARY: When Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis said on MSNBC that "to go out there and wax poetically about 'how dare someone question the patriotism of John McCain,' no Democrat has been doing that," political analyst Joe Watkins interrupted, saying, "Wesley Clark did, though," repeating the assertion in a later MSNBC segment. In fact, Clark praised McCain as a "hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war."
On the July 2 edition of MSNBC Live, MSNBC political analyst Joe Watkins falsely asserted that retired Gen. Wesley Clark attacked John McCain's patriotism in recent comments he made on Face the Nation. But Clark did not attack or question McCain's patriotism; he praised McCain as a "hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war."
Watkins was discussing the controversy that followed Clark's comments with host Mika Brzezinski and Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis, who said, "[T]o go out there and wax poetically about 'how dare someone question the patriotism of John McCain,' no Democrat has been doing that." Watkins interrupted, saying, "Wesley Clark did, though," and went on to repeat the claim twice more as Kofinis rejected Watkins' characterization as "a falsehood."
Watkins repeated the false assertion in a later July 2 segment of MSNBC Live, when Kofinis said that "the McCain campaign jumped on an inartful comment by General Clark and blew it up into this notion that Democrats were going around every day attacking John McCain's patriotism." Watkins falsely claimed that "[i]t was just Wesley Clark doing it on national television day in and day out." Kofinis again disputed Watkins' false characterization of Clark's comments: "No -- I mean, not at all. You read his entire comment, Joe."
Clark's June 29 exchange with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer can be found in part here.
From the 9 a.m. ET July 2 edition of MSNBC Live:
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, but, Chris, you know, help me understand --
KOFINIS: Sure.
BRZEZINSKI: -- how the McCain campaign couldn't say, "How dare you," about this General Clark stuff. I mean, seriously.
KOFINIS: I mean, I understand, but listen, you know, if you look at his entire statement, he was praising John McCain. The last sentence, I agree, was a little bit inartful and should have been put differently, but at the end of the day, to go out there and wax poetically about "how dare someone question the patriotism of John McCain," no Democrat has been doing that. They make it sound like --
WATKINS: Wesley Clark did, though.
KOFINIS: -- Democrats have been going around all day doing that. It is not true.
WATKINS: Wesley Clark did.
KOFINIS: It is a falsehood.
WATKINS: Wesley Clark did.
KOFINIS: And to be honest, look at what they've been doing to Barack Obama. They've attacked his faith, they've attacked his patriotism, they've attacked his character. I mean, this is something the Republicans unfortunately do every single time. I agree with Joe on one thing, you've got to hit back, and you've got to hit back about this.
From the 3 p.m. ET July 2 edition of MSNBC Live:
ALEX WITT (anchor): Chris, I'm curious, in regard to these attacks --
KOFINIS: Yeah.
WITT: Is it the campaign spinmeisters or is it the media that decides which attacks stick around, how long they stay, when they get fueled down?
KOFINIS: I mean, a little bit of both, I mean, to be honest. I mean, the reality is, I think, this is kind of a, you know, a mutual game where, you know, the media kind of focuses on something. The campaigns want to focus on something. I mean, listen, the McCain campaign jumped on an inartful comment by General Clark and blew it up into this notion that Democrats were going around every day attacking John McCain's patriotism. It was nonsense. It wasn't true. But that's part of the game.
WATKINS: It was just Wesley Clark doing it on national television day in and day out.
KOFINIS: No -- I mean, not at all. You read his entire comment, Joe, you know exactly -- and listen --
Why is it that the guy that started this entire silly distortion of Gen.Clark's statement has drawn no fire...Bob Schieffer.
Schieffer is the one that sputtered in his wheaties and nearly swallowed his dentures when Clark supported Obama's capabilities of being commander-in-chief.
Schieffer is the real rat in this dust-up...Clark merely rebutted the premise of his ignorant question.
I read his autobiography a few years back. It was interesting to read about his early years in Texas, but sad near the end of the book,when he was all caught up in the Monica Lewinsky affair, and didn't seem to grasp how little the stained dress mattered to our economy or foreign policy or anything that matters. Now he seems to think that McCain's competence to run our military is demonstrated by his being shot down and held prisoner!
KOFINIS: And to be honest, look at what they've been doing to Barack Obama. They've attacked his faith, they've attacked his patriotism, they've attacked his character. I mean, this is something the Republicans unfortunately do every single time. I agree with Joe on one thing, you've got to hit back, and you've got to hit back about this.
It's about damn time!! Republicans don't own a monopoly on what is the truth. You can tell things your way, doesn't it make it the truth. People need to stop relying on the media to tell them what is and what isn't factual and put things together for themselves. "And to be honest look at what they've been doing to Barack Obama . . ." I mean it's right there in everyone's face, but for some odd reason it's acceptable to lie about Obama and unacceptable to tell the truth about McCain. Democrats don't have to engage in smearing like the competition, but if they don't start defending their right to speak the truth, we won't win in November.
I sincerely hope that Barack Obama puts himself right in the middle of it and fights back hard, hit them in the gut with this crap and expose it for what it is. Otherwise, it could just beat him and beat the life out of him.
Guess who said it?
Same guy who approved of Obama caving in under political pressure over Clark's cropped quote.
Clark's remarks?
the simple Governor is having a hard time with this one.
You cannot mock one's intelligence while typing with sausage fingers. Obama folded like a lawn chair over this item. So did you.
Governor can't know why Obama disapproved of the remarks any more than Tommy can.
On the other hand, why do you and Tommy have such a problem accepting a contrary opinion?
I think the better question is why do you? You are the one who argued incessantly earlier in the week that Obama rejected those comments because of political expediency, as if any other reason was invalid. Govenor is entitled to his opinion alright and I didn't challenge that Socrates. He don't need you trolling around to come to his rescue.
You keep lying about this. I have not excluded the possibility that Obama genuinely objected to the comments, I said so explicitly.
How am I defending Governor when I say he can't assert what he said as a fact?
You keep lying about this. I have not excluded the possibility that Obama genuinely objected to the comments, I said so explicitly.
How am I defending Governor when I say he can't assert what he said as a fact?
Please stop Brab, my ribs are hurting from laughter......
Distancing himself from it just means he thinks it's politically dangerous. It doesn't mean it's actually a swipe. None of us have to worry about blowback from opponents.
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.
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 accept that he (Obama) 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.
It goes on and on really, but the reality is that you clung to the belief that Obama made his rejection out fo political expediency even though you tried to tiptoe around it in your lawerly fashion at times. Those of us who are not part of the intellectual elite as such yourself tend to call a turd a turd and your denial sure smells like one.
I'm quite familiar with the conversation. You can't very well blame me for explaining things to you in whatever fashion I see fit, since you're the one making the ridiculous accusations.
The focus of my comments was the fact that there's a potential motive for Obama to distance himself from the comments even if he doesn't find them offensive. That was the point. For those purposes there was no need to separate the concepts of "Obama thinking the comments are wrong" and "the comments are politically dangerous", since that distinction is irrelevant. If he thinks they're wrong, then of course they're dangerous as well. I didn't imagine that it would be necessary to explain that if Obama really objected that he would speak out for that reason, which is why I felt "there's no evidence either way" should have been sufficient enough clarification for any rational person. Tommy said my supposed assumption was that Obama really approved of the comments. Since you didn't specify your charges, and you have a noted history of repeating whatever Tommy says no matter how baseless, that is the point I was addressing.
Your attempts at making this point fairly reek of rank desperation. The argument is that I'm insisting that Obama objected solely because of political concerns even though I said he might really find the comments to be objectionable. What purpose would that argument serve? It wouldn't be necessary to address Tommy's point, and it wouldn't have any relevance to what I was saying previously. That's incredibly inconsistent with my mode of behavior, and with my record of support for Obama as well. Since what you're saying doesn't make a damn bit of sense, you're not going to fool anyone who has any interest in being logical or reasonable on the matter.
I don't expect you'll try to respond to the specifics of what I'm saying, but I'd love to be surprised.
So if someone abandoned an argument against you, and then went on other threads and pretended as if they made their point, you wouldn't say anything about it?
I don't believe it.
I can keep track of threads until they close. If someone thinks they have a point to make, they can do the same. Otherwise they don't have the right to assert my meaning when I corrected them on the issue already.
Fair enough?
You know that old joke- What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of a lake? A good start!- Well, these days lawyers should be replaced with cable *news* pundits.
You know that old joke- What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of a lake? A good start!- Well, these days lawyers should be replaced with cable *news* pundits.
Just the "Republican Strategists".
"The subtext for the war hero candidates is that they have killed people out of love for our country"
Huh? The "subtext" as you refer to it is nothing of the sort. It's quite simple, those that serve our country in the military, in any capacity, deserve respect and admiration for that service, regardless of political affiliation or ideology.
If you can't seem to do that, it certainly is your right......but to falsely frame it the way you did is ridiculous.
Huh? The "subtext" as you refer to it is nothing of the sort. It's quite simple, those that serve our country in the military, in any capacity, deserve respect and admiration for that service, regardless of political affiliation or ideology.
I agree but the issue here is the media and pundits continue to insist that Clark did something that he did not. Wesley Clark did not question or attack McCains patriotism or service to our nation.
those that serve our country in the military, in any capacity, deserve respect and admiration for that service, regardless of political affiliation or ideology.
Not always.
Objection, your honor.
Relevance?
DEE
Relevance....are you kidding me? I hope you can see the fact that if killing people is supposed to appeal to right wing voters, and supposed to apply to McCain, then we have to look at Clark, and those that have died as a result of his actions and decisions. I really hope you get that.
Irony
I am not so sure how important killing is, but I do feel more comfortable with some one who has been in war leading a country in war. It may or may not make a difference, and it may be more on an emotional level than an actual really making a difference level.
...and it may be more on an emotional level than an actual really making a difference level.
In a way, you're stating my point...
"I am not so sure how important killing is, but I do feel more comfortable with some one who has been in war leading a country in war."-PointOfView
So you voted for Kerry then?
OpenMind, you got odds on that question not being answered?
if it's 1/anything, I'm in for a fin at least.
Has anyone else noticed that when conservatives are putting up a combat veteran, it is an important thing, but when the Democrats put up a combat veteran...meh...not so much?
Conservatives seem to have a principle for every situation.
They derserve respect..... unless they're Democrats, in which case, disrespecting and questioning they're service is ok in MSM, as we learned as recently as June 30, 2008 when the McCain Campaign publicly questioned and devalued the service of Gen. Clark on Fox News.
Didn't Oliver North recently disparage Clark's service?
I think we can all agree that Oliver North is in NO position to disparage anyone's service in the military.
Or course he did, as did the McCain campaign THIS WEEK.
Patriotism, when partisan, means absolutly NOTHING.
Irony,
Whenever have I ever said that McCain is some saint? He deserves the scrutiny of his policies and his positions just like any other candidate, he is running for president, he should get the same treatment as anyone else. And his military record, although commendable and revered, should stand on it's own and is not a qualification for the job he is seeking. It's part of his bio, fine, but beyond that I don't consider it when I decide to vote for or against him.
I have no plans to vote for John McCain.
And his military record, although commendable and revered, should stand on it's own and is not a qualification for the job he is seeking. It's part of his bio, fine, but beyond that I don't consider it when I decide to vote for or against him.
Agreed. MSM, however, which did not get the memo, constructs a differant reality.
Tommy: "And his military record, although commendable and revered, should stand on it's own and is not a qualification for the job he is seeking."
And how is that any different than what Wesley Clark said?! You've been repetitively accusing Clark of disrespecting McCain's service all week, and yet here you are expressing the exact same sentiment. Unbelievable. I can't wait to see your rationalization for this one.
Indeed. Or this:
I sincerely hope that Barack Obama puts himself right in the middle of it and fights back hard, hit them in the gut with this crap and expose it for what it is. Otherwise, it could just beat him and beat the life out of him.
Because as Obama said, and I agree with him, Clark devalued McCain's service. You can try and play "gotcha" but you just look ridiculous as always. If you are too dishonest to see the difference, then don't worry about it.
Poor boy, can't seem to get it...
And again, I'm not asking you about what Obama said. I'm asking you to justify your hypocrisy. What Obama said has nothing to do with it. Google "Appeal to Authority" before you post any more of this nonsense.
Now, please explain how the "context" of what you wrote makes it any different from what Clark said. That's your claim, so back it up without childishly resorting to, "Because Obama said so."
It not hypocrisy because Obama never said "Tommy devalued McCain's military service."
How can you not understand that?
Honest to god, if you can't see the difference then you are as willfully dishonest and dense as you have ever been. I am making a general comment, not devaluing my opposition's party candidate through a cheap political jab.
And by the way, how does Clark's comments about McCain square with what he said about Kerry in 2004, and how his military service was relevant?
Clark is a hypocritical phony.
If it's that easy to explain, the explain it already. You weren't making a general comment. You were making a specific comment about John McCain. And it was the same comment that Wesley Clark made about McCain. The only difference is that you're not a Democrat. So are you saying that it's ok for you to say it, but when someone from the opposition party says it, it's "devaluing McCain's service"? Is that the double standard that you want to use to justify your hypocrisy?
And now it's time for you to call me more names....
Tommy
Am I right in suspecting that you're leaning toward casting your vote for Bob Barr?
"It's quite simple, those that serve our country in the military, in any capacity, deserve respect and admiration for that service, regardless of political affiliation or ideology."
I agree, which is why the Republican pundits are being so hypocritical on the issue than I have ever seen them.
While trying to defend the right-wing meme that Clark attacked McCain's military record, this guy Ferguson attacks Clark's military record.
"I’m sorry, being shot down, to say that doesn’t qualify you to be President-this man has been around war, been in actual war zones while Wesley Clark was sitting in an air-conditioned room, telling people what to do with NATO, so I don’t know if he’s exactly the right guy to go out there."
This one is just absolutely awful.
Who is this fool calling himself a "Democratic Strategist" on MSNBC (and getting a paycheck and his face on air in the process)... this guy's little dialogue with the MSNBC hack dog is worse than ineffective, it's counter-productive and destructive!
Three consecutives times the hack dog said...
WATKINS: Wesley Clark did [question the patriotism of John McCain]
...and three straight times this "Democratic Strategist" didn't answer properly: the first two times he said nothing, like a mute, and then the third time he screws up and proves his idiocy, by essentially confirming the lie that the General questioned the patriotism of John McCain, by saying...
KOFINIS: And to be honest, look at what they've been doing to Barack Obama. They've attacked his faith, they've attacked his patriotism, they've attacked his character. I mean, this is something the Republicans unfortunately do every single time. I agree with Joe on one thing, you've got to hit back, and you've got to hit back about this.
...which essentially says "OK, the General did do that, but you guys do the same to Mr. Obama: we just did it back is all"
What a freaking idiot!
And then because this "Democrat Strategist" (clutching an MSNBC paycheck) was such an easy dupe and fool and stooge, and whiffed on three staright pitches, the pitcher stopped him from going into the dugout, and said (just to embarrass him further) "get back in the box: I'll let you have another swing"
ALEX WITT (anchor): Chris, I'm curious, in regard to these attacks --
KOFINIS: Yeah.
...Yeah? He said they were attacks, and the idiot says "Yeah"?
"OK" the pitcher says, almost laughing now "we'll give you one more swing: I know you can do it, if we keep throwing the ball to you"
WATKINS: It was just Wesley Clark doing it on national television day in and day out.
KOFINIS: No -- I mean, not at all. You read his entire comment, Joe, you know exactly -- and listen --
If this is what a "Democratic Strategist" is, then I wonder what a Democratic idiot looks like... I think they look like this guy, with an MSNBC paycheck in his hand.
There's nothing so easy as responding to a twisted and misinterpreted quotation of someone, than by simply repeating the true and clear words that person actually said.
WATKINS: Wesley Clark did [question the patriotism of John McCain]
DEMOCRAT: "No he did not! He did no such thing! The General questioned whether John McCain's experiences as a Naval Aviator in Vietnam, was any qualification to Command the U.S. Army in IRAQ... what you're misconstruing as an attack, was word for word:
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president
...that's questioning John McCain's qualifications to Command the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ: it's a questioning of qualifications that every candidate should be subjected to, repeatedly even, and in depth... the General, who is career U.S. Army himself, knows fully well the simple truth that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" is not one of the qualifications to Command the U.S. Army in IRAQ.
That's exactly precisely word for word what the General said... and every time you repeat that the General questioned someone's patriotism, I'll just repeat what I said... and I'll walk off the field having struck you out, with the truth.
Jon Soltz has a very good take on why the McCain campaign is so outraged:
Well, I don't question the patriotism of these Republican phonies. You wanna know why I don't? Because patriotism is the perfect escape from reality for fools and fanatics. The word patriot comes from patrios, or fatherland. Patriotism is mindless adulation for a concept like a country or a land without regard for the PEOPLE who live there. While these dim bulbs are out worshipping hollow symbols like flags and lapel pins, the PEOPLE in the country are going to hell faster than you can say Uncle Sam is dying of neglect. Stop worshipping American symbols are start doing something to help ease the suffering of the PEOPLE.
Randy
It's exactly true: and of course the true sign of a phony and manipulative Patriotism, is the constant and overblown talking about it... which is something so common to Republicans, and at the same time not so common to Democrats: What are mere words to do with Patriotism? Isn't Patriotism more along the lines of Military Service, and Sacrifice? Aren't Deeds more important than Words? Isn't it Republicans with no Military Service at all (no Deeds in the matter), the ones who talk the most about Patriotism? (And all Words?) And it reaches a sickening level, when those words come from Republicans who not only have zero Military Service, but have multiple deferments from Service (like Dick Cheney), or have boils on their buttocks to evade Military Service (like rush limbaugh).
(I don't like to act the Scholar, but...) When Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", of course what he meant was that scoundrels especially wrap themselves in the Flag, and utter Patriotic Words, but are conspicuous for having performed no Deeds to accompany those Words.
It's not Samuel Johnson I think of immediately when I hear "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoudrel" (I'm not a Scholar): it's Kirk Douglas's character in "Paths Of Glory" that I think of first... it's not even Johnson I think of second, when I think of "Patriotism scoundrels": it's now the likes of Dick Cheney and rush limbaugh I think of next... Johnson finishes no better than third (I'm not a Scholar).