Clark supporters

[mmonk]

What is the best internet site for refuting attacks against Clark?

[KittyWampus]

1. www.clarkmyths.com/

:)

[ResistTheCoup]

2. Here's a couple more

Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic

and

http://www.theclarksphere.com/ (In the bottom left corner of the blog are numerous myths refuted)

Cheers

[Donna Zen]

3. Chronicles of an Anti-Apathetic

http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/

<whoops! edit for cross post>

Does anyone have the link to the NYT debunk and also, the Elizabeth Drew.

Both were subjects of DU threads so a search may turn up something. I am not on my regular machine at the moment.

[moz4prez]

6. HERE YA GO

Waiting for the General

The New Yorker's Unfair Slam on Wes Clark and His Role in the Kosovo War

[moz4prez]

7. Another Refutation of New Yorker Hatchet Job, by the American Prospect

Boyer Plate

[Lefta Dissenter]

4. Kick

just because I'm so sick of all the lies
:kick:

[knight_of_the_star]

5. Kick

Keep this one at the top
:kick:

[Myra]

8. The General's own words can often be used to refute smears. (FAIR/MTP)

And one of Clark's columns that is constantly used to
smear him by taking quotes out of context can be seen in
entirety at:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

In it he used a grim and ironic tone to make the point that
the work isn't done in Iraq just 'cause a statue of Saddam was toppled. Both MTP and FAIR picked phrases out that made
him sound like he was gleeful at the situation. He was
far from it.

The entire Sept 16 (un)FAIR smear is at:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

(They "analyze" a few columns. But the one I mentioned
is the only one I can find so far to compare. I'd love to find
more of them. Anyway, they devote about half the smear to this one.)

The entire November 16, 03 Meet the Press transcript is here:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp?0dm=V219V


I've attached my analysis of how they distorted his words, if
you want to read it.
In particular, compare versions of the first and final paragraphs.

Note: He does say some things in it that I'm not crazy about, e.g.,
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair..."

But if he said anything all that horrible in his columns,
the media whores wouldn't have to distort his words and take
them out of context to discredit him.

---

FAIR describes Clark's tone as "exuberant."
But I don't agree.
The tone of Clark's remarks was ironic.
He was using "victory" rhetoric to build a bigger point -
that it would be premature to claim "victory" and that
the stated goals of the invasion hadn't yet been achieved.
FAIR never acknowledged that irony or the many warnings Clark went
on to issue.

Two examples from the opening paragraph:

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of
Baghdad?"
(Russert)
&
"Already the scent of victory is in the air."
(FAIR)
The very next sentence, *excluded* by FAIR, is
"Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we
take our triumph."

The next paragraph, *excluded* by both Russert and FAIR starts with:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured.
Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of
resistance in Baghdad..."

He then goes on and issues some pretty sobering warnings:

-"Then there's the matter of returning order and security.
The looting has to be stopped.
The institutions of order have been shattered."
...
-"The real questions revolve around two issues:
the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli
dispute. And these questions are still quite open."
...
-"And more tough questions remain to be answered.
...
-"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success.
And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But
remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet
been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy
to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of
that is begun, much less completed."
...
And then in the final paragraph he returns to irony to drive home his point
that
the work is not done:

"Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue -
but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the
diplomats."

Here's FAIR's version of the final paragraph:
"Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home:
"Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue.""

Um, leaving out his final phrases grossly distorts his conclusion.

[Myra]

9. July 3 Daily Howler exerpt

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070303.shtml

"How did Bush know that Saddam had WMD? Because he had used them—in 1988! And how did he know that Saddam was a major threat? Because of intelligence reports—from 1998! Can this possibly mean that the Bush Admin was working off five-year-old information? Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t have a clue. But pundits will know not to ask.
Was the Bush Admin using dated info? We don’t know, but it surely would matter. On the June 15 Meet the Press, Wesley Clark offered an intriguing thought about those AWOL WMD:

RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people?
CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways.

Did those ’98 raids set back Iraq’s programs? Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t have the foggiest. (Predictably, Clark’s comment provoked no discussion.) But yesterday, Bush referred to intelligence reports which would have predated those ’98 raids. Maybe his answer was simply lazy—but his answer was remarkably weak. But don’t worry. The press corps won’t notice."

[mmonk]

10. Thanks

[Clark Can WIN]

11. kickety kick

[FrenchieCat]

12. If you need

to refute the General Shelton and Sec of Def. Cohen lies, I have all that info at my Clark site : http://frenchiecat.forclark.com/