Gen. Wesley Clark on Hannity & Colmes (video)

[CatWoman]

Newshounds reports: Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity

Wesley Clark, new Fox News contributor, had a chance to test his debate strategies with Hannity last night on Hannity and Colmes. Clark was on to discuss Dick Durbin's comment about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and if Hannity expected Clark to apologize for Durbin's comment, he was in for a surprise...read on

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/18.html#a3512

[Coexist]

1. thanks to Crooks and Liars

for watching Fox so I don't have to!

[snowbear]

4. Yeah really! That's the first time I've ever heard

..Sean Hannity speak!!:puke: (and YES, we have the FNN here too.) I just don't watch it----- EVER.

BTW, Sean Hannity has a horrible voice!! :o

And even though the General accepted their money to be a military spokesperson, he did AWESOME! :bounce:

~~ Question: What happened to Hannity in that clip? Did the General scare him off? :rofl: (The clip cuts off after Colmes steps into the picture)

[ClarkUSA]

12. Sean Hannity sounds like a squeaky toy when he doesn't get his way

Which explains why he sounds so damn jerky on this clip.

Oh, right - he's also a jerk.

[Sparkly]

22. I saw it on TV, but haven't seen the online clip

and I noticed Hannity makes SPEECHES instead of asking direct questions. I HATE it when "hosts" do that. (Tweety often does it too.) There should be a rule that the time for the question shouldn't exceed the time given for the answer.

[CatWoman]

23. it's very unprofessional too

if you'll note, all the RW gasbags employ that tactic.

[Sparkly]

24. True

They throw out eight different phony memes, each of which would take at least five minutes to refute, then ask the question. The guest can then answer the question and let the meme-lies stand, or focus in on one or two meme-lies and not answer the question or address the others, etc.

As I recall, Hannity included assertions that there were no murders in our detainments, Geneva didn't apply to them, they're all "terrorists," Durbin compared American soldiers to Nazis, and investigating the truth puts our soldiers at risk... Those are some of the favorites they toss out, then they ask a question.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Very good breakdown analysis, Sparkly and Catwoman

I knew that but could have never said it so well.

Only 1 hour and 39 minutes to go until we see what Rove's coaching is going to yield.

Those creeps. :grr:

[rocktivity]

63. I call it "The Tweety Tactic" because Chris Matthews does it best

with Howard Kurtz as runner up. Wes should have said, "There has not been an official judicial decision that enemy combantants are not subject to the Generva Conventions. The Bush White House simply manufactured a legal excuse of a talking point for their political convenience."

:headbang:
rocknation

[FreedomAngel82]

45. It's so they can

stay on their "talking points" and not screw up for their boss.

[knowbody0]

2. can we look forward to more of this?

hannity must have poo in his skivies from that exchange.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Yes...see today's schedule here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1867750

[The Traveler]

3. Interesting

Thanks for posting this. Clark handled that quite well. The point was not lost, and perhaps some seeds of understanding were planted out there in that surreal world where people think Fox News is cool.

[tuvor]

5. Been looking for this for two days. Thanks!

[TacticalPeek]

6. Thanks very much.

And thanks to crooksandliars.com.

:kick:

[BayouBengal07]

7. Enemy combatants?

Hannity keeps saying the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "Enemy combatants". He's right, because enemy combatants was a bullshit term the Bush administration made up to AVOID calling them Prisoners of War and subjecting them to the Geneva Conventions.

He says that "these are the combatants in the field that want to kill our soldiers." Sounds like POWs to me!

[Vickers]

18. Exactly. Look, if our military is holding you, you are either a POW

or a civilian, both of which are covered under the Geneva Convention.

They are simply trying to have their torture and eat it, too.

[ClarkUSA]

44. It sickens me to watch the GOP try to circumvent the Geneva Convention

"The issue isn't whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is that we aren't different enough."

~ A quote by Avi Schlaim, an Israeli historian, on the issue of comparisons to Nazi Germany

[JinFL]

43. What country are they soldiers of?

If they're not enemy combatants, but POWs, then they are members of what military that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

[Debs]

55. It depends on which ones

Those picked up in Afghanistan (which IS a signatory of the GC) would NOT have to be part of their standing army. Every citizen has a right to fight a foriegn invasion according to the GC. If there were no time to organize a hierarchial defense they would still be protected as POWs whether or not they wore insignia or any identification. The thing is they are either POW's or they are civilians. The attempt at creating a Catch-22 where when we say GC the administration says they are criminals and when we say due process the administrations says they are soldiers cannot be allowed to stand the GC says directly that NO ONE can be put beyond the reach of law. IF there is a dispute about their status a competent tribunal NOT THE PRESIDENT is supposed to make the determination. Bush wants to create a black hole where no law will reach them, its unacceptable

[Vickers]

57. Wow, it almost sounds like you agree with their legalistic approval

of torture.

Oh, and welcome to DU yadda yadda yadda...

[bunkerbuster1]

8. Wes Clark invoked Godwin? (well, kinda...)

he must be familiar with the Internets.

[Texas_Kat]

9. Well, yes, I believe he may be on the same Internet WE are

As opposed to all those other Internets

[Texas_Kat]

40. So, here's Godwin's law from Google's Cache of Wikipedia:

The reference is to Usenet groups since Godwin was writing before the Internet became the Web.

Godwin's law (also (Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

more...

http://tinyurl.com/7cyrl

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:yaEbRij3Y4gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law+Godwin%27s+law&hl=en&ie=UTF-8%20target=nw

Edited to Add KUDOs to bunkerbuster1 for knowing pointing it out! :patriot:

[FreedomAngel82]

46. My question is

where are all these other internets?? :shrug:

[Texas_Kat]

58. They must be the secret Internets that the Repubs know about

and we can just guess about.

I suspect that members of 'the site which cannot be named' have been exiled from the secret Internets due to poor spelling and lack of punctuation.

[Donna Zen]

17. Wes Clark reads the blogs

I'm not sure which ones, but he was very aware of the ruckus about him going on fox. On his personal blog, he thanked those of us who offer support for efforts to get the word to viewers who dine on a steady diet of lies.

[Sparkly]

25. I'll bet H2S's "WES CLARK IS A MISERABLE FAILURE" got WesClarkJr. to look!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1865248

:hi:

[WesClarkJr]

33. I read most threads anyway

Not just the Clark ones.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Lol, as should we all.

Hope you are still leaving a little time to have a life. I know this isn't the only place where you are reading.

[ClarkUSA]

42. Hey, Happy Father's Day to you and every Daddy here

:party:

[Clark2008]

60. Happy Father's Day to you and your Dad!

And I hear another little Clarkie is in the oven.

:applause:

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. I'm glad after all the talking people can actually view this

What struck me is that Hannity initially set the tone for this segment in shrill anti-Democratic Party partisan tones and that Clark laced his boil and took all of the air out of it, and, without directly having to say it, making people like Hannity the prime example of what is wrong with America today. It came off as: Clark; Pro America and what makes us great as a nation. Hannity; Pro Republican leadership and what is dividing and weakening us as a nation. That wasn't supposed to be the topic, but that is the impression left. Good work I would say.

[Clark2008]

20. You forgot that Clark looked bold and professional

Hannity looked like those cheerleaders he adores so much! :rofl:

(For reference, one needs to have seen Hannity go after Clark during the Dem Convention for comparing the Navy vet Kerry to the college cheerleader Bush).

[ClarkUSA]

11. More opportunites to watch Wes Clark neuter the GOP next week...

GO WES!!!

General Clark will appear on Fox News Live at 6:10pm EDT on June 19, 2005.
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/177

----------

General Clark will appear on Fox News Live at 2:00pm EDT on June 21, 2005.
http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/178


A videoclip link is worth a million words.

Catwoman ----> :yourock:

[Larry in KC]

13. And while we're at it...

General Clark will appear on the CSPAN program "On the Road to the White House" at 6:30pm EDT this Sunday, June 19, 2005. The program highlights General Clark's recent keynote address to New Hampshire democratic activists at the Manchester Flag Day Dinner.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/174

This one is particularly germane partly because it includes his volunteered defense of Howard Dean's speaking out.

:patriot:

Hey, my first smilie!

[ClarkUSA]

14. Welcome to DU, Larry In KC!!

And congratulations on your first :patriot:

Nice to see another Clarkista at DU. :)

I started a new thread here that combined our event notices for today:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1867750

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Nice!

When will that be on??

[ClarkUSA]

56. CSPAN video: Catch it on Dembloggers at around 10 PM

http://www.dembloggers.com /

[Adelante]

15. The issue is the policy, not the politics.

Right :yourock:

[Clark2008]

19. Yep and others noticed, too.

Gitmo remark makes Durbin easy prey

June 19, 2005

BY LYNN SWEET WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

'There's an old rule in politics, and I've seen it many times," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Thursday night, as he brushed aside Fox News talker Sean Hannity's demand for him to condemn Sen. Dick Durbin. "Whoever uses the 'Nazi' word first loses," said Clark, the former Democratic presidential candidate who is a political analyst for Fox.

Six months ago, Senate Democrats picked Durbin (D-Ill.) to be their No. 2 leader because he is one of the most articulate and informed senators on his side of the aisle.

But Durbin lapsed this week and his punishment included providing fuel for the mighty right-wing political machine. That includes Rush Limbaugh and talk show hosts at Fox News, where bashing Durbin was the singular theme of Friday's "Fox & Friends" morning cablecast.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sweet192.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. They noticed BUT

The story also implied a diss of Durbin that Clark did NOT make. They credit Clark with dismissing Hannity, which was correct and good, but Clark's comment about "first use of the term Nazi" was NOT in reply to Hannity. Clark said that AFTER Colmes aired a clip of Rick Santorum comparing Democrats to Nazis. This is significant because all the public (frequently FOX orchestrated) heat has been directed at Durbin for supposedly comparing Americans at Gitmo with Nazis. Hence the use of Clark's quote out of context prior to discussing Durbin appears to be a Clark slap at Durbin, WHICH IT WASN'T. Clark refused a direct request from Hannity to condemn what Durbin said. I actually am quite upset with the Sun Times for their deceptive editing which seems to point to Democratic infighting when the opposite happened. People who support Clark AND Durbin are writing letters to them about this, and hopefully other Democrats will as well.

[Clark2008]

26. True, but we have to be happy with half the battle.

At least the corporate media noticed.

Now, getting them to both notice AND report it correctly might be too much for their big-monied minds to wrap around for the time being.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Half is better than usual, but I'm not happy.

Clark is strongly on record saying that Democrats need to stand up for other Democrats and I am not happy when the media tries to twist his words to accomplish the opposite. Especially when Clark made a point of NOT attacking Durbin.

[CarolNYC]

29. I don't even think it's half n/t

[Adelante]

35. This is what happened, Tom, you're right

There's an old rule in politics, and I've seen it many times," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Thursday night, as he brushed aside Fox News talker Sean Hannity's demand for him to condemn Sen. Dick Durbin. "Whoever uses the 'Nazi' word first loses," said Clark, the former Democratic presidential candidate who is a political analyst for Fox.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sweet192.html

That opening paragraph damns by proximity two separate interview incidents, one at the outset of the interview when Hannity demanded Clark disown Durbin; the second near the end of the interview in an answer to Alan Colmes, who was talking about Santorum.

Sean Hannity specifically asked Clark to "condemn" Durbin's statement and Clark refused. He rightly turned the discussion away from name-calling and partisanship to the issue at hand, the Bush policy being carried out at Gitmo.

As the transcript shows, Clark's old political rule reference followed Colmes's mention of Rick Santorum just before the close of the interview.

COLMES: Yes, didn't hear any conservatives condemn Rick Santorum for comparing Democrats to Nazis back when he said that during the filibuster.

CLARK: Well, Alan, I think -- you bring up two very good points here. But I think the real issue here is to get past the politics, past the name-calling.

There's an old rule in politics, and I've seen it many times: whoever uses the "Nazi" word first loses. We ought to get past the name-calling, past the politics, and the partisan politics on this, because we have a national security issue and the country needs to focus on it. Our leadership needs to focus on it, and we can't if we just call them names back and forth with each other.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159907,00.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. This is Durbin's home state Newspaper pulling this trick

Readers are going to assume that Clark was piling onto Durbin. This is not sloppy editing. That is the only quote of Clark that they chose to use. and they used it where it will hurt Durbin (and indirectly Clark).

[CarolNYC]

37. Yes, yes, yes....

As soon as I saw this this morning, that was the reaction I had....They are twisting Wes' words to hurt Durbin. We can't be fooled by the pretty phrase about brushing Hannity off....This is deliberate and this is wrong.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. Why are you surprised?

Hello it's Fox! What did you expect by Clark going on there? That they would embrace him and just let him speak his mind? *Snicker* This is FOX! I'm sure Clark knew what he was getting himself into and he knows how to handle these people or he wouldn't have.

[CarolNYC]

50. But Fox had nothing to do with this....

This is the Chicago Sun Times at fault here...Wes did just fine on Fox the other night.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. The reference is to the Chicago Sun Times, not FOX.

We all know about FOX, at least they didn't splice Clark's words out of context. The Sun Times did. That is what the post you answered is referring to.

[Clark2008]

61. I alerted Media Matters.

Let's see if David picks it up.

[CarolNYC]

28. Yep,

I agree strongly with this....Yeah, they threw in the brushing aside Hannity line but the headline says that Durbin was easy prey for his remarks and then the opening has Gen Clark saying whoever says Nazi first loses...definite attempt to twist Clark's defense of Durbin into a condemnation, if you ask me. I do think letters are in order. Why didn't they report that Clark said he wasn't going to condemn Durbin when he brushed the question aside...THAT's what actually happened.

[Idioteque]

30. I love how chickenhawk Hannity acts like Wes is clueless...

...about the military.

[Sparkly]

31. I know what you mean -- when he pointed his finger and started preaching

Husb was yelling, "DON'T YOU LECTURE HIM!! DON'T YOU DARE LECTURE HIM!!"

Reminds me of the discussion with David Frum on Bill Maher's show. It cracked me up when Frum started lecturing on military strategy, gays in the military, etc. The General looked mildly perturbed and smacked him right down without effort.

[Clark2008]

32. At some point, I'm venturing that Clark might just ask Insannity

in what regiment he served? Or in what other profession has he served that would give him the opportunity to know the details of the Geneva Conventions and how they should be applied.

The look on Insannity's smug little face will be priceless!

[FreedomAngel82]

52. Oh yeah

I saw that. LOL. I like how his eyes get big like "wha?" *snicker* I thought Clark did very well. He was professional and very cool and collected and didn't let Hannity side-swap him and he stayed on the topic.

[FreedomAngel82]

49. LOL!

How hilarious. Duh Clark is a four-star General. What, does he need to wear his uniform onto the show to remind people? That might do the trick. Democrats are mostly clueless about these things (/sarcasm). Even though more of them have honorably served then republicans. He even called him General (I'm actually surprised). Destroying our country and "we're not torturing them" HA!! Wait till the ACLU releases those photo's and video's! LOL! What I liked about this was how he didn't address anything that Hannity said slamming Dean etc. and he stayed on the issue which is important. Good for him! "Tell that to Durbin!!!" Like a whiney baby.

[Up2Late]

38. Why does Hannity even HAVE guests on his show?

That was the most disgusting piece of Propagandizing to a guest and an audience I've ever scene. Of course, I don't watch those stupid Fox "news" show ever, so I may have missed a few that were worst. :crazy: :mad:

[roguevalley]

39. The General will eat them for breakfast and open eyes. I will be

a delegate for him from Alaska in 2008 if he runs. My whole family prays he runs. God bless the General.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. I've come to really like him myself

Of course I understand all the hype around him. He's a four star general and has the military experience and I've heard stories of how he appeals to moderate republicans which would be good. I think him being on fox is a sign he is running in 2008. Probably to reach out to voters and put to rest some propoganda. I got to know him through this website that had video's of his appearances. Does anybody still have that site?

[CarolNYC]

54. www.u-wes-a.com n/t

[Clark2008]

59. This was just posted on Clark's blog:

I've gotten e mails back from all my Right Wing relatives that I asked to watch Wes on C Span and their favorite channel FOX. They are all impressed and want to learn more about him. They are all college educated and although they voted for him, they find Bush boring. I'm glad that they had a chance to listen to Wes before they hear the Chimp's speech this week telling us why we have to support his Iraq mistake. Every time that man says, "You see" and starts explaining things to me, I get absolutely nauseated.

http://chat.forclark.com/comments/2005/6/19/193750/207/78#78

:evilgrin: It's worrrrrkkkkinnnnnggg.... :D

[Q]

62. I watched the link video...

...and Clark never disputes statements about Bush's military not following the Geneva Conventions. In fact...he says that the US is abiding by them.

Clark used a lot of words to say essentially nothing. The average Fox viewer more than likely came away thinking that he had only slight disagreements with Bush 'policies'.

[Clark2008]

64. I think the vast majority ARE aiding by them.

It's been isolated incidents, given the green light by the upper administration, that have dishonoring the Convention.

I, personally, don't think our entire military is inhuman, you know.

[KoKo]

67. Yes....all is well in Bushland....Just a few "bad apples" at the top who

are "taking advantage" and not abiding by the Geneva Conventions and General Clark understands that.

Thanks for your report. :eyes:

[Clark2008]

69. That's not what I said.

I, specifically, pointed out that the problem is with the administration - the top officials in it - because I knew some naysaying person afraid of the military would jump in and roll their eyes.

Read it again: it says A.) The majority of the military are not inhumane - and they aren't and B.) the problem is with the top officials (Rummy, Cheney, et al.)

Thank you for your willful misread.

[Sparkly]

70. It's not like the "bad apples" are all at the bottom.

Clark has stated many times, and continues to state, that it's about the "civilian leadership," or the "policy" -- in other words, BushCo.

Regarding Geneva conventions, it's true that BushCo is having it both ways, particularly at Guantanamo. They aren't POWs; they weren't in uniform or acting on behalf of a state. They would still be covered by laws of humane treatment if they were in our country, but how convenient -- they send them to Guantanamo. That is how they've created a "legal black hole."

So, in a very narrow technical sense, they argue "Geneva doesn't apply" -- they're "enemy combatants," or when pressed to prove it, they're "suspected terrorists," but when pressed to charge them, they're "enemy combatants" again.

The main thing is that it goes beyond every standard we and our allies agreed to, no matter what these particular people did or didn't agree to, but that's what they keep bringing up. "They're even worse, so there's no moral equivalency!" or "They didn't sign any conventions!" or "These are terrorists who want to kill Americans!" or even "These are terrorists who killed 3,000 people in 9/11!!"

The bad apples who should be prosecuted FIRST are at the top -- at the White House, the Pentagon, the DoD, Homeland Security, and the Congressional hacks protecting them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. I honestly think it is ingenious

the way Clark is approaching this on FOX. A lot of FOX viewers are the same ones who are ordering Rush's "What happens in Gitmo stays in Gitmno" Tee shirts. Clark reframed the discussion. He said, undoubtedly there are some dangerous people at Gitmo who need to be confined, but why is the U.S. doing this alone? Why don't we invite our Allies to help run the place? They may not be willing to help out with troops in Iraq, but why not let them send interrogators guards and chaplains? Let them share the burden. Bush fails to lead a meaningful coalition, and so on. Then Clark adds that the U.S. should never feel a need to hide our actions from the world, we should have nothing to hide.

Obviously Bush doesn't want "help" at Gitmo because Bush couldn't run Gitmo the way he wants to if Brits and Italians and Canadians were also involved, Gitmo would be subject to international scrutiny, Gitmo would have to meet International Human Rights standards. By reframing the Gitmo issue this way Clark keeps hitting on a larger theme, which is that the U.S. is weaker when we go it alone; Bush alienates the world when he insists on running every show his way and his way only; Bush's arrogance is losing America valuable support, it is costing us Billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Clark is selling multilateralism on FOX in terms their base viewers can understand.

[CarolNYC]

74. yep, yep, yep

He's so smart...There's a reason he's appearing on Fox and it's not so us dedicated Dems can sit around and talk about it....He's got a mission and he accomplishes his missions...

[KoKo]

75. Would be nice if our Pres who has a mission could accomplish his...

wouldn't it. I'm glad Clark has accomplished all his missions.

[CarolNYC]

76. hey Koko....

I think you need to brush up on your Clark bashing skills...You seem a little ineffective or desperate sounding or something lately....but hey, you keep going for it. ;)

[Donna Zen]

65. I'll watch it again

My take was that he dodged the question about the average soldier (fox is beamed to the bases in Iraq) and put the blame on the policy makers. He kept saying that word over and over.

[Sparkly]

68. Did we watch the same video?

In what I saw, he returned the focus to policy, refusing to be baited into other discussions.

As I think I said earlier in this thread, people like Hannity will throw out eight different falsehoods or half-truths in a little speech and then ask a loaded question. In his three minutes, he can't address each falsehood or half-truth, most of which would take a separate 20 minutes each.

Somebody else said, "He never refuted the statement that murders were taking place." You say, "He never disputed statements about Bush not following Geneva."

Well, he could have gotten into a partial discussion of those, and Hannity would have responded superficially in return ("Did too," "Did not." "That's not true," "Yes it is.").

What Fox viewers came away with was not what Hannity wanted. Instead, they heard, "This isn't about politics, it's about policy." And no doubt, many of them nodded their heads. They can understand that; they can agree with that.

If you want partisan red meat (and we all love it), you won't find it in Clark's foreign policy analysis on Fox. He's not hitting people over the head with it, but I believe he's persuading them. I heard him say in no uncertain terms what we NEED to do -- which is everything Bush is NOT doing: creating a process, opening things up to international scrutiny, bringing others onboard, etc.

[usregimechange]

66. Are we looking at the next President of the US? What a stand up

guy!

[Clark2008]

71. I like you!

We seem to share similiar political philosophy!! :hi:

[AX10]

72. Thank You!

:hi:

[quaoar]

77. Clark was too nice

He should have reached over and slapped the living shit out of him.