Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Call To Action) on Thu Jan 29th, 2004 at 01:00:13 AM EST
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL
Subject: The "Lieutenant" slander of Clark
It breaks my heart to see someone like you whose opinion I trusted getting into this slander. Are you even aware that Kerry retracted his "outrage" Sunday morning on Face the Nation?
Here's what prompted the "scandalous" statement:
Larry King Show:
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Clark never complained about this one:
MATTHEWS: There are two men in this campaign who are running who have military background. You've got a couple of stars, medals and so does General Clark. Compare you with him.
KERRY: Well I have great respect for General Clark, but he has been a military man all his life. He has been a general.
MATTHEWS: Is he a headquarters guy and you're a field guy?
KERRY: He has generally been. No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career. By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there's an enormous difference between us. I have spent 35 years-you know when I came back from Vietnam, I stood up and fought against the war. I've...
MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn't in action?
KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...
MATTHEWS: Right.
KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I'm not disrespectful of General Clark, but there's a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There's also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America.
I have served on the Narcotics Terrorism Committee as chairman. I wrote a book about-called "The New War". I have been involved in opening the Philippines and getting rid of Marcos and bringing Cory Aquino to power. I personally negotiated in Cambodia in order to try to get the tribunals for.
http://msnbc.msn.com/?id=3053419
On Face the Nation Sunday , Kerry said they cleared up the misunderstanding and that the campaign should not be fought on this ground. Sounded gracious, but he thought nothing of letting the slur hang later on in the 60 minutes interview. Not very honorable.
Clark's last word on this:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/27/wbr.00.html
CLARK: Well, I think John Kerry did a fine job in Vietnam. I was there about the same time. I also was a junior officer in Vietnam. I was a company commander.
snip
BLITZER: Do you owe John Kerry a little bit of an apology for sort of that tone of what you said?
CLARK: I think that John Kerry and I have already had that discussion.
And it's very clear that -- my son was a lieutenant and I was a lieutenant. And no Democrat and no Republican will ever drive a wedge between me and our nation's veterans. It's just that simple.
I am surprised that someone like you, knowledgeable in the media bias and its destructive power is joining the pack. Check your facts.
Clark always talked respectfully of Kerry. Kerry on the other hand beamed as a veteran was repeating Shelton's smears about Clark. How can you endorse and perpetrate this?
I was admiring you so much after "Clinton Wars" - but now I am bitterly disappointed.
**
"Is America ready for another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas?
"I hope so. We make the best presidents!"
Letter to Sidney Blumenthal - Lieutenant slander | 4 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Ocelot's letter (#4) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 04:05:08 PM EST
Reply
(#116) (Rated 5.00/5)
by Ocelot on 01/29/2004 03:32:59 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I just sent this letter to Sidney Blumental, c/o Salon.com. Sorry it's kind of long, but I was pretty steamed.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
Although I have long been a fan of yours, I was deeply dismayed and disappointed to read your recent opinion piece at Salon.com in which - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you cavalierly dismiss General Wesley Clark as an "amateur" who has been essentially eliminated from contention in the primaries. Those of us - and there are many - who have been working diligently on General Clark's campaign have become rather accustomed to something of a media blackout. Somehow, it has been decided by you media pundits (though not by the voters, not by a long shot) that General Clark is not a serious contender. This has been decided even though his poll numbers remain solid, and despite the fact that even though the campaign in the southern states has just begun, he has an excellent chance of winning in many of those states. For some reason, though, the media coverage has ranged from dismissive to downright vicious, a fact that utterly baffles me.
Why have so many of you decided to try to marginalize the one candidate who probably has the best chance of prevailing against George Bush in the general election? Is it because your imaginations are so limited that you can't conceive of the possibility that an "amateur" - that is, someone who is not a career politician - could successfully run for president? Is it because the continued success of your own careers depends upon access to established Washington hacks like Kerry and Edwards? Are all of you just too lazy to do your own independent evaluations of a candidate and his campaign instead of just repeating what all of the other pundits have just said, in an endless chorus of "me, too; me, too"? I have no doubt that some commentators simply want another four years of Bush; their agenda is obvious. But you? I just don't get it. The motive escapes me.
First, you write: "Clark insisted on being drafted to run by a committee that had been created for that purpose." Clark didn't "insist" upon being drafted. He was, in fact, rather reluctant to give up his new career in business. For the very first time in his life he was becoming financially successful. He had no real reason to want to run for president, but over 50,000 people pestered and argued and cajoled until he decided, once again, to pursue a path of public service - even though he had already spent 34 years of his life doing exactly that. For you to suggest that the draft movement was his idea is insulting and just plain wrong. For that accusation alone you owe him an apology.
You also write that "[t]he elements that Clark sought to assemble were held by others: Kerry owned electability; Edwards, Southern identity; and Dean, the Washington outsider. A man of parts, Clark was left in pieces." Parts? In pieces? Excuse me? Clark has all of those qualities - electability, Southern identity and outsider status. None of the others has what Clark has. Kerry, notwithstanding his military background, is just an old-style Washington politician who during his career has managed to miss something like 60% of the votes in the Senate, including the recent vote on the Omnibus bill. Kerry was too busy campaigning in New Hampshire to try to stop the Republican majority from taking away workers' rights to overtime pay. Clark, in contrast, gave up four days of his campaign in order to testify against the war criminla Milosevic. And his electability is probably limited to the Northeast. To the rest of the country, especially the South, he will be shown to be another unelectable Northern liberal like Mondale and Dukakis. Edwards has Southern identity - period. He is glib and attractive, but has been a senator for only one term. He has no foreign policy credentials and precious little else. And Dean, the so-called "outsider," has spent most of the last few weeks currying favor with the insiders, like Al Gore. Moreover, despite all that sucking up, if anyone's campaign is in trouble clearly it's Dean's. Clark has all of these incomplete candidates' "electable" qualities - hardly a candidate in pieces.
You go on to accuse Clark of "attempting to pull rank" by dismissing Kerry "as a mere lieutenant." Did you actually hear that exchange? It's been spun by the lazy media into something it clearly was not. Bob Dole, long known for his nasty, snarky "wit," rudely and disrespectfully suggested to Clark that after Iowa, Kerry was now the general and he (Clark) was just a colonel. Dole, himself a veteran, clearly intended the insult. Clark (also hampered somewhat by evident difficulty in hearing clearly through his earpiece) was simply responding to the insulting metaphor Dol;e used to describe Kerry's recent political success, and not disprespecting Kerry's service. In fact, Clark has always been complimentary and respectful of that service.
And then you criticize him for failing to distance himself from Michael Moore's claim that Bush was a deserter. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that Moore is not a "self-promoting left-wing comedian," but has achieved some deserved attention as an effective and increasingly popular liberal polemicist at a time when left-wing polemicists are desperately needed to counter the lies and venom of the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The more important point is that Clark rightly refused to repudiate Moore's claim because he felt he had no right or obligation to try to censor the opinions of those who support him, and also lacked factual information sufficient for him to agree or disagree with Moore's allegations. Indeed, there are substantial facts suggesting that Moore may be correct.But it's the job of the news media - which, so far, has been pitifully lazy and ineffective in following up on this issue -- to get to the truth. I would add that since nobody has ever asked Bush to disavow the constant smears perpetrated by some of his supporters - such as Ann Coulter's insistence that all liberals and Democrats are traitors - why should Clark or any other candidate be held to any different standard? Clark did exactly what an honorable person should have done under the circumstances; he owes no explanation or apology to anyone. Had he repudiated Moore I would have been disappointed in him.
We have seen far too much of this kind of dismissive commentary about General Clark from the right wing, probably because a Clark candidacy really is Karl Rove's worst nightmare. But to see it coming from those on the left, as well, is beyond disappointing. I am not about to give up on this campaign because I, and many others, are absolutely certain that any chance of evicting George Bush from the White House will be lost, and the Democratic Party with it, if the nominee is anyone other than General Clark. I desperately hope that you and other liberal writers (I expect nothing from those on the right) will find your intellectual honesty again and write a truly fair evaluation of this most qualified candidate.
Thank you.
Link: (#3) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 03:05:28 PM EST
Parent | Reply
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/01/29/clark_lieberman/
Excellent letter. (#2) (No rating)
by snyttri on 01/29/2004 01:43:07 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Blumenthal owes you a response to your sound reasoning.
Great Letter Robbed (#1) (No rating)
by Sybil on 01/29/2004 01:38:58 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Is there a link to Blumenthal's statement? I haven't heard about this, what did he say?
No comments:
Post a Comment