Neocon media rapid response has targeted Gen. Clark for attacking Limbaugh today


Hello Everyone:

Here is the link to watch Gen. Clark being interviewed by Meredith Vieira on the Today Show this morning:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13508

Wes on The Today Show 10/03/07

Submitted by Ruth on October 3, 2007 - 8:41am.

Rush Limbaugh's apologists have already responded to Gen. Clark's interview with Meredith Vieira on the Today Show this morning.  Please see the Neocon "NewsBusters" media rapid response article right below titled "Wesley Clark: Whack Rush from Military Radio; Vieira: Treat Him Like 'Annoying Gnat'" where they put their spin on that interview!

The main reason why extreme right wing talk radio is so effective even when Bush is messing up so badly is because millions of extreme right wing ideologues in the Neocon GOP activist base (who are led by Rush Limbaugh) do not miss anything of importance that is said in the news media or on the blogosphere and THEY ARE VERY ORGANIZED in their efforts to publicly respond to it with their spin as these Neocon websites and blogs will verify:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

http://www.newsbusters.org/

http://media.nationalreview.com/

http://www.townhall.com/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

http://www.instapundit.com/

http://www.newsmax.com/

http://www.drudgereport.com/

No Democrats I have seen so far are this organized and they have taken Limbaugh's bullying tactics for years with very little to no response!  

Make no mistake about it that when anyone with name recognition publicly takes on Rush Limbaugh in the media, then they are taking on the leader of the extreme right wing media who ALWAYS fights back very hard against his political enemies along with the many millions of people who he controls almost like a cult leader:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12727#comment-244744

Rush Limbaugh's response to the "Phony Soldiers" comments:

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 1, 2007 - 8:08am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13497#comment-245223

Rush Limbaugh has his apologists in the Neocon GOP blogosphere:

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 3, 2007 - 7:28am.

Democrats and media pundits just cannot underestimate how powerful that Rush Limbaugh really is:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12782

DOCUMENTATION: Rush Limbaugh claims to & controls who the GOP nominee will be!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 25, 2007 - 11:58pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12971

Bush met with 10 Neocon talk radio hosts and in private with Rush Limbaugh!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 9, 2007 - 3:28am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7735

ANALYSIS & DOCUMENTATION: PEW stats on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly & the Media!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 1, 2006 - 3:29am.

You also cannot pick a fight with Rush Limbaugh and then not follow through with it where he gets the last word in because that will only empower him and it also makes him appear to be more credible to his 20 million plus listening audience.  John Kerry made that mistake and the media also did that when Limbaugh was brought up during the Imus controversy and then there was no follow up to it:

http://securing.advomatic.com/ccn/node/7662

DOCUMENTATION: John Kerry finally takes a public stand against Rush Limbaugh!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 27, 2006 - 6:40am. 

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11762

Keith Olbermann asks good questions about Imus leading to the Fairness Doctrine!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 4:35pm.

Believe me when I tell you that even though Limbaugh and his followers are wrong on most of the issues and are sold out to extreme Neoconservative ideology, they are not stupid and they also do not miss very much!  

They live, breathe, and thrive to spin everything that they hear in the news media and on the blogosphere their way and Democrats have NOTHING in place set up that I can see which is organized on a national level that can put up any kind of a serious fight against them.  This is why I talk about Limbaugh and the extreme right wing media issue so much and that is also why I definitely think that Democrats have to work much harder than the Neocon GOP activists do to try and effectively connect a somewhat detailed and complex message with the public!

I know that this kind of trash is not very pleasant to look at BUT it will definitely NOT go away by our just ignoring it!

When the other side controls most of the media, then we have to fight back as hard as we can and not let them define who our candidates are which is how the extreme right wing is winning many elections at the ballot box when they would probably not be if the impressionable people who were voting knew better!

If Democrats had not let Rush Limbaugh and people like him become so powerful and influential in the first place and if they ever did something serious and credible about it to fight back in an organized manner on a national level, then we would probably not be in the bad position that we are in where we are losing the media war to a bunch of extreme and very dangerous Neocon ideologues right now:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11479

ZOGBY: 83% of voters think that the media is biased; Democrats seem to be losing

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 16, 2007 - 1:25pm.

I have four bottom line conclusions to this post:

1) No attack on Gen. Clark can ever go unanswered.  If you do not credibly respond to Limbaugh and to extreme right wing media attacks, then you are as good as allowing Limbaugh and those people to define him however they choose to!  I have always defended Gen. Clark from every one of Limbaugh's attacks that I have seen:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12727#comment-244230

Limbaugh has attacked Gen. Clark by calling him "Ashley Wilkes"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 28, 2007 - 11:47am.

2) Rush Limbaugh and other extreme right wing talk radio show hosts greatly fear the Fairness Doctrine being brought back.  You could say that is a type of "Kryptonite" to them which will get their immediate attention:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10583

Limbaugh & Hannity react to Democrats trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 2:51pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12446

Center for American Progress: "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 21, 2007 - 1:41pm. 

I am pretty sure that Hillary plans on trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine if she becomes President and the extreme right wing media is NOT very happy about even the possibility of that happening:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12455

AUDIO: Sen. Inhofe says Clinton & Boxer want a "legislative fix" for talk radio!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 22, 2007 - 1:45pm. 

We need to do all that we can to try and bring this up as a very serious issue in my opinion:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12110

Nancy Pelosi is going after Rush Limbaugh & Company with The Fairness Doctrine!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 15, 2007 - 2:10pm.

3) It should not be a big surprise to anyone that Gen. Clark has taken the lead in going after Rush Limbaugh:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191

Listen to Wes Clark fight for Dems on Hannity

Submitted by larry on June 22, 2006 - 7:57pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191#comment-111351

Gen. Clark on media response from 2/11/05 when I saw him speak!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 23, 2006 - 5:35am. 

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clarks_feeling_on_media_co.html

Wes Clark's feeling on Media Consolidation

"We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."

4) Rush Limbaugh has made many mistakes and circumstances have come up where he is especially vulnerable to legitimate attacks right now in my opinion:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13497 

ANALYSIS: Why Rush Limbaugh is especially vulnerable to attack right now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 2, 2007 - 9:44am.

Rush Limbaugh has issued this direct challenge to his political opponents that has largely gone unanswered which I think that Democrats, Non-Neoconservative Republicans, and the media have a very clear opening to answer right now:  

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184342,00.html

Transcript: Rush Limbaugh on 'Your World'

Thursday, February 09, 2006

LIMBAUGH: "Neil, there is a new media out there today that doesn't let the left get away with defining the news, defining the circumstances, defining personalities and so forth.

And they haven't learned how to deal with it. They haven't learned how to deal with people like me, the problems they think FOX News causes, and everybody else. They are still in their 30-year-old playbook, in which they think they still — all they have to do is, you know, portray somebody they want to portray them, and the American people will see it, swallow it, and like it..."

We are in for a real fight with Rush Limbaugh and his followers now that it has been started so we must be ready to answer this challenge immediately!

Also, the more that Rush Limbaugh can be weakened right now, the less influence that he will have over the 2008 election which will definitely help to stop another Neocon Republican ideologue from picking up right where Bush leaves off on 1/20/09 in my opinion!  

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

--------------------

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/03/wesley-clark-whack-rush-military-radio-vieira-treat-him-annoying-g

Wesley Clark: Whack Rush from Military Radio; Vieira: Treat Him Like 'Annoying Gnat'



By Mark Finkelstein | October 3, 2007 - 08:27 ET


Ah, those diversity-loving liberals. You know, the kind who would stifle free speech with their Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine," who threaten legal action against mom-and-pop T-shirt makers who criticize MoveOn.org. Now, Wesley Clark would take things one step further, whacking Rush Limbaugh off the Armed Forces Radio airwaves.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGRjZDJkZTliYzk5MWY3YWM0NDhlMzY1MWFiYTZkYTc=

"Today" co-anchor Meredith Vieira interviewed the retired general and former Dem presidential candidate on this morning's show.



MEREDITH VIEIRA: He wants Congress to pull Rush Limbaugh off the Armed Forces Radio Network, which is funded by taxpayers . . . You started this email campaign to get Limbaugh off the Armed Forces radio. It is a drastic step. Why do you think it is necessary?

WESLEY CLARK: Because I think that his comments just cross the line. I think there's a lot people serving in Iraq, a lot of veterans who served, a lot of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have thoughts about the war that aren't necessarily in agreement with President Bush. That's their right as American citizens, it doesn't mean they weren't great soliders, it doesn't mean they weren't or aren't doing their duty to the best of their ability. I just think when you characterize the qualities of these people it crosses the line. Now, I think that when it crosses the line and it's free speech, that's fine. When it crosses the line, it's put on and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, I think that's another matter.

VIEIRA: You know, to make it to general, you have to be a pretty tough cookie. I'm sure there are some people who would ask you, why don't you just brush off these comments by Limbaugh like an annoying gnat instead of legitimizing them and bringing more attention to them?

CLARK: I don't think it legitimizes them. I think it's a matter of balance.

Balance? Is that really what Clark's interested in? He went on to allude to Rush having called Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) "Dung-Heap Harkin." But Clark made no mention of the fact that Rush did so in response to Harkin having speculated on the floor of the Senate that Rush was on drugs when he spoke of "phony soldiers."

And speaking of balance, why don't we check the line-up of Armed Services Radio. Yes, Rush is there, along with Sean Hannity and James Dobson. But they are more than balanced by Alan Colmes, Jim Hightower, NPR, Katie Couric's Notebook and lots of CNN and AP.

http://myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil/AFNRadio.aspx

Clark claimed that he was making his proposal because our soldiers can't defend themselves from unfair attacks. "They're over there putting themselves in harm's way. They deserve a little bit of respect. And that respect should be in the dialogue of people who are broadcasting on Armed Forces Radio Network to our soldiers."

Please. Does Clark actually believe that many soldiers feel Rush disrespects them, or that they would want him pulled off the air? The people disrespecting our soldiers are those like Jack Murtha and John Kerry, who have accused our soldiers in Iraq of being murderers and terrorists. Would Clark yank C-SPAN off the air, too?

And note that Vieira, far from challenging Clark's false assumption that Rush intended to criticize all anti-war soldiers, merely strategized with the retired general on how best to delegitimize America's most popular talk radio host.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
          

Mark Finkelstein's blog
Login or register to post comments
Printer friendly version
Topics:
Afghanistan
Censorship
Fairness Doctrine
Foreign Policy
Iraq
Military
Meredith Vieira
Rush Limbaugh
Wesley Clark
Associated Press
CNN
NBC
NPR
Today

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 3, 2007 - 10:29am.
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 3, 2007 - 10:33am.

http://newsbusters.org/people/wesley-clark

Wesley Clark

They just started this link responding to Gen. Clark on September 20, 2007.

Gen. Clark's supporters need to know what his Neocon political enemies are publicly saying about him in order to be able to best defend him in my opinion!

Submitted by CherylP in Minnesota on October 3, 2007 - 12:55pm.

It's always proof positive that you are hitting a vein when you make the top billing on the rightwing news site NewsMax. Today....General Clark's post on HuffingtonPost made it! Way to really get a jab in!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 3, 2007 - 10:24pm.

This is the nonsense and stupidity that over 20 million people heard on Rush Limbaugh's radio program today:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100307/content/01125106.guest.html

"Phony Soldiers" Smear Rolls On; The Mad Bomber of Bosnia Attacks

October 3, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The phony soldier smear is going on out there -- so we are forced to continue, not really forced, because it's an opportunity to continue to discuss this.  Today, all over television after posting on the Internet yesterday, was the mad bomber of Bosnia.  That would be General Wesley Clark known affectionately here as Ashley Wilkes.  General Clark is lying through his teeth today.  His impetus, purpose for going on television, is to get me taken off of Armed Forces Radio.  On MSNBC this morning, General Clark said that I have a long history of disrespect and criticism of uniformed military personnel, a long history.  This is Kafkaesque.  The Hillary Clinton front group, Media Matters for America, has taken two of my words, "phony soldiers," and used hundreds and thousands of words now to manipulate it into a smear.  

They are even saying I selectively edited a minute-and-a-half from my show transcript to hide some nefarious thing.  I hid nothing.  The edit was simply for substance and brevity.  What happened was I was talking to this caller, Mike, and we discussed the phony soldiers thing, and he wanted to go talk about the weapons of mass destruction.  He starts talking.  While he's talking -- and you people watching the Dittocam saw this -- I'm waving in to Mr. Snerdley and I'm on the IFB, I'm talking to him, nobody else can hear me because it mutes my microphone going out. I said, "Print out the phony soldier commentary for me that we did yesterday; print it out."  So he printed it out, the caller is vamping and going on, I'm reaching back to the printer, I grab the update, said, "Look, I don't want to talk about weapons of mass destruction, Mike, it's moot right now, doesn't have any relation, we're there, this is about something much more."  

Then I read the commentary.  The minute-thirty-seven was simply vamping to pick up the commentary off the printer from Mr. Snerdley's computer in the other room.  They're trying to make some big scandal out of that.  So now I am also hiding from you truthful, in their minds, evidence that I have referred to all of these soldiers who disagree with the war as phony soldiers, which was never uttered, was never said.  I'll tell you what's happening here.  Bill Bennett put this well to me in an e-mail today.  He said, "We've reached a new day when anything said, no matter how violently torn from context, is presented however one wishes and accepted as fact by the interpreter. It is the death of meaning."  I'll tell you what else this is.  This is a reflection on the thinking and tactics that will be employed with the full weight and power of the federal government, should Hillary Clinton become president, because all of these people that are working at these front groups that she has founded, along with George Soros, are going to end up being her administration.  

They are going to be rewarded with high government positions, from where they can unleash investigations on people that they want to deal with one way or the other.  So what we have here is a dry run, sort of a rehearsal for if she wins, the little people at Media Matters for America, and John Podesta will be back as chief of staff, The Center for American Progress, all these different think tanks and organizations she's set up, these are little schools for people to learn how to conduct investigations on people that Mrs. Clinton doesn't want to deal with.  So that's what's happening here.  This is also a great example for the campaign 2008 playbook.  Now, back to General Clark.  We have a couple of sound bites from General Clark from the Today show today.  Here is Wesley Clark, Meredith Vieira talking to him, says, "You started this e-mail campaign to get Limbaugh off the Armed Forces Radio.  It's a drastic step.  Why do you think it's necessary?"

CLARK:  His comments just cross the line.  I think there's a lot of people serving in Iraq, a lot of veterans who have served, a lot of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan who have thoughts about the war that aren't necessarily in agreement with President Bush.  That's their right as American citizens.  It doesn't mean they weren't great soldiers.

RUSH:  And it doesn't mean that I have ever criticized them as soldiers.  I've never criticized them as phony or anything else.  Never, never, never, never, General Clark.  There is no long history of me showing disrespect and criticism for uniformed military personnel.  I'll tell you what, another thing going on here is you've got all these watchdogs, but who examines them for honesty and credibility?  Why is it that the watchdogs are simply accepted as infallible instantly after they publish something?  I think that it's because they're all liberals on the other side of this.  It's amazing what people who really wanted to learn about this could learn, just visit my website, or even better, listen to the program, rather than these little excerpts that they're playing.  It's really surreal.  When they play the excerpt, I'm talking to the caller, and I say, "yeah, phony soldiers."  From that we've got this?  We've got denunciations on the House floor.  We've got a condemnation letter sent by Senator Reid and a denunciation on the Senate floor, from two words?  

In fact, some of the Drive-Bys are getting a little upset now that I'm occupying so much attention.  All morning long on MSNBC they've been asking their guests, "Why are we focusing on Limbaugh here? Look, we want to get out of Iraq and why isn't Congress doing anything about it?"  And that's the crux of this.  Congress can't get us out of Iraq.  If we've got 72%, or whatever the number is of people in the country, saying they want the war to end, how come the Democrats can't pull it off?  They're trying to distract from their own failures.  They're trying to distract from lying and deceiving their own believers, their own kook lunatic fringe.  That's all they're doing is trying to muddy the waters so people don't understand what's going on. They're just feeding them red meat because they can't follow through on their commitments and their promises.  So people are starting to wonder -- and the Drive-Bys, it's a little jealousy.  

You have to understand this, that most everybody else in the Drive-By Media would love to be censored on the floor of the Senate.  They would love that kind of attention.  They would love to be able to stir things up like -- (interruption) what?  People don't believe that?  You think people don't believe that?  Mr. Snerdley is telling me that you people mostly won't believe that.  Do you realize I'm getting e-mails from people, "Would you quit hogging the limelight?  You know, I got a book out this week and you're distracting from it.  How come you always do this?  How come I can't get this kind of attention?" I'm telling you, the Drive-Bys would love this kind of thing; they would love to be censored.  They loved being on Nixon's enemies list, for example.  It's the same thing.  By the way, Dingy Harry sent his letter. He asked all these senators to sign the letter to Clear Channel's chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and asked him to force me to apologize and to admit that I had said something so over the top.  He got 41 senators to sign it.  Not even all the Democrats.  No Republicans signed it.  

Now, some people say, "Senate condemns Limbaugh."  Bottom line, it's another Dingy Harry failure!  It's another Dingy Harry defeat.  He could not even get all the Democrats to sign the letter, folks.  Forty-one out of 100 senators is all that signed it, and no Republicans?  So he sends the letter to the chairman and the CEO of Clear Channel, who responded to it, page-and-a-half, it's on our website if you want to read it, and basically -- well, I'll just read it.  Basically it just says, look, Senator, we believe in the First Amendment here, and we're not going to impose.  Mr. Limbaugh has said what he meant, and that's it.  I think they sent the letter trying to -- Reid sent it out so fast trying to put this behind him.  So it's a huge defeat and failure for Harry Reid.  MSNBC reported this morning that their Capitol Hill correspondent reported that the House Democrat resolution has been put on the back burner because the Republicans have a competing resolution ready to go if the House Democrats offer theirs.  So they may be in retreat up on Capitol Hill.  They're not in retreat at Media Matters for America.  They're still over there trying to gin this up for a host of reasons.  I've got a couple more sound bites that I want to play for you, first from Wesley Clark and then Ted Koppel.  Here's the second bite from the Today Show today.  Meredith Vieira says, "What response have you been getting to your e-mail campaign to get Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio?"

CLARK:  It's a good response.  We've had 15,000 people come back and sign up on the website.  There are a lot of people out there who see this as an important issue where Congress should set the tone in condemning this kind of rhetoric which disparages our men and women in uniform.

RUSH:  They got more votes to condemn MoveOn.org in the Senate than they got to condemn me.  This just frosts them.  General Clark here -- Ashley Wilkes -- was asked, "Why should Congress be refereeing?"  "Well, we've gotta have the other side represented here.  If we're going to condemn MoveOn.org, we've gotta condemn Limbaugh, because Limbaugh has a long history of disrespecting and abusing uniformed military personnel."  They're throwing their hands up, "Is this what Congress does, referees disputes?  Why in the world don't we just get out of Iraq?"  "Well, I think we should get out of Iraq obviously, but we need civil discourse in this country."  It's just funny to watch these people make total blithering idiots of themselves.  Ted Koppel on the Today Show, following Ashley Wilkes, the mad bomber of Bosnia, Matt Lauer talked to him, said, "I watched you smiling as we were just discussing this Rush Limbaugh thing, and with all due respect to the general and to Rush Limbaugh and the members of Congress, is this really, in your opinion, what Americans want their senators to be talking about on the floor of the US Senate?"

KOPPEL:  No, let's have them focus on something really important.  It's ridiculous.  I cannot understand.  I mean, this is not the first time Rush Limbaugh has said controversial things or foolish things, and certainly not the first time I've said foolish things, but if that's the best that the US Senate can find to debate and discuss, God help us.

RUSH:  (laughing)  Putting it in perspective.  Now, General Clark, let's talk about him just a second here before we go to the break, the mad bomber of Bosnia.  Is this the same Wesley Clark who did nothing to try to prevent the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans?  Is this the same Wesley Clark who was in a position to insist the Clinton administration and the United Nations send help to that region to try to stop the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans?  Is this the same Wesley Clark who has never had to answer for his indifference to that genocide, and, worse, in the face of this genocide, in a public investigation, has never had to answer for it?  Is this the same Wesley Clark who was once a Republican who supported President Bush but then changed parties so he could run for president and then attack President Bush?  Is this the same Wesley Clark who could not muster any popular support for his hilarious run for the presidency?  

You see, this is why the mad bomber of Bosnia can't read a transcript or listen to an audio and speak truthfully about them.  He's no longer a general.  He's just another in a long line of liberal hacks, ladies and gentlemen.  Now, General Clark, we all appreciate your service in the military, but what you're doing now has nothing to do with your service.  It has to do with your decision to play mud ball with the left.  I don't know about you, Mr. Clark, but I go to bed at night with zero problems.  How do you sleep, sir?  How do you and the rest of the Clinton administration sleep knowing you did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm going to go back, I'm going to stay on the mad bomber of Bosnia for a moment, ladies and gentlemen, and that is General Wesley Clark.  Do you remember, Michael Moore called George W. Bush a deserter, and Wesley Clark stood up for Michael Moore's right to say that?  This is a NewsMax story, January 22nd, 2004, during General Clark's ill-fated run at the Democratic presidential candidacy.  "In a response that could turn out to be General Clark's worst blunder yet..." and that's a tough call, because there were so many of them, "...the presidential hopeful said his supporter, firebrand filmmaker and propagandist Michael Moore, had a right to call President Bush a military deserter."  We have the audio sound bite.  It was a debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, January 22nd, 2004.  Peter Jennings said, "General Clark, this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends.  The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you, was the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore.  You said you were delighted with him.  At one point Mr. Moore said in front of you that President Bush, saying that he'd like to see you, the general, President Bush, to be called a deserter.  Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts, and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you think it would have been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so."

CLARK:  Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.  But to me it wasn't material.  This election is going to be about the future, Peter, and what we have to do is pull this country together.  And I'm delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, a great American leader, like Senator George McGovern, and people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former secretary of the Navy, John Dalton.  We've got support from across the breadth of the Democratic Party, because I believe this party is united --

RUSH:  All right.

CLARK:  -- in wanting to change --

RUSH:  That's enough of that.  We got to the point of it.  So General Clark is fully supportive of someone's free speech rights to call the president of the United States a deserter, which is a lie.  It's this old National Guard story, folks, that they had to cook up forged documents to try to convince people were accurate.  By the way, that Dan Rather forged document story may as well come out of Media Matters.  It's the kind of stuff that's happening now.  Accuse people of doing things they didn't do, accuse people of saying things they didn't say, accuse people of meaning things they didn't mean.  Liberals have not yet won the right to define meaning from the words people say.  They have appropriated that right for themselves, and it's not going to stand, folks.  

So here is a giant hypocrite, General Clark, who sat around and did nothing during a genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, the mad bomber of Bosnia, fully in support of Michael Moore's right to lie under the context and the pretext of the First Amendment.  And yet General Clark's all over television yesterday and today, suggesting that I need to be taken off of Armed Forces Radio because I have a long history of disrespect and criticism for the brave men and women in the United States military.  No more ridiculous, worthless, totally untrue charge could be made.  But he is making it.  Now, Peter Jennings, after the answer that you just heard from the mad bomber of Bosnia, said, "Let me ask you about something you mentioned, then, because this question and answer which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you had a chance to look at the facts.  You still feel comfortable with the fact that somebody should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?"

CLARK:  To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter.  I -- you know, that's Michael Moore's opinion.  He's entitled to say that.  I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that.  I have not followed up on those facts, and, frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.

RUSH:  (raspberry) Down the tubes went General Clark's campaign.  He really was never a serious candidate in that race, but this finished it off.  So there he's admitting the facts don't matter to him.  He didn't look at the facts.  No, this guy can say what he wants.  When it comes to me, didn't look at the facts.  He's out there making an absolute blithering fool of himself, doesn't even know it.  I really think in his case he doesn't know it.  I think he's that dense.  I think he is that lazy.  I think he's become a political hack now, trying to get noticed, speech fees, this sort of stuff, getting all the accolades from the kook lunatic fringe out there that loves these kinds of guys.  Here he is admitting in 2004 the facts didn't matter; free speech is all that mattered.  But now, in my case, free speech doesn't matter, as well as the facts not mattering.  (laughing)  Thank you, General Clark.  You people on the left are making this too easy. 

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

NewsBusters: Wesley Wants Rush Whacked from Military Radio. Vieira: Treat Him Like 'Annoying Gnat'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/03/wesley-clark-whack-rush-military-radio-vieira-treat-him-annoying-g

NewsBusters: FNC Shows Democrats Criticizing Troops: 'Who Said That? Not Rush Limbaugh!'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/10/03/fnc-shows-democrats-criticizing-troops-who-said-not-rush-limbaugh

Radio Equalizer: Rolling Along. Smear Train's Next Stop: Land of Make-Believe

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/10/anti-rush-limbaugh-smear-campaign.html

NRO: Limbaugh Makes His Case; He's Got the Story on the "Phony Soldiers" if Anyone Will Listen - Byron York

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY

NRO: Phony-Soldier Sympathizers Stoke a Phony Controversy - Andrew C. McCarthy

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGY5ZTBmNDgzM2M1YzRiYjc5Y2ZlYjJlYmFhYWVlYjE=

American Thinker: Phony Soldiers, Phony Outrage, and Phony Patriotism - Chrisopher G. Adamo

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/phony_soldiers_phony_outrage_a.html

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 9, 2007 - 10:45pm.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21132630/

'Tucker' for Oct. 3
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Updated: 11:32 a.m. CT Oct 4, 2007

Guests: Wesley Clark, Paul Waldman, Joshua Green, Kate O‘Beirne

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: What began as an item on a left wing Web site has evolved into a full-blown battle between Rush Limbaugh and Democrats, all the way up to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid.

Welcome to the show.

A week ago, Limbaugh used the term “phony soldiers,” and depending upon whom you believe, he was describing either soldiers who lie about their service in the Iraq war or military veterans who criticize that war.

Among those to attack the talk show host, Senator Harry Reid, who demanded an apology to the men and women of the armed services; the antiwar group VoteVets.org, which produced a television ad attacking Limbaugh; and retired Army General Wesley Clark, who wrote on The Huffington Post that Congress ought to pull Limbaugh‘s show from armed forces radio.

Both Limbaugh and his employer, Clear Channel Communications, remain defiant and vehement in their position that Mr. Limbaugh has been misquoted, that his “phony soldier” comment referred to a specific soldier, Jesse MacBeth, an antiwar veteran now convicted of falsifying his record of service to include combat duty and a Purple Heart.

Limbaugh attacked back on all fronts, including this response to General Wesley Clark.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Is this the same Wesley Clark who was in a position—he was in a position to insist the Clinton administration and the United Nations send help to that region, try to stop the mass murder of 800,000? Is this the same Wesley Clark who has never had to answer for his indifference to that genocide. And worse, in the face of this genocide, in a public investigation, has never had to answer for it? Is this the same Wesley Clark who was once a Republican who supported President Bush but then changed parties so he could run for president and then attack President Bush?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, who is telling the truth? Who‘s right? And in any case, why are U.S. senators spending their workdays discussing a radio talk show host?

In a moment, General Clark will join us, as will a representative of mediamatters.org, the blog that started this tempest.

Also today, Senator Hillary Clinton‘s lead over Barack Obama has ballooned to 33 percent in latest national poll taken by “The Washington Post”. Is there anything at this point she could do to blow it?

And the security contractor Blackwater has attracted congressional scrutiny this week in the wake of deadly gun battle in Baghdad. We‘ll talk to a former Blackwater executive about that organization‘s role in the war in Iraq.

We begin today with the high-pitched screaming match between Limbaugh and many of the pillars of Democratic leadership.

To begin our discussion, we welcome the man right in the middle of it, MSNBC military analyst, retired U.S. Army General, Wesley Clark.

General Clark, thanks for coming on.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you, Tucker.

Good to be here.

CARLSON: Here is part of what you wrote on The Huffington Post. You said this—“Since Rush Limbaugh won‘t listen to us, we‘re going directly to Congress, which can prevent him from disrespecting and censoring the voices of our soldiers.”

Now, with all respect, that‘s almost Orwellian. You‘re accusing him of censorship and at the same time attempting to censor him by taking him off the air.

CLARK: Well, I think he‘s—he‘s crossed the line, Tucker. But the point is you‘re dealing with a right wing guy who contributes to a really bad environment of public dialogue in America.

Even the three things you quoted about me aren‘t true. I‘ve answered many times for Rwanda, it‘s in my book. I‘ve said it many times.

I was never a Republican. I never supported George W. Bush. And, yes, I have attacked him.

But Rush doesn‘t care about the facts. That‘s not the point. The point is the manner of the dialogue.

You know when Congress took that resolution a couple of weeks ago against the organization MoveOn.org for what they said about General Petraeus, I thought, well, that‘s a distraction from what they should be talking about, which is the problems in Iraq and the Middle East. But Congress said, no, no, this kind of—this kind of bad, bad publicity about our armed forces, it can‘t be tolerated. This goes beyond the bounds of propriety and political dialogue and discourse, even though MoveOn paid for the ad, and paid for it in a private organization like “The New York Times”.

CARLSON: But wait...

CLARK: Wait, wait, wait, Tucker.

CARLSON: OK.

CLARK: Now, Rush comes back from the other side and calls people who disagree with his political views who served honorably in the armed forces “phony soldiers”. And then there‘s no outcry. Now look, we need...

CARLSON: What do you mean there‘s no outcry? We‘re doing a show on it right now. Now, hold on.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Wait, General, you‘re skipping over the point that—you may be absolutely right. And I will grant you all of that. My problem is your solution. You want to sensor him and take him off the air.

CLARK: I‘m not censoring him. I‘m not censoring him.

CARLSON: Actually, you are.

CLARK: No, he has every right...

CARLSON: Let me read this right here. It says...

CLARK: ... to be on the air, except on Armed Forces Radio. Armed Forces Radio is paid for by the public.

CARLSON: So it should only have voices you agree with? I mean, how does that work?

CLARK: Let him have his own private—because if he‘s on private radio, and it‘s for-profit let him say whatever he wants, provided it‘s in the balance of propriety.

CARLSON: But wait a second...

CLARK: If he‘s on public radio, that‘s a different matter. That‘s the U.S. government paying for this.

CARLSON: Oh, but that‘s not the way—oh, now, General, you know from running for president and working on public policy, that‘s not the way it works. You can‘t say that National Public Radio, the other public radio entity, I disagree with what you say, we‘re going to shut you down. We‘re going to take certain host off the air.

CLARK: It‘s not that you disagree with what he says—I don‘t disagree with the substance of political discourse on these radios. I say he crossed the line in maligning the character of people in the armed forces.

CARLSON: OK. Well, others disagree. Well, but wait a second.

Shouldn‘t we be able to disagree?

CLARK: Well, then we should be talking about that.

CARLSON: OK. Well, we are, but you‘re trying to take him off the air, which is different than having a dialogue. It‘s suppressing speech.

CLARK: I‘m not suppressing speech. I‘m saying that in terms of having U.S. government pay to transmit that, that there should be some standards of political dialogue in America.

CARLSON: And what would those be and who would decide? Would you decide?

CLARK: I‘d like to see the Congress decide. Congress decided that MoveOn‘s ad was out of bonds. I think Congress ought to decide...

CARLSON: But Congress didn‘t try to shut down their Web site. That‘s the difference.

CLARK: Their Web site was private. Congress wasn‘t paying for their Web site.

CARLSON: No, but wait a second. Wait a second. So you‘re...

CLARK: I‘m not suggesting we shut down Rush‘s radio program unless he doesn‘t—but I‘m saying that there‘s no reason for the American—but listen, I‘m telling you.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: There‘s no reason for the American taxpayer to pay for Rush to assault the character of men and women who serve in the armed forces for their political views.

CARLSON: OK. But hold on, General.

I want to know if you‘re going to apply that same standard to the rest of public broadcasting in this country. And there‘s a lot of it.

A lot of entities get money from the federal government to put opinions on the air. You think Congress ought to decide what opinions are acceptable and which aren‘t and yank the unacceptable ones off the air? That‘s what you‘re saying.

CLARK: Well, no. There are standards for propriety in public broadcasting, are there not? I mean, there‘s X-rated, there‘s R-rated in public broadcasting. We call it profanity.

CARLSON: This is a political belief.

CLARK: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

We should be talking about the facts, we should be having a good discourse in America. I don‘t see why there can‘t be standards for political discourse. I‘d like to see A-rated, B-rated, and C-rated for political discourse.

CARLSON: I‘ll tell you why. I‘ll tell you why, because it‘s...

CLARK: I don‘t think the kind of name calling and invective that Rush Limbaugh engages in advances us. Now, he‘s got every right...

CARLSON: But wait a second, you had U.S. senator call the guy.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: I think he‘s got every right to say it under freedom of speech. But it doesn‘t have to be transmitted at U.S. government expense. That‘s my point.

CARLSON: OK. OK. Well, I hope you will apply that exact same standard to the rest of public broadcasting, but I know you think you won‘t, because the rest of public broadcasting is liberal, and so you don‘t have a problem with it.

CLARK: No, I will. I will apply it. You won‘t hear any liberal commentators, Tucker, say that the people who disagree with them are unpatriotic, want the enemy to win, are selfish.

CARLSON: Wait a second.

CLARK: You won‘t hear that.

CARLSON: Wait, but hold on.

CLARK: They don‘t say that.

CARLSON: The Senate majority leader called Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic.

He said, “You‘re unpatriotic.”

What do you think of that?

CLARK: He was talking about what Limbaugh said...

CARLSON: Are you going to defend that? Oh, that‘s OK.

CLARK: ... about our soldiers.

CARLSON: No, no. He said Rush Limbaugh is unpatriotic.

CLARK: See, what we need to do is we need to be raising the whole standard of political discourse in America. So let‘s raise it.

CARLSON: Will you call on Harry Reid? OK.

CLARK: So let‘s raise it.

CARLSON: I‘m asking you to raise it.

CLARK: Let‘s have...

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: Let‘s have Congress get into this issue.

CARLSON: Oh, this is just political nonsense. I mean, come on.

CLARK: This is not political nonsense.

CARLSON: Of course it is.

CLARK: Congress is in it.

CARLSON: OK.

CLARK: They‘re in it condemning people on the left. I‘d like to see them take a real stand and raise the dialogue.

CARLSON: OK. I‘m all for raising the dialogue, I‘m all for people not using names when they describe their political beliefs. But taking people off the air because you disagree with them just strikes me as a dangerous precedent.

CLARK: It‘s not because we disagree with them.

CARLSON: Of course it‘s because you disagree with them.

CLARK: It‘s not the fact of disagreeing. He can say whatever he wants politically.

CARLSON: That‘s absurd. OK.

CLARK: When he calls people who serve in uniform just because of their private political beliefs, he says they‘re phony, that‘s wrong. In my view that crosses a line.

CARLSON: All right. General Wesley Clark, I appreciate you coming on.

Thank you.

CLARK: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, it‘s not just about so-called phony soldiers. Media Matters is also criticizing Rush Limbaugh for his comments on a recent ad by VoteVets.org.

Who is Media Matters? A representative joins us next to explain...

Submitted by Ellen on October 4, 2007 - 4:02am.

I have proposed that we respond to each erroneous statement, in writing, and that we 'publish' it.

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 4, 2007 - 10:36am.

This is how much power that Rush Limbaugh has in the Neocon GOP activist base and that is why he is being defended by the "top-tier" 2008 GOP candidates:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/28139037-19f7-4282-be75-650b7e445635

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

The New News Cycle: Romney and Thompson Defend Rush

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt  at 6:21 PM

As the phoney "phoney soldier" controversy swirled today --and Rush is in no hurry to end it as it reflects well on him and poorly on Senate Democrats--  Fred Thompson released a statemnt blasting the attack on Rush.  Rush was discussing it today, and e-in-box began to fill up with complaints that Mitt Romney had abandoned Rush.  I shot off a query to the Romney campaign: What is this all about?

http://fredfile.fred08.com/2007/fred-thompson-on-harry-reid’s-attacks-on-rush-limbaugh/

Not only did the campaign respond immediately, Governor Romney called the show to discuss the controversy and state that Rush has "got a long record of supporting our soldiers. There’s no question that this is a man who has been very much on the side of our fighting men and women."  (Transcript here.)

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=046e967b-52a0-4be3-9dd7-10de3a538b32

Romney went on to blast HillaryCradleCare, the $5,000 per baby grant, as did Rudy in new Hampshire today.

What the Thompson/Romney reactions to the Senate Democrat attacks on Rush and the Giuliani/Romney blast at Hillary's boondoggle both demonstrate is that the campaigns are on continual alert to the ever smaller news cycle.  They do not intend to allow any story that might impact the race to go unremarked upon, especially those that might reflect ont heir standing with the GOP base.  An attack on Rush is an attack on the GOP base, and I will be shocked if Rudy doesn't weigh in by COB tonight as well.

After the conclusion of the Romney interview I talked with Rob Neppell of Kithbridge.com, one of the country's leading analysts of new media, and Rick Calvert of Blog World and New Media Expo, set to get under way on November 7 in Las Vegas.  (Disclosure: I am invested in both companies as I think both men are among the most prescient observors of new media.) Calvert and Neppell both emphatically agreed that a campaign indifferent to the virtual battles occuring outside and around the old MSM will quickly end up a victim of stories submerged beneath the old media waterline.   Today's news cycle within a news cycle confirms their view.  As Romney put it to me in response to a question:

http://www.kithbridge.com/

http://www.blogworldexpo.com/

HH: Now Governor, expanding the scope here a little bit to how the campaign has changed, today, Rudy Giuliani’s in New Hampshire, he’s at the Chocolate Moose, and he misstates where he is. He says he’s in Massachusetts. All right, the kind of stuff that happen every day on the campaign trail. But then it shows up on the Politico.com Jonathan Martin blog as being a significant issue. You’ve run statewide in Massachusetts twice. Was there anything ever like this kind of scrutiny on one word showing up and immediately becoming an issue? 

MR: Well, it is interesting today that gotcha politics is alive and well. It used to be that you had a day to clean up your mistakes. So if you made a mistake, you know, you’ve got to fix before the news cycle. But now, the news cycle is instant, and everything is made a huge matter. And you know, I’ve made at least two or three gaffes in my campaign so far. They’re made big deals by not just the media, but by the opposition. And you know, frankly, look, I’m going to mess up where I am now and then, and so will Rudy and so will John McCain and everybody else. And let’s give the process a bit of a break. 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1007/On_trail_in_NH_Rudy_says_hes_in_Mass_.html

Email It |  Print It |  Take Action |  Comments (73)  |  Trackbacks (0)

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 4, 2007 - 10:41am.

Hewitt's website that is defending Rush Limbaugh so hard mocks Ron Paul.  This is why Moderate and Non-Neocon Republicans should also join up with Democrats to go after Limbaugh: 

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/e094ba2e-fc7b-42ac-891e-7174ab0ffe6f

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

A Ron Paul Supporter Speaks!

Posted by: Dean Barnett  at 10:57 PM

This is unquestionably the best piece of hostile reader mail I’ve received in months.  Even with their run-on sentences, Ron Paul supporters are the gift that keeps on giving.


While you may claim that the non-intellectuals and those wifing though the bowels of insanity are the only supporters he has, I can assure you our little clique has given much intellectual debate into Ron Paul and what his political stand points could mean...one way or the other...You however, can only conjure the other...and you can scarcely even accomplish that.  You're (sc) article was extremely poorly written, fraught with pompous and arrogant language, that the layman is rarely inclined to enjoy, it was not humorous by any stretch of the imagination, nor did it have any intellectual worth. 

(Ellipsis in the original. Don’t ask me why.)

Please make a note - from this point forward, every time I must refer to Ron Paul supporters I will do so only as “those wifing through the bowels of insanity.”  The phrase has a certain ring of accuracy.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Email It |  Print It |  Take Action |  Comments (200)  |  Trackbacks (0)

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 4, 2007 - 10:38am.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/3dbbe5bc-b11f-4ba5-a3f3-ed48fc28ca9a

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Rush And The Left's Great Snarl

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt  at 8:57 AM

Byron York has a complete recap of the phoney "phoney soldiers" controversy.  Senate Democrats are clearly clueless about how this appears to the national audience, so we can only hope they continue to push it as a scandal.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=

I gave a talk last night on the presidential race to an audience of approximately 100 very successful business people and their spouses, and in the Q&A that followed, a soft spoken woman asked a question in very soft and almost grieved tones:  What has happened to the Democrats and the media that they are so filled with hate?  The backdrop was the attack on Rush, particularly Tom Harkin's churlish suggestion that Rush was using drugs.  She explained further that she doesn't understand what could motivate the sort of behavior we are seeing on the left.

Her question --what has happened to the Democrats and the media?--  is not a question about tax policy, or strategy vis-a-vis Iraq or Iran, or health care or global warming, but about collective character, and it is significant.

Everybody with a brain knows that Rush didn't slander anti-war soldiers, and that the whole phoney phoney story was an attempt by the left and especially Senate Democrats to change the subject from the MoveOn.org ad which has branded them as anti-military in a way far more significant than Dick Durbin's memorable comparison of American troops at Gitmo to Nazis, the Soviets or Pol Pot followers or John Kerry's slam on the intelligence or capabilities of the troops that led to the famous photo from Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101654.html

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=20389

Thus everybody knows that Senate Democrats and now such would-be grandees as Wes Clark are pushing a lie as a means of attacking Rush, and doing so in plain view.  New media guarantees that no such story can succeed, and it hasn't for the simple reason that it is not true, and print journalists, bloggers talk radio and some cable outlets have completely undercut the charge.  It is a sort of reverse Rathergate: Rather than watching new media destroy the reputation and credibility of a key media player, we have seen it buttress that reputation and credibility.

In the process though, Americans have again seen a close-up of The Great Snarl that the MoveOn.org Democrats have become.  It is a disturbing thing, this collection of hard-left activists, vulgar and profane bloggers, captive Senators and know-nothing MSMers, and the more it is on display the more it becomes one big blob of seething hate, from the Code Pinkers to Tom Harkin, Media Matters and the HuffPo express.  On to the center-right this blob projects its disfiguring anger, but it doesn't work because most Americans hear and watch for themselves.  They know Rush, Sean, Laura, Bill, Michael, Dennis. Mark, Glenn, Neil and me and all the rest of the talkers.  They read Powerline, Instapundit, Michelle, NRO; watch O'Reilly and Special Report and, crucially, know who supports the troops and the war and who doesn't.  You can't talk over Barnes, Barone, Boot, Kagan, Kristol, and Krauthammer.  The center-right supports the military and the mission.  The left doesn't.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

http://www.instapundit.com/

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/02/fairness-doctrine-watch-the-crush-rush-democrats-agenda/

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

The American people know this.  Ten years ago the MSM might have been able to facilitate such an attack on Rush, but it is simply impossible today.  Pushing a smear in the new media environment is a profoundly self-destructive bit of bad political theater that insults the audience's intelligence while revealing the attackers' character.

Of course that the troops know the real score.  Their families know.  And their friends know.  Watch the Peter Pace farewell remarks below.  He knows too.  It is impossible to be awake in this country and not know.

The MoveOn.org Democrats have completely misread the 2006 elections and the polls.  The map they drew from their flawed analysis of the data has led them far from the mainstream, or at least encourgaed them to embrace their inner radical.  But the Great Snarl on display continues to hammer home that the Democrats are way off from the mainstream of American politics. 

Either a Romney or a Giuliani candidacy will be an upbeat, pro-American traditions and values campaign that will be wholly supportive of the troops and victory and of the promise and future of the country.  The nominee will be supported by the legion of new media outlets, led by Rush, that believes as both of them do in the justice of the cause, the evil of our enemies abroad and the greatness of the country and especially of its men and women in uniform. 

The Senate Democrats and their core on-line constituency have done more to draw and display this deep contrast than any Republican or conservative could have done.  That they continue to do so in the face of the blowback attests to their collective character which is fueled by an intense and disfiguring anger and in many cases the hate my questioner spoke of last night.

The Great Snarl is not a winning strategy, but the left took the Democrats' eyes off winning a long time ago.

Email It |  Print It |  Take Action |  Comments (148)  |  Trackbacks (1)

AnitaInTX's picture
Submitted by AnitaInTX on October 4, 2007 - 10:41am.

the nastiest Presidential campaign ever....

I really commend General Clark for the stance he is taking and opening himself up for the ridicule that is now beginning...


Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 4, 2007 - 10:44am.

if they are going to have serious chances of being able to win the White House in 2008!

Submitted by Ellen on October 4, 2007 - 11:02am.

Wes Clark Smears the Troops
He said on The Today Show that Sen. Harkin is "a big man," but that our troops are not. I saw it live, and Tivo'd it, but Free Republic has the entire story here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1905811/posts

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.