Scarborough's lies against Clark and other Dems: watch out for this tactic

[Sparkly]

(Please, please don't turn this into a Clark-bashing thread, okay? Thanks in advance!)

This is the story of Joe Scarborough's shark-jumping this week. (Yes I know, he's just a Ho and what can you expect etc., but this one's really over-the-top egregious, and I don't think he's the only one taking this angle.) It relates to other Democrats like Albright and Kennedy as well as General Clark (and even the "librul media" as a whole), but I've followed it by following what's said about the General so I don't have the transcripts or details about Kennedy and Albright.

The game is to accuse Democrats of inappropriately downplaying the election in Iraq for political reasons. Scar's mischaracterizations of their words have escalated through the week to the point where today, he actually claims they are "providing comfort to the terrorists."

It started on Monday. (Transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6867311/ - link to video here: http://www.u-wes-a.com/vidclips/MSNBC_012405.WMV )

Here are some quotes from Clark regarding the election in Iraq, from that show:
"I think it‘s great news. And I—you know, we all welcome the election."
"So, I‘m really happy with the good news. I hope it all works."
"Well, I think it‘s great news..."
"I think an election is a great place to start..."
"I do like the good news."
"All Americans want this election to succeed."

And yet Joe actually said to him: "I know you don‘t like the good news getting out there. We‘re getting it out there tonight."

As you can see from the transcript, Clark kept explaining that the election, while an important step, needs to be considered in perspective, with caution, with reasonable expectations, with an end goal in mind, and what's really needed is for BushCo to come up with a strategy. Yet Scarborough didn't hear and/or didn't understand that.

Scarborough's cheerleading took the form of an argument against a point of view nobody held: "That‘s great news, isn‘t it?" "I think that's a damn positive development." "General, you speak tonight as if an election is a footnote." (In the transcript, Clark then says "That's right" but watching the video it's clear he was answering Hitchens' statement just before that, not Scarborough.) "I think that‘s a good place to start." " This is historic." Of course, nobody was saying it wasn't good news or historic, but if you only heard Scarborough you'd think there was somebody on the other end who really hates elections.

Scar's summary statement included this gem: "I don‘t give a damn whether the Sunnis vote or not." Obviously he wasn't listening to the General at all, because he has no clue that Sunni participation and/or acceptance is important to stabilizing Iraq.

Now if you want to really piss off a four-star general, imply that he doesn't like the soldiers' success, or doesn't want the soldiers to succeed, or doesn't consider a step they've fought and died for important. Making that accusation and then not letting the general respond is an even worse insult. Clark spoke up loudly, in a vocal match with Hitchens. That led to a charming exchange later in the show, with Rich Little, which I won't even quote here. I'll just say that it's a fine example of what Repukes consider "supporting the troops" or "honoring service" or "respecting our veterans" and all that, right up there with purple-heart bandaids. If they had an ounce of respect they'd have edited it out.

Anyway, it gets better.

On Thursday, Scarborough said this in questioning Mort Zuckerman about liberal media bias: (transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6881313/ )

SCARBOROUGH: We are only a few days away from witnessing what is an historic election in Iraq. And yet I hear from the former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that she is saying, well, it really doesn‘t matter what goes on in this election, because it‘s no big news.

A couple of nights ago, we had former General Wesley Clark and presidential candidate Wesley Clark saying it doesn‘t matter whether this is success or a failure. You know, this election, it just doesn‘t matter.

Don‘t you believe that the media has been underselling the significance of this election in Iraq on Sunday? And, if it succeeds, aren‘t we seeing a great historical event that could change the way that Middle East history plays itself out?

Clark never said the election "doesn't matter." In fact it was Scarborough who said he didn't "give a damn" whether or not the Sunnis vote!

Which brings us to today. Scar has gone another step further, now accusing Clark and others of "providing comfort to the terrorists." On his webpage (called "Congressman Joe" -- um, is he still a Congressman?): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851/

Over the past week, Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Madeleine Albright, and Wesley Clark have done their best to downplay the importance of Sunday's Iraqi elections.

Why would they make such absurd statements about a process that will bring democracy to a traumatized country for the first time in history? Why can they not put aside partisan politics for a few days to celebrate the fact that for the first time since they were installed by the Ottoman Empire in the 15th Century, the Sunni minority will no longer be able to oppress the other 80 percent if the Iraqi population?

Why do they choose words that can only be seen as providing comfort to the terrorists who want to delay, undermine, and dismiss this historic election?

For one simple reason: Because success in Iraq means validation of the president's foreign policy goals. And too many Democrats and editorial writers would rather see America humiliated abroad than see the President succeed at home.

So now these Democrats want "America humiliated abroad." They're "providing comfort to the terrorists." They're engaging in "partisan politics," and they don't want "success in Iraq." All because they supposedly "downplay the importance" of the election -- by telling the truth, putting it in perspective, proposing reasonable expectations and urging the administration to actually get a freaking plan.

I just found this so outrageous I wanted others to be aware of it as a technique against Democrats overall, and a huge lie in particular.