Stars and Stripes letters (Thumbs up for Clark, Thumbs down for Fox News)

[lebkuchen]

Clark’s testimony

I thank Stars and Stripes for the article, “Clark testimony will be private” (Dec. 14). As the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Gen. Wesley Clark commanded the brilliant effort to bring down Slobodan Milosevic, saving the lives of more than a million people. Gen. Clark’s testimony will prove crucial to bringing the Serbian despot to justice. Knowing that, he has taken time out of a demanding presidential campaign schedule to once again place his duty to the nation above his own personal interests.

But as the story correctly reported, the secrecy involved in Gen. Clark’s testimony seems highly suspect. As readers can imagine, there was all manner of outrage among his supporters about the motives of the Bush administration in restricting public access to the information. I say “was” because the answer has been provided to all but the most cynical of us from the general himself.

Gen. Clark was asked recently, point blank, at the Florida Democratic Convention: Is the secrecy surrounding your testimony... a political ploy by the current administration to silence you and to downplay your part in bringing this man to justice because you are running against the president in 2004? Or is there a true matter of national security that requires your testimony to be in private without the cameras there to record the moment for history?

The general answered that it was absolutely not a political ploy by the Bush administration. He said his testifying had taken two years to work out all the details, and that it was imperative that his testimony be given in private.

Gen. Clark has not been shy about criticizing the Bush administration when he thinks the president has done something wrong or ill-advised. (But notably, when interviewed in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s capture, Gen. Clark refused to criticize the president while on foreign soil, despite repeated baiting by the interviewer).

It would be easy for Gen. Clark to state or imply that this secrecy is just one more attempt to deny him media coverage and to downplay his expertise in American foreign policy and force projection. One can almost see the typical politician, who might smile, or smirk, and say, “Well, you how they are...” and let people draw an inevitable conclusion.

But Gen. Clark is not a typical politician. He is a man of integrity who places strategic good over tactical advantage. If more of our national leaders had the same standards of honesty and devotion to duty, this nation wouldn’t be in the mess that it’s in, at home or abroad.

Lt. Col. Janie Johnson-Pickett (Ret.)
Stilwell, Kan.

Fox News ‘vicious, goofy’

I’m writing in reply to the letter “NPR vicious, goofy” (Dec. 14...see below). Being a liberal and a long-time listener and supporter of National Public Radio, I agree with the writer’s surprise that NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin would not categorize NPR reporting as “liberal.” Webster’s Dictionary defines “liberal” as: “one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms and ways.” NPR is synonymous with open-mindedness and should never be ashamed to defend its style of reporting.

On the other hand, I find the “fair and balanced” reporting by Fox News to be based on sensationalistic reports of sex and violence, and biased, thoughtless pandering to the current conservative Bush administration. On a daily basis, the villains on Fox News are environmentalists, the ACLU, academia, and the Democrats. (Even after three years, Bill Clinton is still used as a scapegoat, and Sen. Hillary Clinton is under constant attack). It’s as if The National Enquirer and the Drudge Report had decided to team up to present the news.

The writer’s reference to the “old news” and how it’s becoming irrelevant is quite confusing. Both Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have received every prestigious award possible from responsible broadcast associations. If objectivity, thorough research, and intelligent analysis are irrelevant, what will replace them?

Many of Fox’s programs, like “The O’Reilly Factor” and “At Large With Geraldo Rivera” are not based on investigative research, but simply the opinions of two rather slick, but still second-rate talk show hosts. And in Bill O’Reilly’s case, his claim to be in a “no-spin zone” is so hypocritical it’s laughable. Can anyone besides O’Reilly honestly say that “The O’Reilly Factor” is not pro conservative?

I find Fox News, as the writer finds NPR, both vicious and goofy. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. Sorry. Another liberal thought.

Tom Mills
Eagle Base, Bosnia


http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=19377



NPR vicious, goofy

National Public Radio has been taken over by space aliens! I was quite shocked to find this out, but it’s the only possible explanation for the letter “National Public Radio” (Dec. 7). It was written by NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, who made the idiotic suggestion that NPR does not have a liberal bias.

Anyone who listens to NPR knows that only someone who has not been present on planet Earth for the last 30 years could possibly advocate such a ridiculous position. The only other explanation is that perhaps Mr. Dvorkin is lying. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. He must merely be uninformed from having spent so much of his life living in some far-off galaxy.

NPR and its vicious attack pieces — like Terry Gross’s recent hatchet job on Bill O’Reilly — and other either goofy or painfully monotonous stories about the Brazilian rain forest drip with the standard drivel pitched by the elite media today. Fortunately, fair-minded citizens have grown weary of this nonsense and have turned elsewhere (Can you say Fox?) to find news sources that instead give the whole story. In the marketplace of ideas, the old news provided by the likes of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings is going the way of old Europe. It’s becoming irrelevant.

But NPR doesn’t have to worry about the marketplace. NPR and its ombudsman can get funding from good old American taxpayers. No need to compete when you’re subsidized. NPR can spew its regular line all day long, and an already overtaxed citizenry gets the added joy of paying to have their intelligence insulted. Don’t you just love socialism? Apparently there’s nothing as invulnerable to accountability as a middle-class entitlement program, and that’s exactly what NPR has become.

Tracy A. Sharp
Stuttgart, Germany

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=19293

[Mixxster]

1. LOL

It’s as if The National Enquirer and the Drudge Report had decided to team up to present the news.

Good description.

[grannylib]

2. I had not heard Clark's comments on the secrecy of the testimony;

thanks for passing this along.
Makes me think even more highly of the man, who would not use an opportunity to "score" but stands up for what is right by being honest.
Thank you Wes!

[Eric J in MN]

3. Terry Gross and a report on the rain forest

So according to the author of that anti-NPR letter, we're supposed to turn against NPR because

1) Terry Gross asked Bill O'Reilly some tough questions about how he slams writers who make the slightest criticism of him.

2) NPR has run reports about the destruction of the rain forest.

I want more well-researched interviews like Terry Gross' and more reporting on the rain forest.