CLARK, DEAN & others by MICHAEL MOORE

[Clark Can WIN]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php


"The day Clark made his announcement, I was in the former Yugoslavia. Clark was the NATO commander during the Kosovo War. If you've seen my film ("Bowling for Columbine") you know that the bombing of civilians in Kosovo is something that bothers me to this day. That is why I put it in my movie. The 19 countries of NATO have yet to account for this decision to bomb in this way. The New York Times reported on Sunday that Clark wanted to use ground troops instead of relying on the bombing (less civilians would be killed that way). Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen overruled him. They didn't want to risk having any American casualties; they preferred the "clean" way of killing from 30,000 feet above. Clark, apparently to undermine them, went on TV and took his case to the American people. Cohen was furious and told him to "get your (bleeping) face" off the TV. He and the Pentagon then orchestrated his firing.

Years later, many analysts agree that the Kosovo War would have ended much sooner -- and fewer civilians would have been killed -- had the White House listened to Clark and let him use the ground troops to stop Milosevic's genocide of the people in Kosovo.

Is that the way it went? I'd like to know. And that's one reason why we have election campaigns -- so we can find out things like this. I hope someone asks General Clark the question.

What I do know is that the war we are in NOW is not called Kosovo, but Iraq. That is the war I am trying to stop. That is the war Clark says he will stop. If we have a former general, who may have done some things that some of us don't like -- but he is now offering to be an advocate for peace -- why would any of us want to reject this?
"

[dfong63]

1. because he's an untrustworthy waffler

What I do know is that the war we are in NOW is not called Kosovo, but Iraq. That is the war I am trying to stop. That is the war Clark says he will stop. If we have a former general, who may have done some things that some of us don't like -- but he is now offering to be an advocate for peace -- why would any of us want to reject this?

if Clark wants to be an advocate for peace, great. but he doesn't have to be president of the US to do it. let him first prove himself as an advocate for peace in some other office. let him deliver a consistent message for peace, instead of the kind of "nuanced" waffling he did before and just after the war. Mike did you read his essay "what must be done to complete a great victory"? wherein he said, among other things, that Bush and Blair should be proud of their "resolve"?

that's not the kind of "advocate for peace" that i can get behind. and especially not for the office of president.

he's been all over the map on the Iraq War Resolution. he said he would have been for it. he said he would have been against it. then he said it was "too simple" of a question. his supporters say this is "subtle nuancing" on a complex issue. to me it doesn't seem too complex, anymore than the issue of whether to give a loaded gun to a deranged criminal. and if the issue was "too complex", then the self-proclaimed foreign policy expert should have recognized and acknowledged its complexity from the start, instead of changing his position so many times.

then there's the matter of him fundraising for republicans in 2001, long after his supposed conversion to the dem party. but in 2001, the repubs were on top of the world. then, Wes Clark wanted to be on their side. now, it looks like the repubs will lose the white house. and now Wes Clark wants to be on the other side. even then, he wouldn't publicly declare his switch until the last minute. these are not the actions of a man with deep convictions. these are the actions of an opportunist.

Mike, the guy is a waffler. did you read the bit in the washington post where he said he "couldn't remember" whether he'd voted repub in the past, but admitted he "imagined" he had voted for Reagan? give me a break. first in his class at west point, a rhodes scholar, and "can't remember" who he voted for. a man who wants to be president, but can't remember who he voted for.

these are some of the reasons i say "no" to Wes Clark's offer. and Mike, you might want to get Clark's "offer" (if he really did say it) in writing.

[StopTheMorans]

2. HOO AH!!!!!

prepare to get flamed:)

[Clark Can WIN]

5. going for your 1k today?

have fun. :toast:

[StopTheMorans]

6. I don't know if I'll hit it today or not

usually I make more substantive posts, but today I've been kind of busy at work. thanks for noticing:)

[Clark Can WIN]

4. Yeah, I'm pretty sure

Michael Moore doesn't read, and needs you to do his "research" for him. :eyes:

[4_Legs_Good]

3. I love Michael Moore, but

I was a little ticked at this letter (if one reads the whole thing). Particularly his almost complete dismissal of Kucinich as a candidate. He refered to Dean as supposing to be "the Peace candidate".

Huh? *the* peace candidate. Ummmmmm, well Dennis was far more vocal against the war from very early on, as was Sharpton. How does Dean manage to get the spotlight here?

Regardless, I'm always interested in what MM has to say. Keep up the good work!!

david

Kucinich 2004

Arianna YES
Recall No

[cprise]

You're right, he's too dismissive

He should at least help a little with the visibility of Kucinich and the other bringing up the left flank.

[cprise]

8. oops- duplicate

He should at least help a little with the visibility of Kucinich and the other bringing up the left flank.

[JohnKleeb]

15. yeah he should

The left flank is a good thing we cant ignore it and act like people like Kucinich are non existent yes he isnt doing great in the polls but does he fight you better believe it.

[Cha]

10. Michael Moore seems a liittle changed after the Academy

Award speech he gave and I read he was on cnn and General Clark came to his defense and said he had a right to say what he wanted.

I don't blame him...that was quite an intense time. And I'm glad the General did that for Michael Moore.

As for Dean and the "spotlight" ...I don't know except that he works hard at getting his message out. I know Dennis is the candidate who wants to have a "Peace Dept."! Sounds Great!

[JohnKleeb]

18. Its one of the reasons I support DK

Yeah I am idealistic and the like but I for one am sick of war and poverty. Thats one of the reasons I support DK, he has a great vision to get rid of it. Of course Dean works hard so does Kucinich and you gotta admit he did a hell of a lot of good, this is what gets me sad that the freaking media never mentions him and you can call me a baby if you want but I hate this. Now on peace, you all know I am 16 years of age I have had 3 wars fought by my country in my lifetime. I cant be drafted even if they brought it back because of a heart condition but my peers, the guys I have grown up with could. So yes I cant vote in 2004 but for his desire of peace and his sense of justice I support Kucinich. I am sick of war, its terrible not only was this past war illegal it was morally wrong as Kucinich says. The war to end all wars didnt and those weapons now look like children's toys. The A-Bomb well we have stuff that makes that too. So maybe this may explain my support for Kucinich. I have many other reasons too though. You may laugh at the idea of the department of peace but peace not war is ineviteful. Those who have died their souls hover over us and ask why?, I am not a "hippie", "peacenik", or even a pacifist, I am a dude who desires peace. Now poverty thats another discussion.
Heres a quote for you guys and it is by one of my greatest heroes, Franklin D Roosevelt,
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded . . . I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed . . . I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."

[JohnKleeb]

14. I know

If anyone is the peace candiate and no I aint no pacifist but I want a peace candiate. I am only 16 years old and my country has fought 3 wars at least in my life time already.

[Rowdyboy]

7. Next they'll be calling Michael Moore...

a neo-con....He's all well and good when he says what you want to hear, but when he DARES challenge "progressive" conventional wisdom, you guys turn on him.

And all Moore's really saying is listen to the guy and see what he has to say. But even that (keeping an open mind) is too much to ask for some here.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. Was Clinton's Defence Secretary William Cohen a Republican?

I seem to remember that. Clinton did't clean house when he took office, and not only did he hire Republicans like Cohen, he left over Bush staffers like Linda Tripp.

Looking back, wasn't this an incredibly stupid move?

[gully]

11. Michael Moore refuses to take a stand and support anyone...

"So, Howard Dean, if you want my vote, promise me that you'll cut the Pentagon budget and call for a moratorium on the death penalty. Wesley Clark, if you want my vote, tell me how you'll guarantee health care to every single American and that, even though you're a hunter, you'll push for stronger gun control laws. Dennis Kucinich, if it were you vs. Bush today, I'd hope that you would have done the work needed to convince the majority of Americans to vote for you. Carol Moseley Braun, if the moderator at the debate on Thursday ignores you for the first 15 minutes (as George Stephanopoulos did back in the May debate), I hope you won't wait your turn and will just jump right in—we're long overdue for a woman President. And Al Sharpton, just keep being you and cutting through all the b.s. in these debates -- you produce the stinging laugh we all need right now.

Let the games begin, and let's all hope that the only loser in all of this is George W. Bush."

Seems strange MM has different criteria for each candidate???

I think he'll refuse to get behind anyone in the end. He's a great filmmaker but pretty non-committal politically. i.e. doesn't commit to anyone with a hoot of a chance at winning the election.

I hope I'm wrong, but...

[SEAburb]

12. It's to early, many questions unanswered about

the candidates. I'm not going to pick one until the end of the year.

[JohnKleeb]

16. huh

Why Mike thats why we dont nominate our guy for president then run on the same day he aunnoces. If people liked Dean for attacking Bush I think they will like Kucinich for the same. Why is he asking Clark about the guns if gun control were my issue I would be rolling my eyes at Dean not Clark just my opinion.

[reachout]

17. I don't think

he's saying that these are his only criteria or that they apply exclusively to the person in question. Rather, I believe he's making a rhetorical flouirsh to illustrate the point that he wants to hear a lot more out of these candidates about important issues, (although I wouldn't presume to speak for Mr. Moore) and I'm with him 100% on that.

[Bombtrack]

13. I really find Michael Moore to be unreasonably ideological

I read "stupid white men" when it came out, and I enjoyed it, but since then he's gotten on my nerves alot