F-Ck Michael Moore! I applaud the Lamont victory but why isn't Moore

[saracat]

enough of a man to take responsibility for his Nader vote instead of trashing our former standard bearer s, who at least had the courage to publicly admit their mistakes along with other Democrats up for reelection in the fall.Michael Moore is no better than Joe Lieberman. This letter is absolutely disgusting.He is helping the Republicans.

"Friends,

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?

To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.

If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.

Yours,
Michael Moore
[e-mail]
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning"

[acmavm]

1. He's not allowed an opinion? I didn't know that.

[Champion Jack]

10. The Holy Joe lovers are sure getting delusional

[saracat]

13. For the record, I loathe Lieberman. As a former Conn. resident

I supported Lamont!

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. OMG! You're right! WE'RE GONNA LOSE BECAUSE OF THIS!!!!

I hated the republicans with every fiber of my being, but now, after reading this letter from Michael Moore, I have seen the light and have my mind changed. I am now a Republican! I will gladly vote for every and any Republican who ever runs for anything! I hate dems now!!! Despise them! Think they're all traitorous bastards, and I ***LOVE*** this war!! I want more dead! Bring it on!! THank you, Michael Moore, for teaching me, in this letter, that Republicans are the only righteous, moral, decent, strong leaders in the world.

Oh, if only Michael had begged forgiveness crawling on his knees for his Nader vote! But I'm glad he didn't, because he's now making Republicans, like me, thank God!!


On a serious note, I don't get what the hell you are talking about at all. Why should he apologize for voting his conscience? How does this letter help Republicans? :shrug:

[Pierre.Suave]

3. I fail to see a problem

with this letter? I agree with it.

last night was a wake up call for the democrats, I strongly support a house cleaning by getting rid of every single democrat that suported this war or refuses to strongly call for the impeachment of Bush, call for the firing of rove, cheney, rumsfeld, condi, the impeachment of Alito and Roberts, and demand that this administration be held to the rule of law and be held accountable for thier actions.

Right now, I think Conyers may be the ONLY rep that deserves his seat.

[saracat]

9. So you agree we should kick out all Dems who didn't vote the way you

wanted them to about the war? And the only Dem to be reeelected should be Feingold? Now is the time for the Democratic Party to pull together and elect Democrats. This is a divisive letter, that is what is wrong with it.

[Pierre.Suave]

17. Yes

we should. We have primaries for a reason. most of them voted for this war, and now refuse to do a damn thing about it. I say we the people need to stand up and do something about it, just like teh voters in CT did last night.

[AZBlue]

60. OK, well hope you're up for at least 20 more years of Rep control.

Getting rid of everyone but Russ will weaken the Dem Party to the point of non-existence and then it will have to crawl back to some sort of strength. Yeah....good idea.

[Pierre.Suave]

67. I had a response...

...but I cant bring myself to hit submit when I type it in here...

edit: here it is:

Are you aware that Russ on a sunday morning talk show stated he was AGAINST THE IMPEACHEMT OF BUSH because he felt it would be bad for the country? WTF, over?

I can not think of anything, ANYTHING that would be better for this country than the impeachment and subsequent inprisonment of not only Bush, but his cronies as well.

Can you?

[LoZoccolo]

42. Well, I'll be failing to see your posts...

...until November.

[Pierre.Suave]

68. No problem there

I dont even know who you are...

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Hard to believe MM actually wrote this; the logic is....

almost as bad as the grammar.


>>>Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.>>>>

Yikes.

[Mass]

5. Take that for what it is - the letter of a simple man whom you can

disagree with.

If MM thinks he is so great, he should run.

[MichiganVote]

6. Sorry--the days of feeling sorry for politicians who endorsed this war

are over and I agree with Moore. Screwing with the Americans who are sick and tired of these half baked ideological reasons for the invasion of Iraq are over. We've had it. When in a bad marriage---get help or get out. They don't change a damn thing, so the alternative is to dump these pampered politicians in either party.

I don't care whether the elected officials apologize or not. Lieberman was not effective and for those who are equally passive, I say, vote them out. What good is an apology to the family of a dead 19 year old?

[saracat]

11. So , we should lose the general election as long as we vote out incumbents

So the Democratic Party is "a bad marriage you want out of?" I thought the idea was to elect Democrats. I must be mistaken. Next I will be told Moore's Nader vote was a good thing!

[MichiganVote]

18. First, stop putting words in my mouth to magically prove your point

I've got some bad news for you. There is a trend a comin' and it is this. Moderates are going to vote out the incombents who are or who are preceived to be ineffective. You can piss and moan all you want and yes, there will be differences of opinion, but they are going down in November.

I could care less about who voted for Nader. Its old news and there are more important things to concern myself with nowadays. Keeping score on some celebrity's vote is a waste of my time.

[Breeze54]

19. Oh yea of little faith...

I know, change is scary. Hang on though! :hug:

Go Michael!! :applause: :)

[malikstein]

58. The idea is not to elect Democrats;

the idea is to elect representatives of our interests, not corporate interests. Their party affiliation is irrelevant. We're not playing baseball and choosing up team sides. We're trying to run a democracy.

[AlamoDemoc]

7. Can't We All Just Get Along!

[calico1]

8. Michael Moore supported Kerry

in the last election. When he was on Bill Maher's show along with Nader they both got on their knees and begged Nader to drop out and support Kerry. I saw that show.

[saracat]

15. So he should be allowed a pass on his 2000 vote but retains

the right to not accept Kerry or Edwards admission of wrong? What a hypocrite he is!

[Don1]

26. But Gore won in 2000!! n/t

[Bretttido]

41. Fuck 2000, that's the past, lets deal with 2006!

[KoKo]

16. You are correct about that. And, Michael Moore is making a good point.

If Kerry and Edwards had come out about the issues concerning Iraq which was already starting to look like a mistake in 2004 they might be in the White House right now. Instead they listed to the Dem Strategists and their own personal ambitions got in the way of their consciences.

I agree with Mike Moore. The war is the burning issue and we need Dems who will stand up to the Repugs and make it the issue it should be. Because of this war we can't have universal health insurance, people are having to credit card their gas and the Middle East in flames destabilises the whole world and hurts our credibility. We can't afford the Bush Wars. We don't have any money left and are in hock to the Chinese.

The WAR is the issue...Bush's endless war that's driving America in to ruin and the Repug's are stealing our money to pay for it.

Moore is correct and Kerry or Edwards aren't going to have any money to do anything for all their great intentions of "jobs, health care and saving SS."

[mtnsnake]

35. Yeah, he did Kerry about as much good as he did Clark in the primaries

I love MM for his movies but I hope to hell he doesn't attach himself to another Democratic candidate. Please keep a low profile in the elections, Michael, and stick to what you do best, the movies.

[LittleClarkie]

52. I appreciate that he did that, and that he hid his ABB tendancies for the

most part.

He's allowed his opinion. And I'm allowed to say I think he's wrong. And so it goes...

[bobbie]

69. Michael Moore strongly and openly supported General Clark

In the last coup.

[Demit]

12. Your response to this letter is very curious.

And extreme. What does Moore's vote in the year 2000 have to do with the actions of senators in year 2006? Quite a lot has happened since then, and that is what Moore is addressing. I agree with him that our elected representatives have to face the consequences of their positions--on the war and everything else in which they have aided and abetted this administration. Get a grip.

[saracat]

14. This is about supporting Democrats. Not being divisive.

[Breeze54]

20. Provided they actually ARE Democrats! lol n/t

[Atman]

22. Gotta agree...I don't see the problem with this.

Sure, it's a warning shot to ALL dems, but it isn't telling anyone not to VOTE dem. Just telling it like it is, imho. I can't get all lathered up about this letter right now. I'm too furious watching Joe get all the free campaign speeches on the morning news, and his pathetic, childish, whiney-assed "concession" speech, wherein he told his supporters, to thunderous applaus, "I don't care what you thought, I don't care what you think, and I'll continue to ignore you should you elect me as an independent." Let's focus our attention where it does some good. As much as I love Michael, the right has managed to successfully marginalize and Coulter-ize him. Don't worry about his letter, people. Lots of us have lots of stuff to say after last night's victory, and maybe some of it is coming a bit too much from the passion side and not the thinking side. But step back, take a deep breath...and perhaps a chip of champagne. We worked hard for this...don't let this letter spoil it for you!

[Demit]

24. So, your party right or wrong, eh?

That's the whole point of being a member of the electorate, saracat. We vote people in or we vote them out. We choose. It's not supposed to be a case of elected officials saying "shut up and support us forever no matter our actions in office."

[Don1]

27. Not to mention that

Gore won in 2000.

[marmar]

21. So Michael Moore cost Gore/Lieberman the 2000 election?

:shrug:

[nosillies]

23. Nowhere in this letter does it say "don't vote Democrat"

It says "watch out incumbents."

[Little Star]

25. That letter is silly.

There are way to many dems who will and do support people who have acknowledged their vote for war as wrong. Many dems even support Hil who still to this day says the Iraqi war was right. Is there really another shrub ass kisser as bad as JL?

[jpkenny]

28. It's not crazy that some Independents will be elected who will vote with

the Dems. I think that strategy would work fine. If Joe can change his affilation than so can others and defeat other Dems like Joe. We all just have to do our homework and study the issues and what the candidates stand for.

[saracat]

30. What is crazy is that if that happens we are where we are now without

control of any committees. We must be the majority party in order to effect change.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

29. The job of the people in politics...

Is to give politicians through their votes and their feedback, something they might have never had before:

A spine.

[sgxnk]

31. moore - cake and eat it too

(not a reference to his weight)

he wants it both ways

before the election, with the confounding florida nader factor (tm) , it was moore who published a letter on his website claiming nader was the best thing since sliced bread AND claiming there was no difference between repubs and dems

then, when it turned out that if it wasn't for the nader voters in fla, gore would have won quite easily, moore basically removed the letter and never failed to take responsiblity for two undeniable facts

1) nader supporters cost gore the presidency (regardless of who woulda won without the supreme court intervening blah blah blah - clearly gore would have won and no SCOTUS involvement woulda been necessary if naders vote was smaller

2) there is CLEARLY a difference between gore and bush.

duh

moore's ego gets in the way of his common sense over and over again

nader was the classic example. it was that you were stupid to vote for gore instead of nader, but then when bush became president, he ran away from his prior (stupid) comments about their being no difference

only the most myopic person on either the right or left wing would claim there is "no difference"

it's absurd.

[Q]

32. Some are still moaning about Moore 'voting for Nadar'...

...when the fact that thousands of (d)emocrats voted for Bush in Florida is not even mentioned. And let's not forget that the FACTS show that an imposter sits in the WH...getting there by violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans and rigging the system.

Democrats are in trouble because too many of them have been fooled into believing that the party should move to the right in order to win. This has left many Dems feeling disenfranchised and betrayed...especially after not one senator stood up with the CBC and fought for justice after the theft of Florida.

Moore simply wants what many Democrats want...a party that can find it's way back to the grass roots and put the people before money and power.

[wisteria]

33. Association with Moore is a strike against any Democratic candidate.

I think he is more of a trouble maker than anything else. He needs to stick with what he knows, making documentaries, and quit trying to define and ridicule our Democratic leaders.
Moore needs to butt out!

[erpowers]

34. Do Not See Problem

I do not see a problem with what he wrote. Also, I do not see how it helps the Republican Party. He is just pointing that he has not intention of voting for anyone who supported the war in Iraq and that he think there will be a major backlash against the Democrats who supported the war in Iraq. What is actually wrong with what he said. I just do not see how what he said is bad.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I agree with the letter......

which clearly is saying that those Dems running for 2008 who voted for the IWR, even if they were sorry later, showed bad judgement on a super important issue when it counted the most and should not be rewarded with the Presidency for their lack of either understanding what was at stake, or for not understanding the NeoCon/Bush mentality.

Of course, those at DU who support politicians who did just that will have a problem with this letter.

It's really that simple. :shrug:

[blm]

38. Sorry, but IWR did not send this country to war, but the spin that it did

allowed Bush off the hook for violating its guidelines.

What happened a few weeks ago? Feinstein had Gonzalez under oath, and he admitted the IWR did NOT grant Bush war powers.


FEINSTEIN: Now, Congress did not leave the question opened. FISA explicitly says that warrantless surveillance can continue for only fifteen days after a declaration of war. Now that you’ve had an opportunity to examine Hamdan, is it still DOJ’s opinion that it does not affect the legality of the TSP?

GONZALES: Of course, there’s been no declaration of war here, so we can’t take advantage of that particular provision. Uh, our judgment is…is that, um, it does not affect the legality, uh, of…of the, uh TSP program. But let me explain why…

FEINSTEIN: Whoa. But if I might, just a (unintelligible). Then you’re saying, clearly, that the AUMF does not carry the full constitutional weight of a declaration of war.
GONZALES: Yes. That…that is correct. When you…when you declare war…well, when you declare war…
FEINSTEIN: I understand that.
GONZALES: …that triggers diplomatic relations. That trig…that…that maybe nullify treaties of…there’s a big differ…there’s a reason why Congress has not declared war in sixty years. But they’ve…they’ve…they’ve…they&rs quo;ve authorized the use of force several times. Clearly, there’s a difference, yes.
FEINSTEIN: But you’re creating a caveat now, and saying that the fifteen days does not extend to the AUMF.
GONZALES: No, what I said was we…we can’t take advantage of that provision under FISA because there’s been no declaration of war. Maybe I misunderstood your question. I’m sorry, Senator.
FEINSTEIN: Yeah, well, see I…I think that Congress did, um, prepare for that eventuality by providing the fifteen days. And, you’re saying, well, it really doesn’t apply. Well, in a…in essence you’re restricting the AUMF, which I think should be restricted. So you are, in essence, agreeing with my point.
GONZALES: Well, I agree with your point that the Authorization of Military Force is not a declaration of war. That…that is certainly true.
FEINSTEIN: All right. So, we’re in open session, but I really don’t accept that, because of past actions with respect to the FISA court.
GONZALES: Senator, I beg your pardon. I’m…I’m gonna go back and look at the transcript of your question. And I’m…I’m…I…I…I probably want…want to modify it. I want to make sure that I’m being as accurate as I can about…about what we’re doing, because there may be some things here that may affect my…my response.
FEINSTEIN: I…I would appreciate that because, the way I view it, a very conscious…(unintelligible) effort has been made not to submit…certainly content collection to the FISA court.
GONZALES: Senator, this is something that you and I should have a…a conversation about.

[FrenchieCat]

40. So you are saying that if no one would have voted for the IWR

in the senate that Lieberman Wrote, and that John Edwards Co-Sponsored, we would have gone into Iraq anyways?

You may be right.....that Bush would have found a way.....

BUT,

Even John Edwards and John Kerry later said that they shouldn't have voted for it....and I just happen to agree with them!!

[fedupinBushcountry]

46. Bush could of cared less

about that vote. He would of gone no matter what.

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

[ProSense]

51. Thanks for the proof! n/t

[blm]

57. Why so many on the left can't COMPREHEND that BushInc NEEDED

them to confuse the IWR as a vote for war to help them escape scrutiny, and to promote intraparty attacks before the election, well...it's just a mystery to me.

The signing statement PROVES the WH knew they were lying every time they referred to IWR as a vote for war. But, interesting how the left got taken in by the rhetoric, too.

[FrenchieCat]

63. I really don't Care if Bush would have "cared" or not......

cause that is not the issue at hand (plus, I disagree that he "didn't really care" at all.....otherwise, he would'nt have gone through the trouble), the issue was the actions of our senators.

Please know that I see it slightly differently from your "Shrug the shoulder, oh well, wouldn't have matter anyway" stance.

The way that I see it, had all Dems voted "NAY", the IWR (that Blank Check one that Lierberman wrote) would not have passed, and Bush would have had to find another way.

Would he have? I'm sure that he most likely would have.....however, it doesn't absolve our Senators' accountability as to their duties and responsibility to the American People...which, in this case, would have been to make it as difficult as possible (based on what each could do) for the President to wage war that wasn't warranted.

There were 21 Senators that Voted "NO". Explain to me how their vote didn't make them any wiser than those who voted "YES"?

Note that George Bush also said the following in that same link you provided....

"The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

This means that Senators who supported the Resolution were complicit in allowing George Bush an easier "Go" at Iraq. Had the Resolution failed to pass, George Bush would have had a much harder time in doing what he wanted done. The Senators' responsibility was to do just that; to make it difficult, not to make it easier....

[blm]

47. Bush already had the legal ABILITY to go into Iraq under the 1991 UN res.

IWR was purely political maneuvering. Bush HAD the votes to get an IWR written the way he wanted it. It was Dem negotiators like Gephardt, Biden and Kerry who got Iran and Syria taken off the table, and got weapon inspectors and stepped up diplomacy when Bush wanted neither.

But, the media and those who put a disproportionate amount of blame on the IWR as the catalyst for war have been useful idiots for BushInc. They got their cover by the lie that IWR gave them everything they needed for war while few would hold them accountable for being in violation of the IWR.

[ProSense]

48. Yes, Bush would have. Seems people also don't understand apologies!

Q: Did you vote for presidential authority to go to war because you thought the president should be given the benefit of the doubt?

I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. Issues of war and peace go outside of partisan politics. When the president of the United States says this is the way I'm going to do something, you ought to have the right to believe that president. And if there's anything that makes me more motivated about this, it is the fact that he went back on his word with respect to an issue that involves the lives of our young Americans. Americans know that this president did not go to war as a last resort.

Q: Did he intend from the beginning to go to war, no matter what the U.N. or allies said?

But he changed that, you see. This is where the word of the president is so important. Jim Baker wrote publicly how important it was to go to the U.N. Brent Scowcroft wrote publicly. The word around Washington was, the president's father is very concerned, and they don't want to go in this direction. So the president then comes forward and says, you're right. We're going to do these other things.

Q: Was Bush merely paying lip service to trying the diplomatic route?

It appears more and more evident that that may have been the truth, which is why the president broke his word. That's why I say he misled Americans.

Q: What may have been the truth?

That they intended to go no matter what, regardless of what happened. If that is true, he even more misled the nation. If that is true.

Q: Are you less optimistic about bringing democracy to Iraq and the entire the Middle East than President Bush says he is?

Well, (the goal is) moving toward stability. If you don't have stability, you can't have democracy....When you get into those kinds of categories (such as realist), you wind up not doing justice to what's at stake here. We want an Iraq that is not a failed state, one that is moving toward democracy and toward diversity, and has the ability to stand on its own two feet. And how you get there is a more complicated thing than this administration allowed for.

I believe you need to change the current equation significantly. You cannot have a situation where the United States of America has as big a footprint on this process as it does, and hope to have legitimacy and contain the forces that have been unleashed. We need more people involved in this effort, in a broader international effort. And the president has made it very difficult to achieve that.

Now, I believe it will take a new president, a change of administration in Washington to restore credibility to America, and to open the doors to new possibilities for how we get our troops out of Iraq. That's what I believe. And there are many, many other international observers and others who know what's going on who agree with that. All you have to do is go talk to some of my Senate colleagues who have traveled to Iraq and to Europe and elsewhere, and they will confirm to you the need for this new international initiative.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-22-kerry-qna_x.htm

Apologizing and saying it was the wrong vote in hindsight, doesn't mean that he supported the war to begin with.

[0007]

37. I see nothing wrong horrible wrong with this letter..

[Totally Committed]

39. What about his appearance on Bill Maher's "Real Time" in 2004, where

he said he realized that vote was a mistake, and then got down on his knees in front of Nader (who was a guest that night) and begged him not to run, and Nader turned him down?????



TC

[yodermon]

55. no, no, don't you see?

Moore voted for Nader in 2000, thus he can "never enter the Promised Land." :eyes:

[sandnsea]

43. If all Democrats had "voted against the war"

Bush would have gone in anyway and Democrats would be blamed for undermining the troops and all the current problems would be put on Dem heads instead of Bush's. Not to mention most of them didn't "vote for the war" anyway, which has been the absolute stupidest frame by the left in the history of this country. It is STILL their fault that the right is able to spin the war against Democrats when Bush is the one who lied about that vote and his intentions to go to war. Most people still understand the desire to disarm Iraq and that Bush is the one that failed at that, not the Democrats who would have continued with inspections and found a way to get Saddam to step down. That's the part the left doesn't get and if anything causes Lamont to lose, that'll be it. I suspect he's smarter than that though and we'll see a sharp move to the right from here on in.

[FrenchieCat]

44. A lot of hypotheticals in your statement.....

doncha think?

It's ok, but after all is said and done, what do you said to those who didn't vote for the IWR? They did the wrong thing?

[sandnsea]

50. Oh absolutely

I still think the vote was right based on what was said by Bush about the vote at the time and the fact that it followed Wes Clark's REAL recommendations right down the line. Other people can play the left wing revisionist game, I won't. There never would have been inspectors in Iraq without that vote and consequently no case against Bush and what he knew and didn't know about WMD. The Democratic Party ought to be able to stand up and point to that vote as a national security strength in confronting rogue dictatorships.. the right way. Invasion was not the right way and most Democrats said so at the time, even those who "voted for the war". This has just been a colossal strategic disaster by the left from the beginning.

Of course, if Lieberman gets out then Lamont won't have to say much about anything since there won't be a real race in that event anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

54. In reference to this statement of yours........

"I still think the vote was right based on what was said by Bush about the vote at the time and the fact that it followed Wes Clark's REAL recommendations right down the line.

Odd....that those who Voted "NO" on the IWR spoke of Wes Clark's "recommendations" in their Statements or thereafter.....

And those who voted "YES" did not mention Clark....not one of the 27 Dem Senators who voted "YES".....not even John Kerry! How about that? :shrug:

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin,and what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm
-------

and Paul Wellstone on the Senate floor in his speech in opposition of the IWR–

“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

[sandnsea]

64. Been through this with you already

Not going through it again and I'm also not going through all the word games that went on at the time and since. It's conventional wisdom that Clark was against the war, Kennedy decided to go that direction, that's their choice. I know what he said in the hearings, no matter how much Perle tried to spin him as a pacifist who wouldn't go to war if there were enemy troops on our beaches. Now people want to use Perle's anti-Clark pacifist spin as evidence Clark was against the war, it's just whacko. No Democrat supported going to war in October 2002, I don't even think Joe Lieberman did. But the majority did support getting inspectors into Iraq and verified disarmament, and military force to do it if necessary, including Wes Clark. I really don't care how any of them choose to spin it now.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I understand.....and I didn't quote Perle.......

And although no Democrat may have wanted to go to war, some Democrats made it easier for the President to do so by voting for the Blank Check Resolution that Lieberman wrote and Sponsored.

[LoZoccolo]

45. I agree with you, Moore is acting hypocritical and demagogic. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

49. And the more I think about this, the stupider it looks.

Moore has basically made permanent enemies of scores of elected Democrats; nothing they say or do with please Moore. So why should they then listen to him, and why shouldn't they feel free to disparage him in an effort to make themselves look more mainstream? It's not like if they don't they'll get his support. And Moore, as far as I can see, can only lose from this permanent severance; the people who would agree with this ridiculous strategy are propbably going to buy his books and see his movies in the same manner as before, while the rest of us start avoiding him. Way stupid move. Someone should read up on their game theory or something.

[AZBlue]

62. I'm so sick of well-known "Democrats" hurting more than they help.

There's a couple of others I'd lump in that category but can't now since anytime I do, I get drawn and quartered and set on fire repeatedly (I'll get enough of that with my opinion of Moore). As those others however, Moore has fallen into the same trap - he now feels he needs to be against everyone and everything because that gives him the most to say and the most press. I agree with him somewhat (I used to agree with him a lot more than I do now) but he needs to know when to shut up! He's hurting the very cause he claims to be supporting.

[lojasmo]

53. Moore is right on.

I agree with his letter 100%

[CrushTheDLC]

56. Michael Moore is completely right.

And it's a lesson the DLC'ers better learn NOW. They no longer run this party. The PEOPLE do.

[inthebrain]

59. GO MIKEY!!!!!!!!!!

I am full on board with this guy.

I was also a Nader voter in 2000 and owe no one and apology for that vote. If you think I need to apologize then you need to explain to me why I should support Lieberman as a VP. The same guy who constantly backs every Republican bad idea he finds opportunistic. If it wasn't for us Nader voters there would be no revolt in the Democratic party right now.

Before 2000 folks were rather happy with the way things were going in this party.

Moore is dead on!!!!! Democrats need to either start representing what the base wants or get the fuck out of the party. Lieberman was a wishy washy dickhead who stood for absolutely nothing!!!!!!

[countingbluecars]

61. Good letter IMO n/t

[Nutmegger]

66. Every Dem who voted for this atrocity needs to face a challenge.

Not to say that I want to see them all lose but, rather, see them come back and defend their vote or offer a valid explanation why they regret their vote.

That's the only way this madness will stop. We can't just "wait". We said that before and here we are, Iraq in a civil war, "waiting".

The Repukes will still be pro-war. Let to voters choose between pro-war Repukes and anti-war Democrats and we'll see who wins. In a country where 60% think the war was never worth it, the Democrats shall be victorious.

Bring them home!