Michael Moore endorses....Wesley Clark?

[ArbitraryGuy]

Moore's endorsement gives people a good reason not to vote for Clark.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy
Moore's endorsement gives people a good reason not to vote for Clark.

Why? Moore has just as much a right to campaign for a candiate then anyone else.

I find the irony that Republicans wish celebrities would "shut up with their political opinions", and they clearly only say this because most celebrities are liberal. They are always quick to adopt celebs as banners for office though (Reagan and Ar-nold)

 

[The Yankee]

Right...that's why I'm not so sure what exactly to make of this endorsement. It might get a few people in the primary....but if Moore keeps talking with a picture of Clark next to him, it could be a liability if Clark wins the nomination.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Moores endorsment will help in the primaries, but it nominated it would cost big time in the general election, maybe millions in center and near right cross over votes.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Ann Coulter ripped him a new one.

DEMOCRATS are so delirious about finding a general who is a pacifist scaredy-cat that no one seems to have bothered to investigate whether Wesley Clark is sane.

On "Meet the Press" back in November, Clark described intelligence as "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." No, wait. I'm sorry. I think that was Clark talking about Monica Lewinsky's dress, not national security intelligence.

WTF? Why is Ann Coulter even TALKING about Monica Lewinsky? Is Clark the same person as Bill Clinton? I don't think so. She seriously needs to take a step back and realize that not all Democrats are the same.

Meanwhile, Clark recently said that the "two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years" are: "You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen." If he were president, Clark says, there would be no more terrorist attacks.

Well, never say never, but I would say that Clark has just a good a chance as Bush does, because with the Patriot Act it is obvious that the whole administration is stumbling in the dark.

The adversarial watchdog press did not ask Clark to explain how he could guarantee an end to terrorist attacks, but recited Clark's prior statements calling for better intelligence. Apparently, if we could just refine the gray goo of intelligence to a magical terrorist-prediction machine, Clark could put an end to this terrorism nonsense once and for all.

Err, how is calling for better intelligence NOT explaining how to guarantee an end to terrorist attacks? Oh, I see. In her mind, an end to terror is the concept of a police state in which EVERYONE is afraid 24/7.

Yes, I suppose if our intelligence agencies knew who the terrorists were and when they were going to strike, we could stop them. And if we knew who all the raving lunatics were, we could prevent these infernal Democratic presidential primary debates. Which reminds me, I think I know how we can win the lottery every week, too.

Err, knowing about terrorist plans is not impossible, and actually surprisingly feasible. It would also be easier if we could focus on fighting terrorists instead of rogue nations.

Liberals scoff at a system to shoot down incoming missiles, but believe that all random suicide bombers can be located and stopped before they strike. Hitting a bullet with a bullet just isn't feasible, so let's concentrate on something doable like predicting the future.

She makes no sense. At this rate, we have a better chance of stopping a terror attack than shooting down a ballistic missile. Also, what's the point of shooting down missiles if, in her words, the attacks are going to be "random suicide bombers"??

Democrats are utterly unfazed by the fact that Clark is crazier than a March hare. They are so happy to have a pacifist in uniform, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this peacenik criticizes the war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and cite his own glorious experience with blood, sweat and tears in the Balkans.

Republicans are utterly unfazed by the fact that Bush is crazier than a March hare. THey are so happy to have the royal family back in line and strutting around a uniform he borrowed and refused to fight for, they ignore his Norman Bates moments. When this warmonger presses for war in Iraq, he can puff up his puny chest and refuse to cite his own disgraceful experience with bribery and using his father's fame to get out of the draft.

Asked on "Meet the Press" what advice he would give Bush, Clark said: "I'd say, 'Mr. President, the first thing you've got to do is you've got to surrender' -- stop right there and the Kucinich crowd is yours -- 'exclusive U.S. control over this mission. ... Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans.'" Because, as everyone knows, Wesley Clark "built" NATO. This guy sounds more like Al Gore every day.

How is that bad advice? Also, she fails to grasp the concept that by "organization" he did not mean NATO but instead a coalition of nations. Also, Al Gore DID create the internet as we know it today because without him the internet would have remained the Arpanet, a military exclusive version.

Asked what countries he proposed to bring into Iraq that weren't there already, Clark said, "I think you ask NATO ... just as I did in Kosovo, because this brings NATO into the problem." NATO is the logical choice for this job because of Iraq's extremely close proximity to the North Atlantic.

Is she still living in the 19th century? We live in a globalized world. Most armies are capable of deploying almost anywhere in a matter of weeks.

Evidently, Clark is sublimely confident that no one remembers anything about his misadventures in the Balkans.

The Balkans are peas compared to the disaster in Iraq.

Yugoslavia posed absolutely no threat to the United States -- not imminent, not latent, not burgeoning, not now, not then, not ever. (Unless you count all the U.S. highway deaths caused by Yugos.) The president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, never tried to assassinate a U.S. president. He never shook his fist at the Great Satan. He didn't shelter and fund Muslim terrorists -- though the people we were fighting for did.

Iraq didn't pose a threat to the U.S. either. Also, civil wars have the tendency to spill over into neighboring regions, take Vietnam for example. We as a worldwide community decided that this Civil War must be stopped and there must be an end to the bloodshed.

In humanitarian terms, Milosevic didn't hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. Milosevic killed a few thousand Albanians in a ground war. Hussein killed well over a million Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shias, among others. Milosevic had no rape rooms, no torture rooms, no Odai or Qusai. He didn't even use a wood chipper to dispose of his enemies, the piker.

I don't understand. I thought we were trying to make "the world safe for democracy" A civil war hardly constitutes a democracy.

And yet NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark, staged a pre-emptive attack on Yugoslavia.

So pre-emptive attacks are bad? I don't understand your reasoning. Perhaps its because you're a HYPOCRITE.

Under Clark's command, the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake, killing three Chinese journalists. Other NATO air strikes under Clark mistakenly damaged the Swiss, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Hungarian ambassadors' residences. Despite the absence of ground troops, Yugoslavia took three American POWs, whose release was eventually brokered by Jesse Jackson. America was standing tall.

Hey, at least we KNOW how many were killed in the war. In Iraq, your beloved Bush administration is REFUSING to tally the civilian dead. Perhaps because it would be FAR too high for even you to ignore. Also, the casualties in NATO do not even compare to the 300+ dead soldiers in Iraq.

Clark's forces bombed a civilian convoy by mistake, killing more than 70 ethnic Albanians, and then Clark openly lied about it to the press. First he denied NATO had done it, and when forced to retract that, Clark pinned the blame on an innocent U.S. pilot. As New York Newsday reported on April 18, 1999: "American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the staff of Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander, pointed to an innocent F-16 Falcon pilot who was castigated by the media for blasting a refugee convoy." Eventually, even a model of probity like Bill Clinton was shocked by Clark's mendacity and fired him.

Err, how many civilian convoys have we mistakenly bombed in Afghanistan? Quite a few. But that doesn't get as much attention b/c we were consumed by the jingoist mentality.

At the end of major combat operations led by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, arch-villain Slobodan Milosevic was still in power. (At least Clark won't have to worry about any embarrassing "mission accomplished" photo-ops coming back to haunt him.) Today, almost a decade and $15 billion later, U.S. troops are still bogged down in the Balkans. No quagmire there!

Err, Milosevic is on trial for Crimes Against Humanity. Civil Wars take a while to mend. But $15 billion over the course of a decade is INCREDIBLE if you consider the MANY MANY MANY Billions (soon trillions?) we have spent in LESS than a year.

That's the Democrats' idea of a general.

And your idea of a president is an ultra-rich, ignorant, arrogant man who has denied the basic principles of the constitution to many and blatantly disrespects the working class.

 

[thestonesfan]

The above post could use a bit of editing.

 

[ArbitraryGuy]

Originally posted by archer_007


Why? Moore has just as much a right to campaign for a candiate then anyone else.

I find the irony that Republicans wish celebrities would "shut up with their political opinions", and they clearly only say this because most celebrities are liberal. They are always quick to adopt celebs as banners for office though (Reagan and Ar-nold)

Whoa there buddy...

I didn't say that he doesn't have a right to do so... and I never mentioned anything about celebrities or said anything about their legitimacy in politics.

So, put that straw man away...

Moore is so far to the left that he's going to drive a lot of people away. This follows the direction that the Democrat Party Leadership is going... ultra-left.

I'm not saying that's good or bad (even though I think it's bad). I'm just saying it's left.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by ArbitraryGuy


Whoa there buddy...

I didn't say that he doesn't have a right to do so... and I never mentioned anything about celebrities or said anything about their legitimacy in politics.

So, put that straw man away...

Moore is so far to the left that he's going to drive a lot of people away. This follows the direction that the Democrat Party Leadership is going... ultra-left.

I'm not saying that's good or bad (even though I think it's bad). I'm just saying it's left.

I agree that Moore's support could be a long-term burden. The celebrities and politics thing was something I had been thinking about for a while and just need to release it.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Ann Coulter doesn't like Wesley Clark! Why don't we get him elected and give her a better chance to complain?

She's a funny woman. Rabidly psychotic, but funny.

 

[Toasty]

I don't really notice any inconsistencies in Clark's statements. He acknowledges Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD, and that they are a threat, and many, many people were happy for Iraqis on the day Baghdad was liberated--much less for there being one less dictator in the world. No where does he say he supports the war. There were some admirable things about this war, I just happen to think the less-than-so outweigh them.

 

[amadeus]

Shows you how little depth Michael Moore goes into when judging people or events.

 

[The Chosen One]

Clark can't make up his mind, watching the news it seems that clark has said something like 7 different things(points of view) when it comes to the Iraq war, he can't make up his mind on whether he supports the Iraq war or not, looks like he even said today infront of the armed services committee that he would've probably voted for the Iraq war if he could.
Also clark was a general of a war where we used air power, i don't consider him a real general, so his military career means jack ****. Also he's notorious for not following orders, yes generals have orders from the president.
Clark is like all of the other democrat nominees, including Dean, they can't stand firm on anything.
Dean said over and over before that he supported Bush ect ect ect, all of these Democrats are saying what a certain group of people want to here. If they're around the anti-war group they're going to say they were against the war ect, they're all Bull****ers.

 

[PinkyGen]

Moore is usually very funny, but completely nutty, like in Bowling for Columbine. I also disagree with how he characterizes Clark, especially on the tax plan. That tax plan is never getting through Congress.

But for the first time in a long time, Moore's essential point for democrats and Bush Bashers is sound. Who stands the best chance of beating Bush? It ain't Dean, whose going to repel middle America and the south. It is General Clark, who stands the best chances of getting all those former Reagan Democrats to at least take a glance back at the old party.

As for Clark winning, it depends on how quickly he can lean at the least basic's of the political game; his inexperience is what lead to some of these flip-flops. (The flip-flops do not bother me too much, considering all the candidates have done it, especially Dean. Bush also flip-flopped when he was running in the primaries and in the general election).

Clark ain't the perfect candidate, but neither was Clinton, Kennedy, or even FDR (who actually ran on balancing the budget, not balooning it). But come November, Clark is the only who stands a chance of beating Bush. If you want to be a "true believer", go vote for Nader, since it worked so well for Bush in 2000.

 

[r4ge]

After repeatidly hearing and reading the same announcements and articles, I have come to the conclusion that Dean's comments on clark have some meaning and thought to it.

The unclarity of Clark's possition on the war, and his various comments supporting Bush and other administration members, undermine his credibility as a democrat.

If were legible to vote in the U.S i would first analyse all canditates words and compare them with their pasts. Offcorse with these tactics one will always find discrepencies. Yet when you start to question if he realy is a democrat, then theres something wrong.

 

[Zamecnik]

I disagree, I think Dean can carry Middle America, the rust belt specifically. I used to like Clark but he is basically a republican. I forgot, if Dean gets Cali and New York what's the next biggest state/s to win (forget about Texas and no-democrat allowed states)? Illinois?

 

[Ossric]

Originally posted by Shadylookin


7. yes cutting budgets of the things that protect us have proven to work so well in the past *cough 9/11 cough*

thank god that wasting billions of dollars on the Star Wars program will help against dirty bombs and crashing airplanes.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Those being of course the only threats whatsoever to national security for the rest of US history. May as well scrap those aircraft carriers, all the heavy bombers, and indeed, most of the military if that is the case.
After all, dirty bombs and hijacked airliners are the way things are going to be; there will never again be another type of conflict, and most certainly not a high intensity one.

Removing the nuclear sword of Damocles from the heads of one's citizens is manifestly not a waste. The technology is viable, and the strategy/politics beyond reproach. A combination of ABLs, ground based interceptors, air launched platforms, Brilliant Pebbles, SM-3s and complimentary THAADS and PAC-3s is the way forward, and one that is being taken despite it putting Russian and Chinese noses out of joint.

 

[newfangle]

When Moore says that the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes, is he also referring to himself?

 

[Double Barrel]

LOL @ newfangle. Good point about Moore.

Here is an interesting picture of General Wesley Clark:

Photo: (August 27, 1994) Lt. General Wesley Clark meets and exchanges hats with Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic. Clark accepted as gifts from Mladic a hat, bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed in Cyrrilic. A US official complained of Clark’s unauthorized visit: “It's like cavorting with Hermann Goering.”

Sparkling candidate you have there.

The trouble with Wes
Robert Novak

September 22, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago.

Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe.

Last week on CNN's "Crossfire," I asked one of Clark's new supporters -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois -- about that indiscretion. "Well, I don't know about the photo," he replied. He and other Clark backers, led by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, might want to dig more deeply into the general's turbulent military career before getting too deeply committed.

For Emanuel, Rangel and other well-connected Democrats, Wes Clark seems a dream come true. He is walking the liberal line on taxes, abortion, racial quotas and Iraq. But he has military credentials and decorations that George W. Bush lacks. Even before formally announcing last week, Clark had 10 percent in Gallup's first national listing of him among presidential candidates and was just 6 percentage points behind the front-runner. Clark comes over on television as a square-jawed straight-shooter, not the stormy petrel that the Army knew during 34 years active duty -- including his conduct in the Banja Luka incident.

U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol.

This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the "Clark Rule": whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats.

After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat.

After such behavior, Clark was never on the promotion list to full general until he appealed to Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He got his fourth star and became commander in chief of the Southern Command. His last post, as NATO supreme commander, found this infantry officer leading an air war against the Serbs over Kosovo. Clark argued with NATO colleagues by insisting on a ground troops option and complaining about the slowly graduated bombing campaign. He was pushed out abruptly by Defense Secretary William Cohen.

Since retiring in 2000, Clark has not been less contentious. Secretary of State Colin Powell was furious that a fellow four-star general in his CNN commentary would criticize U.S. strategy in Iraq, without much information and with the war barely underway. Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East "think tank" in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization. After claiming that the White House pressured CNN to fire him, Clark later said, "I've only heard rumors about it."

Nevertheless, liberals who gathered Thursday night at the Manhattan home of historian Arthur Schlesinger agreed that a general is just the right kind of candidate to oppose President Bush and that they never had seen any general so liberal as Wes Clark. They chose to ignore past performance, which may be cause for regret.

Source

For every "good" point you attempt to cast upon General Wesley Clark, easy-to-find examples of his true nature seem to counter each point. They paint the picture that he is not quite exactly who is trying to portray himself to be. What, the emperor has no clothes???

I'm not a Republican and I'm not a big fan of President Bush, either. So keep your flames to yourself, please.

 

[Håkan Eriksson]

What about Michael Moores previous "democrats and republicans, same **** different name"-statements.