Michael Moore and Gen Clark.

[Lt. Killer M]

===8<=================== Original Nachrichtentext ===================
A Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at Home)



September 12, 2003



Dear General Wesley Clark,



I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and
somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into
war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television.



And that person was you.



Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being
"the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended the interview and then turned to you, as you
were sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And,
although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent was necessary and welcome,
and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in
Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect,
for all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence.



Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out. And what I've learned about you
corresponds to my experience with you back in March. You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not
afraid to speak the truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your position on gun control: "If you
are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We
have them."



In addition to being first in your class at West Point, a four star general from Arkansas, and the
former Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that should give pause to any peace-loving person
-- I have discovered that...



1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.



2. You are firmly pro-choice.



3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's
affirmative action case.



4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.



5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international
community.



6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military
men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the
dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be
Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country.



General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in person. I would like to share with others what I
said to you privately: You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election.



This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his
flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his
opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff.
We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically
lame Democratic Party into have a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party
on the ballot.



But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone who is going to get The
Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to across America -- be they leftie Green or
conservative Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job
is:



Bush Must Go.



This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the
environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total
American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who have
abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.



The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate, and I know who the
winner is going to be.



The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean
where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to
run away from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that America
was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with applause.



That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there are things you and I
don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the
road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can
beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate
that the average American will vote for.



Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But desperate times call for
desperate measures. I want to know more about you. I want your voice heard. I would like to see you in
these debates. Then let the chips fall where they may -- and we'll all have a better idea of what to do.
If you sit it out, then I think we all know what we are left with.



I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now to encourage you to run, even if they aren't
sure they would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address is: mailto:info@leadershipforamerica.org).
None of us truly know how we will vote five months from now or a year from now. But we do know that this
race needs a jolt -- and Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be able to Dukakisize.



Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the nation needs to hear what you know about what was
really behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas of how we can live in a more peaceful world.
Yes, your country needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from
within, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people."

[Lt. Killer M]

"And Now a Chance to Bid Farewell to Mr. Bush" (from Michael Moore)
September 23, 2003
Last week, over 30,000 of you from my list sent letters to Wesley Clark urging to him to run. And, hey, um -- it looks like it helped! He announced on Wednesday and by Sunday he was #1 in the Newsweek poll on the 10 Democratic candidates. By yesterday, according to the CNN/Time poll, he was nine points ahead of his nearest rival -- and three percentage points ahead of Bush if the election were held today.
But now the hard part begins. In my open letter to General Clark, while strongly encouraging him to run, I told him that I was not yet endorsing him -- I have no plans to endorse anyone at this point -- yet I thought his voice should be heard in this campaign. Why? Because I heard him say things that I think the American public needs to hear.
My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.
Standing in that living room 12 nights ago, Clark continued to share more private conversations. In the months leading up the Iraq War, friends of his at the Pentagon -- high-ranking career military officers -- told him that the military brass did NOT want this war in Iraq, that it violated the Powell Doctrine of "start no war if you don't know what your exit strategy is." They KNEW we would be in this mess, and they asked the General, in his role now as a television commentator, to inform the American people of this folly. And, as best he could, that's what he did.
I don't know whether I am violating any confidence here, but I think all of you have a right to know these things -- and I left there that night convinced that this pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-affirmative action retired general should be in the debates so that the American people can hear what I heard. The public needs to see and hear what he's all about so we can make up our own minds about him. Now, thanks to all the encouragement you gave him to run, we will have a chance to do just that.
He may very well turn out to be much less than what we thought. Or he may be our best and greatest hope in removing George W. Bush. Whatever the outcome, let's all agree on one thing: There are enough Democrats running, this time around, who stand for most of the things that we stand for. We will not find ourselves having to choose between the "evil of two lessers" in the Democratic primaries. When we know more about each of them and the dust has settled, then we need to unite with each other to keep our eyes on the prize: Bush Removal in ‘04.
But removal is not enough to turn our country around. We have to stay on these Democrats to do their jobs. We know from experience how spineless they can be. Our job is to keep pushing them to be more progressive in their actions and positions. And we need to continue to build independent, third party movements on the local level which will, in part, let them know that they do not automatically have us in their hip pocket.
That is why I am not endorsing anyone right now -- and I caution you not to throw your whole self behind any of them until they can state clearly what they are going to do on certain issues. If we give them our support before insisting they do this, what leverage will we have to mold them into the candidate we -- and not the political consultants -- want them to be?
For instance, I sat in a room with Howard Dean a couple of months ago and heard him say he supports the death penalty "in certain cases." He probably believes he needs to say this to get elected. What he needs to hear from us are the facts about how many innocent people have been released from death row, people who were about to be executed. We need to show Gov. Dean the right way to address this issue -- by calling for a moratorium on the death penalty until, if ever, this problem of potentially executing the innocent can be solved.
When I watched Howard Dean give his speech announcing his candidacy, he spoke for nearly a half hour. How many times did he say the word "Iraq?"
None.
And he's supposed to be the anti-war candidate! Well, what I'm saying is, let's cut him some slack. He clearly has been against the war, even if he did fail to mention it (the #1 issue of the day) in his speech. We cannot be so quick to want to dismiss him or sink back into our cynicism of believing that all politicians suck. And when Dean says he wouldn't cut the Pentagon budget, he just needs to be educated. So the best way to support Dean right now is to let him know how you feel about these issues and that, if he wants your vote, he has to state clearly that he will cut the Pentagon budget and use that money for the things this country really needs.
Likewise, Clark's first 24 hours as a candidate resembled a Marx Brothers movie. His position on the war, depending on what paper you read, changed about six dozen times. Only one thing was clear -- this guy is not a professional politician! But then, isn't that a good thing? The press has complained that Clinton is secretly behind him. Both right and left wing pundits have roared over that one. Are they that out of touch with the average American that they don't recognize, when the word "Clinton" is mentioned these days, a wave of wistful nostalgia sweeps through a majority of Americans? As most of you know, I had many problems with Clinton, but I can at least realize that when Americans think "Clinton Era," they think of better days -- regardless of just how better they really were. So if you think that by "exposing" the Clinton connection to Clark is going to turn people off, think again. Every time it's reported, Clark's numbers go up.
But it seemed like on Day One of his campaign, General Clark was listening too much to the Arkansas politicos and not enough to his own heart. When you're a Rhodes Scholar (as he is), you have to hate others trying to turn your head into a bowl of spaghetti.
By the time Day Two rolled around, the general had heard from all of us (a big collective "WHAT THE F#@%?!" so to speak), and he straightened things out in an interview with the Associated Press. He said, without equivocation: "Let's make one thing real clear: I would never have voted for this war…. I've got a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case for preemptive war."
Now Clark will be in his first debate this Thursday. As the others have been campaigning and debating for months now, there is no way he will be up to their speed. He doesn't have to be. I hope he is just himself so we can see where he stands on many of the issues that he has yet to weigh in on (NAFTA, health care specifics, etc.).
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?
And who among the other candidates does not have blood on his hands? John Kerry? He killed people in Vietnam. Bob Graham? He executed people as governor of Florida. Howard Dean? He says he would have voted in favor of bombing Afghanistan (at least 3,000 civilians slaughtered) and he's already said he would execute people on death row. So would Edwards. Gephardt voted for both wars. Dennis Kucinich used to vote for laws restricting a woman's right to an abortion, potentially forcing women back to the alley and, for many of them, to certain death.
No one is innocent here. And yet, there is, in everyone, a chance for redemption. John Kerry bravely led the anti-war movement when he returned from Vietnam. Dennis Kucinich changed his position and now supports a woman's right to choose. Howard Dean (with Kucinich) stood alone against the Iraq War when it was not the popular thing to do. People change. If we don't accept this, we are never going to get rid of Bush.
We, the voters, have a job to do right now: Remain strong and steadfast in pushing these candidates to behave, straighten up, and do the right thing. There will be plenty of time to get behind the one candidate who is nominated to defeat Bush. What we should be doing now is making our voices heard so that we can influence them to take the right positions.
Back in February, Patrick Tyler of the New York Times wrote, "there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion." To paraphrase him, I would say that there are now actually ELEVEN campaigns running in this race -- those of the ten announced candidates, and OURS. Those 10 who are running are up against something mightier than any of their fellow candidates -- they must face OUR collective conscience and will. That will is a powerful force -- and we shouldn't give it up until we start hearing and seeing things from these candidates that we expect and demand.
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.
Yours,
Michael Moore

[Skyfish]

If Moore thinks Clark is good ! Then it's all good for me :D

Thanks for this Killer [thumbsup]

[Plux]

Well, lately I must admit that mr MM has seemed a bit over-populous and very left-winged for me. I liked his movie (BfC) a lot but I think he is suffering from overexposure of some sort, I left his books in the bookstore just where they were. These texts are very enjoyable, though. Looks like there still is some hope for the US in the near future! Now let's just hope the majority will be able to recognize that themselves. :)

[anarres]

hehe, every time I think of how shit the UK politiks are I think of the USA and get a warm cosy feeling about my home country...

[DrAlimentado]

LOL @anarres. "warm cosy feeling"... shit. well it's all relative I guess.

I find it hard to differentiate between republicans and democrats myself, Bush is a very scary fundy who lets the likes of rumsfeld and cheney actually run the world (oops, i mean USA) so almost anyone would be better than him in comparison.

But Blair is essentially just a competent tory... not that I would prefer the tories back here *shudder* but it's hard to tell the difference in terms of privatisation etc. And in terms of parlimentary and cabinet democracy Blair is by all accounts worse than any before him, including the iron lady herself!

ho-hum.

[Skyfish]

quote: including the iron lady herself!
Oh man !
[goggle] [eek] [mouth] [eek] [goggle]
Come on !
Keep it real will you ???? [argue]
Thats way offline [V]

[ERIKK]

Do I wanna read this these long posts....

[scared]

[blush]

ok, I read it. Sounds like all candidates suck. Why not pull Al Gore back in? He 'almost' won last elections.... [evil]

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by ERIKK

Do I wanna read this these long posts....

[scared]

[blush]

ok, I read it. Sounds like all candidates suck. Why not pull Al Gore back in? He 'almost' won last elections.... [evil]




Erik, I think the general has (as Powell himself would have) one quality: HONESTY. You simply do not get that rank in the US military if you are willing to cheat. After all, cheats will out at a rate of at least 10%, and the jump from Colonel to General Officer - well, as Gen Schwarzkopf said, the day he got promoted he was told: if the plane carrying all you 48 new General to Washington had crashed, we could jsut have gone backt to the rank of Colonel and found 48 equally qualified men.

[Ehecatl Atzin]

Coming from the recieving end of this nasty culture war between the establishment and the rest of us, (native comunities, non-western thinkers, etc...) It's about time Bush and his doggies get what they deserve.