michael moore backs clark

[Johnney]

yahoo article here
whats this tub of shit doing? trying to ruin clarks chances?

 

[wonderwench]

The kiss of death for Clark.

Clark's only chance is to appeal to moderate voters turned off by Dean.

Moore just blew that for him.

 

[Johnney]

Clark: WHO?!? Shit can we decline????

 

[5stringJeff]

Everyone knows that Clark is Clinton's puppet candidate. But WW, you are right, no moderate is going to vote for Clark if Moore is endorsing him, and no liberal is going to vote for him in the first place.

So here's the question: is Moore genuinely behind Clark, or is he trying to erode Clark's support from the center by attaching his name to Clark's candidacy, thereby clearing the way for a more leftist Dem candidate like Dean, who would be more in line with Moore's foaming-at-the-mouth liberalism? I think it's the latter.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Maybe Moore can become his speech writer and provide some off the wall rants. Clark already looks like he always has something stuck in his butt, so this would just match the speech with the look.

 

[wonderwench]

gop,

There is no way that Michael Moore has the self-awareness to realize that his advocacy of Clark will undermine his candidacy.

He is way too much of an egotistical blowhard. I do believe his endorsement is serious.

 

[bamthin]

Actually, Moore's support of Clark is rooted in pragmatism. I saw him discussing it with Charlie Rose on public television. He feels that Clark has a great chance in several swing states. I think this really helps Clark with the far left liberals. They question Clark's party affiliation because he voted for Reagan. If Dean doesn't get the nomination, and it is beginning to look lke there is at least a decent chance of that happening, those far left votes will have to go somewhere. Moore is a hero to left wing fanatics and they may "see the light" and accept Clark to oust Bush.

If I were a Bush supporter, the scariest candidate out there would be Clark. He is from the south, a war hero, and a religious man. He is much closer to the center than Dean and is generally an appealing man. I think he is a tough target for Rush/Drudge etc. as well. His career is relatively spotless.

The bottom line, the far left will vote for anyone other than Bush. Clark just needs to get to the finals. It's that sweet spotof undecideds in the swing states that may be the difference. Another thing is, there is still a ton of possible bad news for Bush that can happen before November. The Iraq situation, which looks to be worsening, the 9/11 investigation (which is being held up by White House stonewalling), the job situation, etc. This could actually garner Clark Bush votes that are closer to the center.

Keep your eye on Clark, he is a rising star.


-Bam

 

[eric]

The problem almost the entire political arena agrees that Clark is not ready for the big time yet. The other thing that is going to hurt Clark is his ideological flip-flopping. Personally, if I would have to vote democratic, Lieberman would be my choice !

 

[bamthin]

I really don't see how Clark has done so much flip flopping. If you read Drudge or listen to Rush you may though.

-Bam

 

[eric]

No my taste runs with a little more class the Rush or Limbaugh, more along the lines of the WSJ. I don't have time for silly little commentary shows.

Go back and look at the comments he has made about Iraq !

 

[nbdysfu]

No bam, I was reading the nytimes back then and I remember reading something from them about how clark was f-fing, I think.

One thing you're ignoring is that clark is of the military. He has never had any civilian government post that I know of. Bush ran one of the largest border states as governor.

A precedent for Clark? President Eisenhower. But still Clark is a pale comparison to Ike and the victory culture which surrounded him.

How about George Washington? He felt it was dishonorable and tyrannical for him to use his laurels to secure another term in office? What about that?

 

[jon_forward]

even the old time democrats in washington say clark is flip-flopping thats all I heard today on political talk/face the nation ect

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Its true Clark has "flip-flopped" as the spin doctors put it, or changed his mind as most normal people would say. Honestly, I see no problem if he changes his mind every now and then. I'd much rather him do that then be on a one-track mind for the rest of his life.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Its true Clark has "flip-flopped" as the spin doctors put it, or changed his mind as most normal people would say. Honestly, I see no problem if he changes his mind every now and then. I'd much rather him do that then be on a one-track mind for the rest of his life.

When placing a vote for a person it is with an understanding of the person's beliefs and convictions, how they will lead and how they will handle the office to which they are being voted for. If a canidate has proved to "flip-flop" or "change his mind" what is your vote for ?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I agree. I don't see it as a good thing for that reason. If they keep changing, how will people really know what they think.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by bamthin
I really don't see how Clark has done so much flip flopping

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
changed his mind as most normal people would say

No, I think most normal people would call it lying.

General Wesley Perle


When retired General Wesley Clark announced his Presidential bid, former boss and Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton was not enthused: "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues," he said. "Wes won't get my vote." The scrutiny of the Democratic primary contest is now revealing what General Shelton was getting at.

To wit: Mr. Clark is reinventing himself almost daily to serve the goals of his new political ambition. This week finds him calling for a Congressional investigation of the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. "We don't know what the motivation was," he said during a Tuesday campaign stop in New Hampshire. Mr. Bush, he said last week, is "misleading the American people." Yet we now know that less than 18 months ago, as Congress weighed whether to authorize war against Saddam Hussein, Mr. Clark all but declared himself part of the "neocon cabal" as he offered a litany of reasons for action while testifying on Capitol Hill.

"There's no question Saddam Hussein is a threat," Mr. Clark told the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002. "Every President has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary."

It gets better. Mr. Clark also cites approvingly the Darth Vader of the vast Iraq War conspiracy: "I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive. ... As Richard Perle has so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

On the nature of Saddam's threat: "He has chemical and biological weapons. ... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. ... I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate."

Keep in mind that Mr. Clark is staking his Presidential bid largely on his credibility as a military man, as well as on his integrity and "leadership." A Clark spokesman protested yesterday that nothing in the Congressional testimony "is inconsistent with what he says now about the war." Really.

taken from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, 16 January 2004

 

[jon_forward]

a wolf in sheep skin is still a wolf

 

[bamthin]

I would call the WSJ lying, Zhukov. I have checked General Clark's statement from September 26, 2002 and I can't find the quotes they referenced. I did find these though from when he spoke that day.

"But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam’s regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq."


and this:

"Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.” "


Read it yourself here:

LINK


As far as Hugh Shelton goes, I notice he didn't say exactly what Clark did and also remember that Shelton is a consultant on Edwards' campaign. I did a little digging though and I found this. It is Secretary of Defense Cohen talking about Wes Clark. Hugh Shelton was right there by his side too.

Q: This is General Clarke's last visit to Kosovo today. Any word on how he has performed his job?

Sec Def.: He has done an extraordinary job. General Clarke is one of our most brilliant officers. He undertook a mission that is perhaps one the most complicated and complex and carried it out successfully. As I mentioned in my remarks, this air campaign was the most successful in the history of warfare. We had over 38,000 sorties that were flown. We had only two planes that were shot down and no pilots lost. That is a record that is unparalleled in the history of warfare. So, General Clarke and his entire staff and subordinates and all who participated deserve great credit.

Q: Why is he leaving office, then?

Sec Def.: He is leaving because we have General Ralston who will become the new SACEUR. We are now replacing many of our CINCs throughout the world.

Q: It is not a reflection on his performance?

Sec Def: No reflection at all. He has done an outstanding job as the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Southern Command, and he did an outstanding job here as EUCOM Commander and also as SACEUR.

LINK

Also, Cohen and Shelton awarded Clark with the Defense Distinguished Service Medal in September, 1999. Here's a couple of requirements for awarding that medal:

C3.2.7. No Defense decoration shall be awarded or presented
to any Service member whose entire service during or
after the time of the distinguished act, achievement,
or service has not been honorable.

C3.2.8. Any Defense decoration for a distinguished
act, achievement, or service may be revoked if facts,
later determined, would have prevented original approval
of the decoration.

Funny how people just believe what they want even if it isn't true.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

I'll quote Ann Coulter:

"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."

"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."

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I'll quote Ann Coulter:

Jimnyc, I thought you only allowed reliable sources on your sight, might as well quote Michael Moore about Clark.