Michael Moore's letter to General Welsey Clark

[Miramonti]

A very positive/supportive letter to clark. I've bolded some parts mentioning where general clark stands on some issues.

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: 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."

Yours,

Michael Moore

 

[TheBDB]

With Michael Moore being as crazy as he is, Gen. Clark is probably cringing at this letter.

 

[glenn1]

But desperate times call for desperate measures.

This pretty much sums up Moore's views. His heart really longs for Kucinich to win, but he knows he won't. So he's doing some quick arithmatic and thinking Clark might have a shot. Or hopes at least he has a better shot than Kucinich. Really, he wouldn't care who wins as long as he hangs a (D) after his name and makes an effort at parroting some of his views. Sad really.

Here's a thought for you Mr. Moore and all the other voters... if you really believe in "letting the chips fall where they may," then vote your heart and don't worry about how remote the victory chances of your chosen candidate. Or be a weasel and only worry that "your guy" have the correct political party's label and shut the hell up and accept whatever you get. Your vote will show what your priorities are, be it winning or your principles, so make it count.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
With Michael Moore being as crazy as he is, Gen. Clark is probably cringing at this letter.

Moore's not crazy. He's just angry. Angry at the way he's seen average Americans, we the people, get screwed over left and right by greedy corporations and the politicians who pander to them. Angry at the way capitalist ideals have been perverted into a destructive religion where money is the only concern. He's angry that the founding principles of this country -- human dignity, respect, fairness, justice, opportunity for all -- have been subverted by the lust for a bigger mountain of gold.

The founding fathers never intended for capitalism to be America's highest priority, let alone its only one.

 

[drag]

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.

That's funny. He thinks people hate him for his stance or his beleifs. Of course the vast majority of people hated him because of him acting like a total jackass and personally insulting somebody they look up to.

That's what happens when you surround yourself with people who continiously tell who how remarkable, intellegent, and brave you are.

 

[Looney]

General Clark's commentary was 90% of the reason why i watched CNN over Fox News.

Good guy, i would definitely like to see him as President.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: jjsole
A very positive/supportive letter to clark. I've bolded some parts mentioning where general clark stands on some issues.

September 12, 2003


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.[/b]

Was the war in Kosovo "the last resort"?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jjsole
A very positive/supportive letter to clark. I've bolded some parts mentioning where general clark stands on some issues.

September 12, 2003


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.[/b]

Was the war in Kosovo "the last resort"?

You mean the War where he decided to bomb, bomb, and bomb...and then was tried for war crimes?

CkG

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jjsole
A very positive/supportive letter to clark. I've bolded some parts mentioning where general clark stands on some issues.

September 12, 2003


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.[/b]

Was the war in Kosovo "the last resort"?

You mean the War where he decided to bomb, bomb, and bomb...and then was tried for war crimes?

CkG

Oh I forgot. Those rules only apply when you are arguing against Bush.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jjsole
A very positive/supportive letter to clark. I've bolded some parts mentioning where general clark stands on some issues.

September 12, 2003


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.[/b]

Was the war in Kosovo "the last resort"?

You mean the War where he decided to bomb, bomb, and bomb...and then was tried for war crimes?

CkG

Oh I forgot. Those rules only apply when you are arguing against Bush.

Clinton convinced us they had WMD. We were deceived.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jjsole
A very positive/supportive letter to clark. I've bolded some parts mentioning where general clark stands on some issues.

September 12, 2003


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.[/b]

Was the war in Kosovo "the last resort"?

You mean the War where he decided to bomb, bomb, and bomb...and then was tried for war crimes?

CkG

Oh I forgot. Those rules only apply when you are arguing against Bush.

Clinton convinced us they had WMD. We were deceived.

We all know that Clinton is a liar. But since he is a democrat, he is allowed to lie and get away with it.

Moore is a very stupid man (I'm not racist, like him, so I will omit the color of his skin). He thinks that he is a hero because he spoke his mind, but he doesn't realize that people hated him because he brought politics into a non-political event. Everyone looked toward the oscars as a way to escape the pressures of the world and relax, but he had to be a prick and bring this all up. He was selfish.

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.

1. There is nothing wrong with the commander-in-cheif takeing a military jet to an aircraft carrier. WTF could be wrong with that?
2. War was a last resort. We gave Saddam years to let us inspect his buildings and he refused. He refused to comply with the conditions of his surrender from the Gulf War. We gave him numerous 'second chances' and he kept refusing our inspectors. We had to go in there and force him out. It was the only way to be sure that he was complying with his surrender conditions. We tried the alternatives, and this was what was left.

 

[PatboyX]

1. There is nothing wrong with the commander-in-cheif takeing a military jet to an aircraft carrier. WTF could be wrong with that?
2. War was a last resort. We gave Saddam years to let us inspect his buildings and he refused. He refused to comply with the conditions of his surrender from the Gulf War. We gave him numerous 'second chances' and he kept refusing our inspectors. We had to go in there and force him out. It was the only way to be sure that he was complying with his surrender conditions. We tried the alternatives, and this was what was left.

1. not technically no. but it shows a supreme lack of tact and foresight to go showboating like that and announce a quasi-victory. it seems more absurd and self-serving now in light of the casulties since that speech.

2. war is a last resort. but this one really wasnt.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

How many have died since the speech?

 

[Moonbeam]

We tried the alternatives, and this was what was left.
-------------------------------
Sure we did. All the ones our greatest genius, Bush, could think of.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
How many have died since the speech?

thats a good question. ill look for a link. i listen to a radio show that actually has a count of how many since the speech...but i listen to them about a week after they air becuase they broadcast out of dc and im in nj.
ill try and find the numbers.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

While you are at it, please show me how many died in D.C., NY, et al. during the same time period...then let's continue down your emotionally-loaded and fallacious "quasi-victory" argument, as if removing Saddam from power in weeks is somehow diminished because we lost ~160 troops since the statues came down. You only see what you want to see, so skip the google research...

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. There is nothing wrong with the commander-in-cheif takeing a military jet to an aircraft carrier. WTF could be wrong with that?
2. War was a last resort. We gave Saddam years to let us inspect his buildings and he refused. He refused to comply with the conditions of his surrender from the Gulf War. We gave him numerous 'second chances' and he kept refusing our inspectors. We had to go in there and force him out. It was the only way to be sure that he was complying with his surrender conditions. We tried the alternatives, and this was what was left.

1. not technically no. but it shows a supreme lack of tact and foresight to go showboating like that and announce a quasi-victory. it seems more absurd and self-serving now in light of the casulties since that speech.

2. war is a last resort. but this one really wasnt.

I gave some good reasons why it was a last resort. I would assume that you have some alternatives that weren't explored and I would be interested to hear what they are.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: PatboyX
2. War was a last resort. We gave Saddam years to let us inspect his buildings and he refused. He refused to comply with the conditions of his surrender from the Gulf War. We gave him numerous 'second chances' and he kept refusing our inspectors. We had to go in there and force him out. It was the only way to be sure that he was complying with his surrender conditions. We tried the alternatives, and this was what was left.

q]

sorry!
i was away for the weekend...sort of.
anyway:
we were doing an ok job of it before the war broke out. i think if bush had allowed things to continue through proper UN protocol, we would be in a lot better shape right now. we can talk trash about saddam all we want but that doesnt necessarily make it acceptable to (without seeming plan and without international backing) take it upon ourselves to carry out American-style justice in other parts of the world. we cant just send out army in when things our moving too slow.
now, my arguments are based on the assumption that the reasons we went into Iraq were the reasons we were told. if, however, there were reasons why we really could not wait a minute longer, i would be very interested to hear what they would be.

 

[Regs]

I look at some of these guys running for president and ask myself: How the hell did we elect Bush. JR into office?

Sad part is, I voted for Bush Jr. 4 years ago. That was our choice then. This election I'm strongly leaning towards Clark for my vote. Finally a leader who will bring back dignity in the oval office.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Regs
I look at some of these guys running for president and ask myself: How the hell did we elect Bush. JR into office?

Sad part is, I voted for Bush Jr. 4 years ago. That was our choice then. This election I'm strongly leaning towards Clark for my vote. Finally a leader who will bring back dignity in the oval office.

I didn't vote in the last presidential election, but I'm certainly going to vote in the upcoming one.

I think Bush mislead alot of people with his "compassionate conservatism" campaign, which turns out to be a blatent lie. If it makes you feel any better, numbers don't lie, and more 500,000 people voted for Al Gore and Nader than Bush in 2000. I doubt the same number is going to vote for Bush again.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheBDB
With Michael Moore being as crazy as he is, Gen. Clark is probably cringing at this letter.

Moore's not crazy. He's just angry. Angry at the way he's seen average Americans, we the people, get screwed over left and right by greedy corporations and the politicians who pander to them. Angry at the way capitalist ideals have been perverted into a destructive religion where money is the only concern. He's angry that the founding principles of this country -- human dignity, respect, fairness, justice, opportunity for all -- have been subverted by the lust for a bigger mountain of gold.

The founding fathers never intended for capitalism to be America's highest priority, let alone its only one.

Those same capitalist ideals that have given him fame and fortune and mediums (television and print) to speak his mind whenever he wants???

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheBDB
With Michael Moore being as crazy as he is, Gen. Clark is probably cringing at this letter.

Moore's not crazy. He's just angry. Angry at the way he's seen average Americans, we the people, get screwed over left and right by greedy corporations and the politicians who pander to them. Angry at the way capitalist ideals have been perverted into a destructive religion where money is the only concern. He's angry that the founding principles of this country -- human dignity, respect, fairness, justice, opportunity for all -- have been subverted by the lust for a bigger mountain of gold.

The founding fathers never intended for capitalism to be America's highest priority, let alone its only one.

Those same capitalist ideals that have given him fame and fortune and mediums (television and print) to speak his mind whenever he wants???

I believe that's less due to a less capitalism, a little more due to the first admendment. But I could be wrong.

A perfectly Capitalist society never works, simply because it would never allow for a middle class. We tried a purely capitalist society with the period of the Robber Barons, which was ultimately one of the many reasons we slipped into a Great Depression.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TheBDB
With Michael Moore being as crazy as he is, Gen. Clark is probably cringing at this letter.

Moore's not crazy. He's just angry. Angry at the way he's seen average Americans, we the people, get screwed over left and right by greedy corporations and the politicians who pander to them. Angry at the way capitalist ideals have been perverted into a destructive religion where money is the only concern. He's angry that the founding principles of this country -- human dignity, respect, fairness, justice, opportunity for all -- have been subverted by the lust for a bigger mountain of gold.

The founding fathers never intended for capitalism to be America's highest priority, let alone its only one.

Those same capitalist ideals that have given him fame and fortune and mediums (television and print) to speak his mind whenever he wants???

I believe that's less due to a less capitalism, a little more due to the first admendment. But I could be wrong.

A perfectly Capitalist society never works, simply because it would never allow for a middle class. We tried a purely capitalist society with the period of the Robber Barons, which was ultimately one of the many reasons we slipped into a Great Depression.

well without capitalism (risk, investment, demand/supply costing, etc) you would not have the number of mediums for Michael Moore to spout off in.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: PatboyX
2. War was a last resort. We gave Saddam years to let us inspect his buildings and he refused. He refused to comply with the conditions of his surrender from the Gulf War. We gave him numerous 'second chances' and he kept refusing our inspectors. We had to go in there and force him out. It was the only way to be sure that he was complying with his surrender conditions. We tried the alternatives, and this was what was left.

q]

sorry!
i was away for the weekend...sort of.
anyway:
we were doing an ok job of it before the war broke out. i think if bush had allowed things to continue through proper UN protocol, we would be in a lot better shape right now. we can talk trash about saddam all we want but that doesnt necessarily make it acceptable to (without seeming plan and without international backing) take it upon ourselves to carry out American-style justice in other parts of the world. we cant just send out army in when things our moving too slow.
now, my arguments are based on the assumption that the reasons we went into Iraq were the reasons we were told. if, however, there were reasons why we really could not wait a minute longer, i would be very interested to hear what they would be.

Got the quotes a bit messed up, hu? no prob.
I wouldn't say we were moving slow. We have been hounding saddam for years and years now trying to get him to comply with weapons inspectors and he kept refusing. The point of the war was because of this: if he didn't have these weapons, then why wasn't he letting us inpect his sites like he was supposed to (based on the conditions of his surrender)? He must have been hiding something. This had been going on for years and by this time, he could have many weapons built and ready to go. We had to go in there immediately before he got too far, if he had them. How much longer would have been ok for you? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? The UN wasn't just waiting for the right moment to go in, they were flat out against it, period. If we had waited, saddam could have had those weapons and given them to terrorists, or used them himself by now.

 

[PatboyX]

damn. i accidentally got rid of my huge-long post.
anyway, the summary is:

moving slow is ok. like you said, we'd be trying for years. i think we should have kept trying.
and i dont like the question about "how much longer" becuase it seems like one of those questions designed to shut the opposition up (much like the "how many more are acceptable losses?" question). the truth is, we did wait a long time and if this were such a ticking time bomb, why didnt bush act 7 months before, when he started to get wind of this stuff? so...i dont think it was a matter of time before saddam just started attacking us.
i think the war would have gone more smoothly if we werent constantly being given some song and dance rather than the facts. maybe there were weapons or maybe saddam just wasnt going to be bullied by the US.
i dont see any of the stuff we were told about in iraq actually going on. where is the iraq-terrorist connection? its like a big game of three card monte with bush manning the table...the backs of the cards have images of 9/11 so no one notices where the cards are moving.