portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

government | imperialism & war | political theory

Michael Mooron Gushes Over Mass Murderer Wesley Clark (Again)

Despite several reports that Wesley Clark is a Republican at heart running as a Democrat, Michael Moore continues to congratulate himself and Mr. Clark over the new Presidential candidate. Rather than give an alternative to state violence, Moore is obsessed with providing an alternative to armchair general Bush. Several people have e-mailed Michael Moore in the past week with eye-opening exposes of Wesley Clark, yet Moore continues to excuse the darker side of Clark while cheering him on. See the comments in the Portland Indy coverage here to meet the REAL Wesley Clark:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271764.shtml.
September 23, 2003
"And Now a Chance to Bid Farewell to Mr. Bush" (from Michael Moore)

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"?


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.


Michael Moore

homepage: homepage: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-09-23

Wesley Clark: Stealth Republican, Part 1 23.Sep.2003 14:48



Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who today announced his candidacy for President, joined the field of contenders competing for the Democratic nomination. But as recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office -- as a Republican.

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

Wesley Clark: Stealth Republican, Part 2 23.Sep.2003 14:49

David Rennie, UK Telegraph

Clark 'chose Democrats after White House brush-off'

(Filed: 23/09/2003)

General Wesley Clark, who soared to the head of the field for the Democratic presidential nomination after his late entry to the race, found his momentum checked yesterday by a string of leaks aggressive even by Washington standards.

Senior Republicans revealed details of an extraordinary conversation in which Gen Clark, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Nato supreme commander, complained that he had wanted to be part of the Republican Bush administration, but switched party after being given the brush-off by the White House.

The latest edition of Newsweek magazine reports that - after the Sept 11 attacks - Gen Clark thought he would be invited to join the Bush administration's national security team.

However, the proposal was reportedly squashed by the White House political chief, Karl Rove.

A furious Gen Clark apparently told two prominent Republicans: "I would have been a Republican, if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Challenged by Newsweek, Gen Clark insisted his remarks were merely a "humorous tweak".

Who Would Clark Bomb? 23.Sep.2003 14:51

more militarism is not the solution

See for yourself: while Bush bombs Afghanistan and Iraq, and plans to move on to bombing Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. Clark, instead, would bomb Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

I'd prefer a candidate who would bomb no one, and instead resort to that drastic measure known as...diplomacy. I'm voting Green!

US plans to attack seven Muslim states

Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.

09/22/03: (Aljazeera) A former commander of NATO's forces in Europe, Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

The general's allegations surface in a new book, The Clark Critique, excerpts from which appear in the latest edition of the US magazine Newsweek.

Clark says after the 11 September 2001 attacks, many Bush administration officials seemed determined to move against Iraq, invoking the idea of state sponsorship of terrorism, "even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever".

Ousting Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action, the general writes, dismissing it as a "Cold War approach".

Clark criticises the plan to attack the seven states, saying it targeted the wrong countries, ignored the "real sources of terrorists", and failed to achieve "the greater force of international law" that would bring wider global support.

He also condemns George Bush's notorious Axis of Evil speech made during his 2002 State of the Union address. "There were no obvious connections between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea," says Clark.

Clark's culprits

The former NATO commander acknowledges Iranian and Syrian support for resistance groups such as Lebanon's Hizb Allah and the Palestinian movement Hamas.

"But neither Hezbollah [sic] nor Hamas were targeting Americans," he writes. "Why not build international power against Al Qaeda?"

Instead, Clark points the finger at what he calls "the real sources of terrorists - US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia".

Clark blames Egypt's "repressive policies", Pakistan's "corruption and poverty, as well as Saudi Arabia's "radical ideology and direct funding" for creating a pool of angry young men who became "terrorists".

The recent Democrat Party convert says Bush should have adopted a more preventive measures and targeted extremist leaders. "The way to beat terrorists was to take away their popular support," adds Clark, though he offers little to suggest how this would be achieved.

But White House policy was quickly set in order to achieve particular goals, Clark writes, saying the US administration used the 9/11 attacks to address broader objectives in the Middle East.

Clark, who supervised NATO's campaign to oust Serbia's forces from Kosovo in 1999, also takes a swipe at the United States' allies in Europe, which provided staging bases and planning headquarters for "radical" groups.

War record

The retired general last week declared his intention to win the Democrat nomination to challenge George Bush for the presidency in 2004.

Just days after entering the presidential race, Clark has raced ahead of the nine other Democratic contenders in the latest polls.

Many political observers have portrayed Clark as an anti-war candidate whose own war record - he was decorated after being shot and wounded while serving in Vietnam - means he cannot be accused of lacking courage or patriotism.

Clark has frequently criticised Washington's policy towards Iraq.

He claimed previously that after the 9/11 attacks, he was pressed by the Bush administration to link the strikes directly to Iraq but refused - a claim the White House denies. However, once the war on Iraq began, he urged decisive action to achieve a rapid US victory.

Despite his anti-war stand on Iraq, the general has had a reputation for being belligerent. He was criticised during the Kosovo campaign for defending attacks on civilian Serbian targets, including the bombing of a television station that left about 20 journalists and other staff dead.

Meet the REAL Wesley Clark 23.Sep.2003 14:53

my tyrant is tougher than yours, said the Democrats

Learn more about war criminal Wesley Clark. See comments 1-15 and others at:

a different take 23.Sep.2003 15:12


I actually liked what Michael Moore was getting at in this piece. He may not have stated it well enough but the idea is right: Don't support any of these clowns until they make some solid stands on issues that are important to you. I agree that having Clark running may be beneficial at this time. For one thing, he can push a lot of Bush's lies out into the public from his first-hand experience. For another he can force some other candidates to start stepping up with some real commitments and proposals. And, he can also show which candidates are so spineless that they begin to play follow the leader like they did with Dean. All in all, it should make for an entertaining show. The criticisms of the candidates are justified, but I think Moore is on the right path, now is the time to be making demands, not concessions.

Read the article first 23.Sep.2003 16:38


Did you guys even read the article you're commenting on?
(Let me state, right off the get go that I support a candidate OTHER than Clark.)

In his letter/article... Michael Moore simply states that we need to hear from ALL of the candidates before we fully endorse any one of them. He says that if they don't say what we want to hear... tell them how you stand. It's as simple as that.
I also think his big kick on General Clark is good at this point in the game. Mr. Clark is not a seasoned politician. I think he's going to really open some eyes by saying things that we haven't heard yet (9/11) from any of the candidates. He's gonna come into this thing with both barrels blazing against Bush and act as a much louder speaker than any of the current candidates. (This breathing life into the lifeless candidates.)

Did Moore really right this? 23.Sep.2003 17:34


There are so many factual errors (regarding all the candidates) in this, it's just amazing. Me thinks Mr. Moore should spend a little of his newly-acquired millions of dollars on a fact checker.

"write", even. 23.Sep.2003 17:37



Chance to Bid Farewell to Bush 23.Sep.2003 18:32


I didn't see the "gush" for Clark in Moore's letter that some of you seem to have read into it. If you read it at all.

I read:
"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."

I plan to vote for the democrat in the next election, pretty much whoever s/he ends up being, but I hope that candidate is pro-civil liberties, pro-diplomacy, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, pro-health care reform and willing to call a truce in the War On Drugs.

The alternative may very well be another term for the Shrub and that *would* be tragic.

Ya gotta respect a guy who uses his creativity to shine light on important subjects, even if his lens is biased (whose is not?)

Actung, Baby. 23.Sep.2003 20:45

Dusty Faith

You know what knocks me out on this one?
For about a year now, people have posted and published and cried about how America turning into this big nasty fascist state. Now the Democrats and Progressive Left want to willingly bring into power...a General. Only because he can defeat the current "genralissimo" in power. I mean, besides one being taller and the other's swims in blood money what's the real difference between the two ?

SCARY! 23.Sep.2003 23:49


Guys, this a propaganda piece if I've ever seen one . . . notice how Moore put Kucinich in parentheses while saying Dean was the ONLY one coming out against the war, among the many other bizarre little twists of logic he's got going. I won't even try to get into them all, there's just too many and it's late.

But it's really sad to see that Moore's head bascially inflated and then exploded upon being invited to personally meet Clark at that house party. It's sad to say that things like that are unfortunately what's often behind how people act.

The reason it's easy to tell that Moore's head had already exploded is because he's actually thinking - according to this - that if we just tell those darn candidates that we won't like it if they don't agree with us, that everything will somehow be okay, and those candidates will be whipped into shape in no time. Wow. What planet is he on right now? It's sad to realize that Mike has no clue at the moment. The corporate media is deciding who will get covereage and why. The American people have virtually no say in this, and follow what the news tells them to follow. Moore was deluded into thinking his 30k signatures made a difference. And it's understandable that it can happen, like if someone tries cocaine just to try it . . and then . . . well, people don't really blame them when they lose control. But you hope you can help get them out of the mess they've gotten into, or at least wake them up.

Mike's trying to cover himself here on the many absurdities of the postion he finds himself in, and he's quite skilled at it, in the same way an alcoholic or a druggie is able to come up with stories quite easily. Just think of if as this - Mike's had a hit and now he's gone off the deep end. He needs to be rescued.

But I'm counting on YOU in Portland to put the heat to him when he comes to speak. I'll be doing my part down in SF when he comes to SFSU.

The Big Liberal Lie 23.Sep.2003 23:58

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

This is the big liberal lie, that Clinton's little war was 'humanitarian', to stop 'genocide'. No evidence needed, it's true because we say it's true. Moore is pathetic, listen to what he says:

"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."

Moore is making his move to the right, just like Christopher Hitchens did before him. Hey, how much money does it take to be invited to a living room to hear General Clark speak? This has been repeated thousands of times in US history, a 'populist' makes his dough, and settles into the arms of ruling class, while pretending to be still representing the voice of the people. Moore is a rich entertainer, riding a wave of popular anger, but don't be fooled! Do a search on 'camp bondsteel', 'les damnés du kosovo', ed herman's essays about kosovo and 'humanitarian bombing' on www.znet.org, read the essays on kosovo on www.antiwar.com, read parenti on kosovo. Milosovic's crime was keeping the economy of Yugoslavia out of the world capitalist system. The FIRST thing that happened after the bombing was the privatization of state industries, putting them into the hands of western capitalists, exactly what is now happening in Iraq. In fact, Yugoslavia was in some ways the model for Iraq which all the democratic elite wanted to use in Iraq (UN participation, multilateral mass murder), instead of the Bush model.

Moore is no longer to be trusted!

let's re-examine who the MOORONS are 24.Sep.2003 00:34

adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

First off, Michael Moore has not been lusting over Clark, nor has he said he's going to endorse vote for him or any of the other Dems. He's simply said he wants to hear what Clark has to say, and I agree. I'm interested. You guys just jump to conclusions and display BS propaganda, calling everyone a moron and looking for any little excuse you can to call anyone a moron. Maybe Wesley Clark is an idiot, and maybe all the other Dems are. I'm not sure yet. I personally don't trust the Dems, but I do have faith. Yet instead of trying to solve these problems, all you can do is continue to trahs people like Michael Moore for no apparent reason. Sorry to say it fellas, but you're not doing one single thing to help solve the problem. If you wanna help, do like it says in his letter and push for the Dems to do their job while at the same time working to create alternative parties, campaign reform, etc. There's nothing moronic about Michael Moore, a man who agrees with us pretty much on all the issues. And remember this, as much of an idiot as Bill Clinton was, I think we can all agree that we were much happier during that time, and we were in a good posisition to progress in 2000, had we elected someone good like perhaps Nader (though you still never know). I personally have no idea who to vote for, seeing as pretty much all politicians are morons nowadays, dems and repubs. But be happy if Bush loses in 2004, or should I say WHEN he loses, because we will be better off. But if you want real reform, work for it instead of whinning and trashing artists like Michael Moore. Oh, and don't forget that he's coming to Portland soon. Be there!

Thanks for posting this ,,, and several good comments 24.Sep.2003 02:03


Yes, Moore seems to have gone a bit over the edge here, but I think that, like most lefties now, he's very scared.

I agree with him that Clark's entry is probably a good thing. It will shake up the campaign and the other candidates somewhat, especially with Clark likely to make some unpredictable statements and moves because he's not a career politician. But, mostly I look forward to Clark challenging - and thereby legitimizing such challenge in the minds of many - Bush's "patriotic war".

What I most agree with MM about is that NOW is the time for activists and anyone in the electorate with a mind and a voice to STAND UP, SPEAK OUT, and WORK for issues and positions that are being ignored or getting short shrift (and, I believe also for candidates that we favor). Regardless of the value of any of the candidates or if any good candidate will be allowed even to be nominated, millions of dollars and hours are spent on the presidential campaign. The more real substance we can manage to get into the spotlight of the presidential show that will inevitable occur over the next thirteen months, the more we're pushing American discourse in a meaningful direction.

Michael Moore does NOT Lust for Wesley Clark 24.Sep.2003 02:26


"First off, Michael Moore has not been lusting over Clark, nor has he said he's going to endorse vote for him or any of the other Dems..."

Yeah, Michael Moore only has a teenage schoolgirl crush on Clark--kinda like the swoon that adolescent girls get when they see Justin Timberlake. Or maybe it is one of those Man-Boy Love type of relationships?

Moore bashers 24.Sep.2003 10:20


Why don't you people read the damn letter that Michael Moore wrote? HE IS NOT ENDORSING CLARK! He encouraged him to run, in order to enliven the public debate. I suspect Mike is well aware of Gen. Clark's record. And I think encouraging Clark to run was a cunningly calculated move on Mr. Moore's part, BECAUSE Clark is closet Republican, and he's pissed off because he was snubbed by the Bush White House. Now he wants revenge and will likely expose more of the Lies of Bush.

Mike hasn't gone off the deep end. If you couldn't tell by those movies he's made, he is a really smart dude. And he's using his fame to try to open people's eyes. Are you jealous because he's rich now? At least there are SOME good guys in the millionaire's club.

Re: Who Would Clark Bomb? 24.Sep.2003 11:09

my tyrant is tougher than your tyrant

Read it again. Scary.

"At least there are SOME good guys in the millionaire's club. " 24.Sep.2003 11:48


Wow, are you a right-winger or what?

Hoping to become a millionaire, or being jealous of people who are, is not likely to be at the tops of people's lists on this site.

Working for social justice is.

Grow up.

Moore has sold out, plain and simple, not because he's a bad guy or insane, but for the same reasons anyone sells out without realizing it.

People are scared and they are being blinded by their fear. Celebs like Moore are as vulnerable to sell-out as Hicthens was. Hitchens still argues that it was "the right thing" to bomb Afghanistan. At this point, Moore is trying to cover for a war criminal. I'm sorry, but he's just gone too far.

Please continue to email him if you can. Take his argument - letting them know how we feel - and let HIM know how we feel. He needs to be awoken.

Mr. Moore, thanks for your help. 24.Sep.2003 13:49

Karl Rove

We've been trying to run a false-flag Republican Presidential candidate for years in the Democrats' camp. Your encouragement has finally made this a reality. Having a real general in the debates will keep focus on militarism as diplomacy, and keep antiwar views to a minimum. Mr. Moore, President Bush and the Republicans thank you for your help.

Karl Rove

oh really? 24.Sep.2003 13:55


I read Moore's letter. I'm not convinced. Just a couple examples:

NUMBER 1: "... 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."

Oh, so you mean we should tell the candidates exactly what we want them to say, and then we will vote for them, and then they can -- in keeping with the presidential tradition -- lie to us, get elected, then break their promises and do whatever the fuck they want? Good plan. NOT!!!

NUMBER 2: "Howard Dean (with Kucinich) stood alone against the Iraq War ..."

The internal illogic of this sentence fairly screams out: "FUZZY THINKING!!!"