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

government | imperialism & war

Michael Moore Digs Himself a Deeper Hole

Michael Moore must have a serious crush on war criminal extraodinaire, General Wesley Clark--either that or he is on General Clark's payroll. If Michael Moore is so opposed to war why is he support ing and defedning a War criminal like Gen. Wesley Clark. Oh yeah, I forgot, he's electable. You have to wonder after awhile whether these so-called "Progressives" really give a damn about the various issues (war, tax cuts, the environment) they claim to be so concerned about. Or whether they have some other agenda....like gaining the "keys to the Amerikan Empire" for themselves and the Democrap Party.
What's Left
September 24, 2003

Michael Moore digs himself a deeper hole

By Stephen Gowans

I was wondering how filmmaker Michael Moore would react to the avalanche of criticism, outrage, and shock set off by his paean to retired General Wesley Clark, the ex-Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, who's thrown his hat into the ring for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Moore had written friends and fans, urging them to pressure Clark - a man the filmmaker says is antiwar, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and opposed to Bush's tax cuts -- to bid for the nomination.

What Moore left out of his missive was that Clark -- a career soldier who had fought in Vietnam -- led NATO's 78-day air war on Yugoslavia, an illegal affair from start to finish, that saw the NATO commander order his bombers to destroy roads, bridges, factories, petrochemical plants, electrical power stations, telephone switching equipment, a radio-TV building and an embassy, in defiance of articles of war prohibiting the targeting of civilian infrastructure.

Hundreds, if not thousands of civilians were killed by Clark's bombs, missiles and cluster bombs, and many more were permanently disabled, in a campaign that Human Rights Watch (not known for going hard on Americans) condemned for grave breaches of humanitarian law.

Clark - the man Moore says is against war -- is a war criminal.

That, and other deplorable episodes from Clark's pro-war past (including British General Michael Jackson's revelation that Clark almost touched off world war three by pressing Jackson to order British paratroops to clash with Russian soldiers at Pristina) didn't, however, escape the attention of many of Moore's fans. Some were left dumbfounded by the filmmaker's warm words for a principal figure in one of the most egregious recent instances of US imperialism run amuck.

When FAIR, the media watchdog, dug up Clark's pro-war newspaper columns, Moore looked stupid. When Clark said he wouldn't cancel Bush's tax-cuts, Moore looked dumber still. And when Clark said he probably would have voted for the war on Iraq, Moore looked like a man who had been bamboozled, or was in the bamboozling business himself.

There was no question the filmmaker had dug himself a deep hole. The only question was, how was he going to get out of it? Would he say nothing, and pretend the whole thing hadn't happened, hoping that, after a time, everyone would forget? Would he say, I've learned when you make a bone-headed move, the best thing to do is fess-up? Or would he simply dig himself a bigger hole?

Turns out he's reached for the shovel.

In a letter dated September 23rd, Moore dances around the issue of his supporting a war criminal, taking 13 paragraphs to finally get around to addressing what's on everyone's minds. What's up with the Clark love-in?

It then takes Moore 11 paragraphs to tie himself into knots of illogic, as he flings dirt pile after dirt pile from a hole that gets deeper and deeper.

Here's what he has to say:

It's true that as commander of NATO forces, Clark led a bombing campaign that killed civilians, and it bothers Moore to this day that civilians were bombed. But it wasn't Clark's fault. If President Clinton and Defense Secretary Cohen had let Clark use ground troops (as Clark recommended), there would have been fewer civilian casualties, Moore argues.

Problem is, they didn't. And still Clark ordered his bombers to target civilian infrastructure. It doesn't matter what Clark wanted to do. What matters is what Clark did do. (And did Clark want to deploy ground troops to minimize civilian casualties, or to achieve the war's objective -- to drive Milosevic's forces out of Kosovo? I'd say Clark was more concerned about military objectives than minimizing civilian casualties.)

Even so, if Clark had his way on ground troops, would that have made the war any less illegal or any less a war of aggression? And would Clark have been any less a principal figure in the exercise of American imperialism on steroids?

And what of Moore -- did the Kosovo war itself, apart from the civilian casualties, bother him? It doesn't look like it. Moore defends Clark as a man who recommended the right - that is, civilian casualty limiting - tactics, without uttering a word of disgust for the whole sordid exercise, or Clark's role in it. In this, he's like Clark: Not opposed to war so much as opposed to wars that aren't carried out the way he would carry them out.

And Moore says Clark needed to "stop Milosevic's genocide of the people in Kosovo." Moore should know there never was a genocide, and at the time, he challenged the claim. I recall him ridiculing a NATO propaganda exercise involving before and after satellite photographs. Look, in this photo the ground is undisturbed, NATO spin doctors said. But in this photo, taken hours later, there are signs of a disturbance. Could mass graves have been dug here? We were supposed to answer the question with a resounding yes.

But Moore, exercising a skepticism that seems to have melted away with the first kind words he received from Clark, asked pointedly: If they can take pictures before the graves are dug, and pictures after, why can't they take pictures during?

Perhaps Moore has a short memory. The original charges against Milosevic in connection with Kosovo, brought by the NATO controlled tribunal at The Hague, concern incidents, with one exception, that happened after the bombing began. And the number of deaths in those incidents is in the hundreds, not hundreds of thousands and not even tens of thousands. The one pre-bombing incident, the Racak massacre, involved fewer than 50 deaths, most, if not all of which, it now seems, were KLA guerillas. So how could there have been a genocide in progress if the bulk of the charges against Milosevic - involving only hundreds of deaths - happened after Clark ordered his bombers to take out bridges, roads, factories, power plants and other civilian targets?

In the months following Clark's destruction of a country, forensic pathologists roved widely over Kosovo, to document the genocide NATO assured them had happened. They left in disgust, complaining they had been deceived by NATO's war propaganda. Rather than finding mass graves containing tens of thousands of bodies, they found a few thousand bodies, most buried individually, the kind of low-level carnage that attends a civil war, but hardly amounts to genocide. Before there were weapons of mass destruction that couldn't be found, there was a genocide that couldn't be found.

Still, Moore seems to have decided that reviving tall tales about genocide that even NATO won't back up any more, will help his case. And the motivation seems to be to polish up the reputation of a war criminal and hit man for American imperialism, so that he - Moore - doesn't seem like such a dumb ass or fraud (take your pick) for taking a shine to him.

The next step Moore takes as Clark's unofficial spin doctor is to brush Kosovo aside as water under the bridge. "The war we are in NOW is not called Kosovo," he thunders, "but Iraq."

"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?"

"May" have done some things, that "some" of us don't like? There's no question about what Clark may or may not have done. The facts are plain. And Moore's point about Clark doing things "some" of us don't like," raises the tantalizing question: Is Moore among those who don't like what Clark did? These days, one would be inclined to say he's not. And what makes a general a better advocate for peace than anyone else?

Moreover, it's doubtful Clark has turned into an advocate for peace. Even Moore points out that Clark's problem with the Iraq war is that it doesn't follow the Powell doctrine, that is, it doesn't have an exit strategy. Clark's expressing reservations about the war isn't advocating for peace; it's advocating for the Powell doctrine. Moore seems to have mistaken a difference of opinion over military strategy, with advocacy for peace.

The filmmaker's last shot at defending a war criminal is to invoke the biblical, "Let he who is free from sin, cast the first stone." They all have blood on their hands, Moore says, referring to Clark's rivals for the Democratic nomination. Kerry does ("he killed people in Vietnam.") Kucinich does (he once voted "for laws restricting a women's right to an abortion, potentially forcing women back to the alley and, for many of them, to certain death.") And Dean does, too (he was in favor of war on Afghanistan and would execute people on death row.)

Incidentally, we learn earlier in the letter that Moore isn't opposed to capital punishment either. In the filmmaker's view, the state's taking of life is all right if "the problem of potentially executing the innocent can be solved." Well let's see. Since there's no doubt Clark is a war criminal, and that the blood of hundreds, if not thousands of Serb civilians is on his hands, shouldn't Clark, if we follow Moore's reasoning, be headed for the execution chamber, not the White House? After all, in Clark's case, there's no risk of executing the innocent. Oh, but I forgot -- that Kosovo thing is all behind us. And all the candidates have blood on their hands. It's quite a sign of Moore's desperation - and it's grotesque to boot that he should put Clark's ordering bombers to target civilian infrastructure on the same moral plane as Kucinich once voting against abortion rights.

What's most troubling about Moore - apart from his ignorance, his silly arguments, and his unrequited love for the Democratic Party - is his failure to grasp the enormity of who Clark is, what he has done, and what he has participated in. There seems to be an unshakable belief, residing deep in the filmmaker's soul, that Americans have the right -- no, the obligation -- to meddle in the affairs of others, that unspeakable crimes are beyond the capability of Americans, (especially Democrats), and that monsters, thugs and brutes live half way around the world, in countries the US must takeover and control, but not at home, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.

What's more, Moore's distaste for Republicans, and his "any Democrat but Bush" attitude is dumbfounding, not so much because it clashes violently with his belief, loudly trumpeted in the last election, that the Democrats and Republicans are the same, but because the Democrats and Republicans, on matters of foreign policy, are the same. Exactly what is Moore's trouble with Bush's wars, that doesn't, in the end, boil down to a difference over tactics?

He seems completely untroubled by Washington having waged a war of aggression on Yugoslavia (apart from the civilian casualties that bother him to this day.) So how is he any less pro-war, pro-imperial and anti-international law, than Bush? Neither Bush, nor it seems, Moore, is especially bothered by the US waging wars of aggression and neither regard UN sanction for war as essential. (Compare Kosovo and Iraq. On these grounds, they're no different.) Trampling international law is also all right. (Again, no difference between Kosovo and Iraq.) And neither is particularly troubled by the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure. (War crimes were carried out as unreservedly by Clark as by Bush's commanders.) What's more, neither have any qualms about telling tall tales (in Moore's case, about mass graves that never existed, and in Bush's case, about weapons of mass destruction that don't exist) to justify war to advance the United States imperialist goals.

Except for mostly non-economic differences on domestic policy - affirmative action, a moratorium on capital punishment, abortion rights - Moore, the die-hard Democrat, affirms what he argued so vigorously four years ago. Democrats aren't really all that different from Republicans, after all.

...

You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.

Join our e-mail list. Send an e-mail to  sr.gowans@sympatico.ca and write "subscribe" in the subject line.

What's Left

homepage: homepage: http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/deeper.html

Do you enjoy the Bush Presidency? 01.Oct.2003 09:46

Think about it...

I'm the first to say that the whole topic of poilitics is one big deception and delusion, but until we fix this situation and move to a saner way of getting things done, it helps to prevent people like GW Bush from winnng. If a certain segment of people had understood just how important it was to prevent Bush from winning, things could be a thousand percent better than now. Gore may not have been the ideal president, but he sure could have won (did win) and we wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail with the current fascist controlled government we now have. Yes bonehead, sometimes winning is better than throwing it all away on an unelectable candidate. Just think about how much easier it wold have been to get Gore to listen to your concerns than it is to fight Bush's mad dash for total control of everything...

Wesley Clark: Stealth Republican 01.Oct.2003 10:31

all the choices the "elite" see fit to run

Only the Democrats would be stupid enough to run a Republican for President. Karl Rove would be proud.
---------------------------
 http://www.politicsus.com/

JUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY?

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.
----------------------------------

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/23/wclark23.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/23/ixworld.html

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?

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:
 http://english.aljazeera.net/Articles/News/GlobalNews/US+general+attacks+Bush+war+plan.htm

get some hard facts before making an opinion 01.Oct.2003 10:35

not a clark supporter

dear author of story,

i'm not a clark supporter, nor a dean supporter; but please, find some hard facts on clark before posting allegations that he is a war criminal or at least put the sources on where you are getting your generalizations about him.

go kucinich!!!!!

hmmm 01.Oct.2003 10:44

thinker

"Just think about how much easier it wold have been to get Gore to listen to your concerns "

How about: not at all easier. The only thing Gore would have done is tell you he cared deeply about your concerns while continuing with the same pro-corporate agenda as Bush. I don't think Gore is a bad person, but he is just another politician that people put too much faith in (believe me, I have known a lot of people who have worked with him and they thought he was the new messiah). We still would have had increased military spending, tax cuts for the rich, some form of a patriot act. They may not have been as severe, just as Clinton's tax cuts for the rich were not as ridiculous as Bush's, but it all would have been there. And now people want to elect a republican general as a democratic president? Normally I have some respect for the intelligence of people in this country (which is often too dormant beneath their conditioning) but even this astounds me. Let's defeat a rich militaristic republican by electing... a rich militaristic republican. Well, I guess if all you're interested in is winning it might make some kind of sense. However, shifting the democratic agenda to the right hasn't exactly been working too well if you actually look at the past decade or so. Well, I guess that's just more to think about.

This article is full of inaccurate statements 01.Oct.2003 12:27

Paul Sepp peisl2000@yahoo.com

Micheal Moore is in no way endorsing Clark, he only asked people to write Clark in order to get him to run.

A few facts about Clark
1. He has opposed war with Iraq long before it became an issue
2. Clark opposes the Bush tax cuts
3. Clark has repeatly asked Congress to better fund education

Before someone writes an article on this site, they should try to get atleast one or two facts right. Your incorrect rambles only serve as a distraction.
One more thing Moore is one of the few really famous heros we got, don't tear him down, because of something as minor as asking the liberal community to write Clark.


Re: Think about it 01.Oct.2003 13:34

Algor

You wrote: "Gore may not have been the ideal president, but he sure could have won (did win)..."

"Not ideal" understates Gore's shortcomings by a light year. Your statement seems to acknowledge that Bush is in office due to less than legitimate means, yet you continue to prop up this useless stool (Gore) even though he lacked the wherewithall to even claim his own victory. No thanks. I prefer a clearly defined enemy, to one that would silently sell out his/her supporters.

And what would you suggest we do 01.Oct.2003 13:43

Scott gaypunker@yahoo.com

You bring up great points all throughout that essay. However you ask questions and refuse to give answers. What options do we have that are possible to execute? Your essay makes it sound as if politicians just started playing this game. A lot of the democratic canidates understand that peace is a big issue and thus are using that as a tool in order to be elected (or appointed) into office. Its not Moore's desperation that you're angry about...its that we are all desperate and living in a period that is very bleak. Fact of the matter is, Bush does plan on continueing his war on terrorism and although some of the other canidates do as well we need to focus on what may be the lesser evil.

evil is not a lesser 01.Oct.2003 14:55

green1

When you choose the lesser of two evils, you still get evil. I believe the media and political pundits are busy once again dividing us between right and left, Dems and Reps, and every other division you can think of, to divert our attention away from their deeds, and to support the evil or the lesser evil each and every time. In truth, the global elite who are controlling the actions behind the scenes, could care less which of the evils we choose or try to choose. It's already been shown, voting can be rigged and the real winners are always the same. It's time to think beyond the manipulations, beyond the divisions and into the heart of the matter, into the need for revolution in our thinking, and into reunification of purpose--world peace.

Wesley Clark, War Criminal 01.Oct.2003 15:58

not an idiot

"dear author of story,
i'm not a clark supporter, nor a dean supporter; but please, find some hard facts on clark before posting allegations that he is a war criminal or at least put the sources on where you are getting your generalizations about him".

How about waging war based upon lies and deception for starters? Much like the current American regime and its propaganda about "Weapons of Mass Destruction," the former American Regime offered up similar lies about "Ethnic Cleansing" to justifiy its Humanitarian bombing and ultimate destruction of Yugoslavia.

These lies include fact that the 1). the number of bodies supposedly the victim of ethnic cleasning in Yugoslavia were far fewer than the hypberolic numbers spewed by the American government and media during the bombing 2). that many Serbs were ethnically cleansed throughout the 1990s by American backed and American sponsored forces, including incidents such as Operation Storm in 1995 in which tens of thousands of Serbs were ethnically cleansed by American backed military forces at Krajina 3). that the real agenda behind the destruction of Yugoslava (much like the current American colonization of Iraq) is motivated by the desire for American capitalism to rape and loot the resources of that nation in addition to controlling oil and energy corridors from the Caspian Basin to Western Europe-- oil pipelines which just so happen to now run through Kosovo.

But of course, you probably still believe the attack on Yugoslavia was a "humanitarian" war, don't you?

 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1018402,00.html

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELI202A.html

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JUT307A.html

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO307D.html

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MIT203A.html

Love Moore DONT HATE HIM 01.Oct.2003 16:24

Moore Fan

MICHAEL MOORE IS ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!!!!!!! You article has some good thoughts but a lot of the rambles are not facts, but I guess you should know that by now since everyone is commenting on that. Anyways since you have some harsh feelings against Moore, maybe you should go to the Memorial Coliseum @ 7pm on Oct.23 and bring up this issue. I would like to actually hear what Moore has to say about this with my own ears. Or continue to post up nonsense articles with little facts bashing Moore.

Michael Moore is FAN-tastic! 01.Oct.2003 16:33

Another Moore Fan

"MICHAEL MOORE IS ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!!!!!!! You article has some good thoughts but a lot of the rambles are not facts, "

Yeah, that Michael Moore is FAN-tastic. We mindless Democrats just love Moore cuz he is funny in a sort of Roxanne Barr faux working class kinda way.

I can't give you any specific facts to back up my defense of Michael Moore or why I don't like the above article--even as I accuse you of the same thing thing. I can only gush and moon over Micheal Moore!

Hey, who needs fact when you can have spin doctored emotion and hype. Its just like a Presidential campaign almost!

"nonsense articles" 01.Oct.2003 23:14

Fred

Sorry guys, but check again - a LOT of people have posted TONS of f**king links to articles by many news sources which dispute Moore's claims that Clark is 'anti-war' and did not commit war crimes. These are not just 'nonsense.'

Moore-ites who are spamming the site - GO HOME!

If Moore told you to put people in ovens would you do that too???

For Chissakes . . .Yes he's made good films and has done good stuff, but he's made a mistake now, a BIG one, and we all need to let him know what's wrong with the points he tried to make.

No one is saying his films are bad or his books are bad.

Moore made a mistake. We all do. But don't fall for the absurdity of a NATO Supreme Commander being anti-war just because Moore got deceived. We didn't make the mistake, Moore did.

Tell him.

Clinton's tax cuts for the rich 02.Oct.2003 00:26

George Bender

Clinton RAISED taxes for the rich in 1993, which is one of the main reasons we had budget surpluses while he was in office. See "The Agenda" by Bob Woodward. He also increased the Earned Income Tax Credit for poor people.

Unfortunately he also abolished welfare as an entitlement and put a 5 year lifetime limit on it, selling out to the Republicans and attacking poor people. Trying to balance the budget, he also cut other safety net programs. And he pushed socalled "free trade", NAFTA, to help the corporations send our jobs overseas.

There's a revealing story in Woodward's book about Gore's bright idea to abolish cost of living increases in Social Security for a few months to save money and help balance the budget. He figured that by the time opposition developed the cost of living pause would be over with. Clinton was for it. Congressional Democratic leaders vetoed the idea. They had to explain to Gore and Clinton that the plan would never fly politically, and that the average person on Social Security is an elderly woman who just barely survives.

Clinton and Gore are conservative southern Democrats who know how to talk liberal when it suits them. Dean looks to me like another Clinton, and god knows what Clark is.


Wesley Clark Loves Big Brother 02.Oct.2003 10:34

ROBERT O'HARROW JR, WASHINGTON POST

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government. Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents. . . Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.


Wesley Clark Lies About NATO Air Campaign 02.Oct.2003 10:36

JOHN BARRY AND EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK, MAY 15, 2000

The air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by Newsweek, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 'confirmed' strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58...

The Air Force protested that tanks are hard to hit from 15,000 feet, but Clark insisted. Now that the war is long over, neither the generals nor their civilian masters are eager to delve into what really happened. Asked how many Serb tanks and other vehicles were destroyed in Kosovo, General Clark will only answer, 'Enough.' . . .

At the end of the war the Serbs' ground commander, Gen. Nobojsa Pavkovic, claimed to have lost only 13 tanks. 'Serb disinformation,' scoffed Clark. But quietly, Clark's own staff told him the Serb general might be right. . . His team found dozens of burnt-out cars, buses and trucks-but very few tanks. When General Clark heard this unwelcome news, he ordered the team out of their helicopters: 'Goddammit, drive to each one of those places. Walk the terrain.' The team grubbed about in bomb craters, where more than once they were showered with garbage the local villagers were throwing into these impromptu rubbish pits. . .

CLARK PRAISED BUSH TEAM JUST TWO YEARS AGO 02.Oct.2003 10:37

DRUDGE REPORT

Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans -- just two years ago. . . During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military: "We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

Clark continued: "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

Clark on President George Bush: "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


WESLEY CLARK ISN'T EVEN A DEMOCRAT 03.Oct.2003 09:58

NICK ANDERSON, LA TIMES

Oct. 2 2003 - On Wednesday, two weeks after Clark formally joined the race for the White House, his campaign filed papers at the Capitol to withdraw his registration as a paid lobbyist for an information-services company based in Little Rock, Ark. Also Wednesday, a campaign spokeswoman acknowledged that Clark had not yet taken care of another step in his rapid transition to presidential candidate: registering as a Democrat at home in Pulaski County, Ark. "He fully intends to sign on the dotted line and fill out the paperwork," Clark spokeswoman Kym Spell said, "but in the last 12 days he hasn't had time to do that."

A supervisor in the Pulaski County registrar's office, Sara Osborne, said Clark declined to state a party affiliation when he submitted his voter registration application in December 2001. But Osborne said Clark requested a Democratic ballot while voting in the state's May 2002 primary election - a common procedure for Democrats in a state with an open primary system.