Michael Moore endorses Wes Clark for president

A left winged propogandist who produced the movie Bowling for Columbine.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

www.michaelmoore.com

Is this why both of Michael Moore's books have been on the Best Seller list -- because he isn't communicating to voters? People who read books don't vote?

Whatever your opinions on Moore, it is better to live in a country in which onesuch person as him can vociferate their views than one where this doesn't happen. If you don't like his opinions, you don't essentially have to listen.

Clark has some interesting ideas and- to me- seems the more presidentially appealing of the two, but I have an awful feeling that Bush will have another four years of debauchery and war-mongering, although I can see the Republicans' majority decreasing somewhat. Does anyone believe that the Democrats will win?

quite simply if you dont know michael moore is a closed minded anti christ ....and thats my unbiased opinion of him

cjhsa
cjhsa, the Druge Report link you posted will be changed soon. It turns out that the transcript was released by the Republican National Committee and they fiddled with the text, omitting important parts and substituting some words with others to change the meanings to make it falsely appear that Clark has been inconsistent with his statements re Iraq.

With all the GOP dirty tricks going on you have to verify everything yourself.

----BBB

Posted on Thu, Jan. 15, 2004
GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise
By Dana Hull and Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, charged Thursday that retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark endorsed President Bush's policy toward Iraq two weeks before Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war.

If true, that would contradict the core message of Clark's presidential campaign. The complete transcript of Clark's Sept. 26, 2002, testimony, however, reveals that Clark didn't endorse Bush's policy during the congressional hearing, and that the Republican charge is based on selected excerpts of his remarks.

Gillespie accurately quoted portions of Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in which Clark said he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear weapons. But the RNC chairman didn't mention that Clark also said America should work through the United Nations to seek a diplomatic solution and go to war only as a last resort.

Gillespie's speech, delivered in Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., argued forcefully that Clark had endorsed Bush's policy toward Iraq in that congressional testimony and at other times. Gillespie apparently was contesting Clark's insistence that he consistently opposed Bush's war against Iraq - a stand Clark reiterated Thursday. "There was no stronger case made than that expert testimony, the testimony of General Wesley Clark," Gillespie concluded.

Clark's position on the Iraq war is central to his presidential candidacy, for as a former four-star general, he bases his appeal to Democrats on his credibility as a military man who can challenge Bush on national security issues.

"This is material that has been dug up by the RNC," Clark responded Thursday afternoon. "Ed Gillespie should have read the whole testimony, because it totally refutes the Bush position."

Clark appeared exasperated.

"What I was saying then is what I'm saying today. That Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. That actions contemplated against Saddam Hussein did not constitute pre-emptive war, contrary to what the Bush administration was saying, because there was no imminent threat. Was he troublesome? Sure. Was he a threat? Eventually, sure. Was the clock ticking in the two-year, five-year, eight-year time period? Sure. Did we have to do this? NO."

Clark, however, hasn't always been consistent. The day after he officially announced his candidacy for president last September, he told reporters that he "probably" would have voted the previous autumn for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, then reversed that position the next day.

The attack on Clark by the RNC chairman suggests that the Republican Party is now taking Clark's campaign seriously. Although opinion polls can be unreliable in primaries, in which voter turnout is low and many voters make up their minds at the last minute, the latest polls show Clark closing in on former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for the lead in New Hampshire, where Democrats will vote on Jan. 27.

Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment.

For example, Drudge quoted Clark on possible links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime. "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as (fellow witness) Richard (Perle) says, that there have been such contacts," Clark testified. "It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information."

But Drudge didn't include Clark's comment that: "As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al-Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. I'm saying there hasn't been any substantiation of the linkage of the Iraqi regime to the events of 9/11 or the fact that they are giving weapons of mass destruction capability to al-Qaida."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark testified, according to the full transcript, which was reviewed by Knight Ridder. "He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we … The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely … ."

In addition, Clark said: "If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition, including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post-conflict Iraq are prepared and ready."
----------------
(Hull, of the San Jose Mercury News, reported from New Hampshire, Brown from Washington.)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Clark's Iraq stance consistent: advisor Rubin
Fri Jan 16,11:54 AM ET Add U.S. National

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic US presidential hopeful Wesley Clark did not reverse his Iraq war stance as Republicans and some media outlets have reported, his foreign policy advisor said.

"He has made it clear that this is the wrong war at the wrong time," James Rubin said at the National Press Club.

Journalist Matt Drudge reported on his website while Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie said in Little Rock Thursday that Clark's pre-war testimony to Congress differed from the candidate's anti-war platform as he runs against President George W. Bush.

Rubin said Clark's testimony had been quoted selectively.

"He was supportive of the policy of diplomacy backed by force," Rubin said.

"If you look at his policy ... you will discover that his policy was very straightforward, that you needed to take this problem, this challenge, this threat to the United Nations."

Clark is vying for the Democratic nomination to challenge Bush in the November 2 election. He is a retired general and was NATO commander during operations in Kosovo.

Rubin was a spokesman for president Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright.

I love Dennis Kucinich, but Dean was my choice until I started listening to Clark. I automatically distrust someone who's career has been in the military, because that mindset isn't what is needed for effective checks and balances. Yet he does seem to have made some very unmilitary-like decisions, alienating other military types.

Right now, I think Clark is the only one who stands a chance to defeat Bush and even if I disliked him immensely, I would vote for him just to get rid of dubya.

Diane
Diane, I've almost reached a decision to vote for Wes Clark, too. I've been interested in John Edwards and Clark from the beginning. I like both of them. You have to look at the Electoral College states to understand that Clark has a better chance of defeating George Bush.

I got my absentee New Mexico Caucus ballot in today's mail, so I have to make a decision. I think its going to be Clark.

BBB

Wes Clark was on Bill Maher's show againt and Bill's inclinations towards Clark as President were quite evident. It's going to begin being a rough ride for Dean. In any case, unless something really damaging occurs to dislodge Bush's popularity he will slide easily into a second term. As past Presidents have found their second term to be the Hell after the Honeymoon, it's going to be an intriguing if not a bit scary for the next five years.

(Even Jefferson's second term was a disaster).

Iowa. Clark. Goose Egg.




Bwahahahahahahahahahah!

Umm...Clark wasn't running in Iowa. Might be wise to save your chortling until after New Hampshire, dude...

Uncommitted got 1%, dude.

Well, Lieberman wasn't running either, so I guess you can write him off, too...