This is a copy of an email sent out on Michael Moore's mailing list. A Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at Home) 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: mailto: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 Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972 Conscientious Objector applicant
I don't want to comment on the e-mail, but it made me read a bit more about Wesley Clark, and I have to say...his resumé is impressive, that's for sure.
Wesley Clark: The best candidate not running By Bob Ray Sanders Star-Telegram Staff Writer A calm, confident voice coming from the television set last Sunday morning so caught my attention that I put the newspaper down on the kitchen counter, grabbed my cup of coffee and quickly sat down in the den to listen to a man who was actually making sense on the issues. It did not take me long to realize that he was the one -- not the messiah necessarily, but the one who would make an attractive, more-than-credible candidate to challenge President Bush in the 2000 election. He was not one of the nine declared Democratic presidential candidates. And although he acknowledged having been encouraged to seek the nation's highest office, he said he had not made that decision yet and he had not even chosen a political party. Perhaps so, but the more he talked, the more it was clear that if he ran at all, he would have to run as a Democrat. You see, during the interview he basically declared that third-party candidacies are ineffective, and his stand on the issues seemed diametrically opposed to the current administration's (and the Republican Party's) views. Here was a nonpolitician speaking with a rare clarity that is certainly hard to find in most elected officials on any level. Fielding pointed questions from moderator Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark spoke freely and forcefully, clearly yet untarnished by political handlers, strategists and speechwriters. Remember the name: Wesley K. Clark. How refreshing it was to hear more than the usual blah, blah, blah and hubba, hubba, hubba say-nothing rhetoric that has become the official language of Washington officialdom and political campaigns. Make a mental note, as I did Sunday morning: Wesley K. Clark. A retired general. I wish I had been taking notes with a pad and pen, but when I thought back, there was really no need. He was so articulate that I heard him, understood him and remembered what he said. He did not engage in Bush-bashing or Congress-chiding. And, except for refusing to declare his candidacy or party affiliation, he did not skirt the issues. Clark, who was forced out as the supreme allied commander in Europe, said that although he thought Iraq probably had some kind of weapons program, the Bush administration never proved the imminence of an Iraqi threat. He also firmly opposed the huge Bush tax cuts, saying they would not stimulate the economy and basically favored the wealthiest of Americans. The retired general also explained why he had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the University of Michigan's affirmative-action plan, noting that affirmative action in the military had served the nation well. It is pretty obvious that there are those who fear Clark's possible entry into the presidential race. Just since the Sunday-morning program, when I began searching the Internet for information on him, there have been more than a few new Web sites trying to discredit him. That's a very good sign. Clark, who grew up in Little Rock, Ark., has ties to Texas, having served as commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood. Among his numerous military assignments and accomplishments, he commanded a company in Vietnam. According to the NATO Web site, "General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a master's degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools." In addition, he has been a White House Fellow and a special assistant to the director of the Office of Management and Budget and has served as assistant professor of social science at West Point. He looks like a man of high credentials to me. Certainly there are other candidates with the qualifications to be president, but of the nine announced Democratic contenders, only two -- and I won't name them -- have any hope of capturing the nomination, and neither of them has a chance of winning without Clark (or someone very much like him) on the ticket. So the way I see it right now, whether he's at the top or the bottom of the ticket, the Democrats don't stand a chance without Clark as a candidate. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/6131569.htm
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp Clark is second guest and appears half way through the transcript some highlights MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the weapons of mass destruction and refer you to a column you wrote in the Times of London on April 9th, and I’ll show it to you and our viewers as well. “This is the real intelligence battle and the stakes could not be higher, for failure to find the weapons could prove to be a crushing blow to the proponents of the war [in Iraq], supercharge Arab anger and set back many efforts to end the remarkable diplomatic isolation of the United States and Britain.” Where are the weapons of mass destruction? GEN. CLARK: I think there are some mass destruction capabilities that are still inside Iraq. I think there’s some weapons that have been shipped over the border to Syria. But I don’t think we’re going to find that their capabilities provided the imminent threat that many feared in this country. So I think it’s going to be a tough search, but I think there’s stuff there. MR. RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people? GEN. CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem. I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that’s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case. MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom? GEN. CLARK: Well, I... MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who? GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that? GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection. ---- MR. RUSSERT: Would you like to be president? GEN. CLARK: Well, in many respects, I’d like a chance to help this country. And I don’t know if that means being president or doing something else. But I’ve spent my entire life in public service, except for the last three years. And it’s very hard not to think in terms of the welfare of the country, and when you see the country in trouble, in challenge, yes, you’d like to pitch in and help. MR. RUSSERT: Are you considering entering the presidential race? GEN. CLARK: I’m going to have to consider it. MR. RUSSERT: By when? GEN. CLARK: Well, sometime over the next couple of months. MR. RUSSERT: And your time line is by September... GEN. CLARK: I don’t have a specific time line, Tim. But I do have to consider it. MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you two Web sites that have been developed, and I’ll put them on the screen for you. There they are. DraftWesleyClark. And now in New Hampshire, there is this radio ad. Let’s listen: (Audiotape, radio ad): Announcer: General Wesley Clark: Vietnam combat veteran, Rhodes scholar, four-star general, business leader, and with your support—the next president of the United States. Paid for by DraftWesleyClark.com. (End audiotape) GEN. CLARK: That’s amazing. MR. RUSSERT: Do up want them to continue those advertisements? GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, all I’ve—I don’t have anything to do with that group. And I’m enormously impressed by their energy and so forth. I’m going have to give some serious consideration to this. And I’ve been—I’ve been saying that this is really about ideas and trying to get the ideas out. And I’ve been very grateful for the opportunity to do that. Maybe there’s something more to it. ----------- MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of the Bush tax cuts? Would you have voted for them? GEN. CLARK: Well, I would not have supported them, no. MR. RUSSERT: Why not? GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country. So I think that the tax cuts were unfair. And, finally, I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we’ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: “Is this wise, long-run policy?” I think the answer is no.
He's gonna be here in Iowa City on Friday. I plan to be there. Can't wait. If I get to ask a question, I'll preface with, "Good afternoon, Mr. President." (maybe the audience will get a laugh if I add, "Just wanted to be the first one who says it.")
Gen. Clark: What do you think of the Bush tax cuts? Would you have voted for them?GEN. CLARK: Well, I would not have supported them, no. MR. RUSSERT: Why not? GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country. Hey, I'm being sold on the guy. General vs AWOL Daddy's boy Reservist. Not afraid of the word liberal. Wants to save my social security and medicare. Looking good.
i knew you or T_J would jump on that when I saw it Maybe Mr Clark was meaning more along the lines of the anger felt during the Revolution of taxation with representation and that people should be paying what is fair.. or he could just of misspoke
A more accurate statement by Clark regarding the income tax would have been "the income tax was founded with the idea of progressive taxation."
