Mikey Moore on Wesley Clark

[jimpeel]

There's just too much to refute so I will simply let those, here assembled, read it and die laughing. What an idiot!

Make sure you have a clear path to the vomitorium.

I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush
— by Michael Moore

January 14, 2004

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America.. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MMUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been "positioning himself slightly to Dean's left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant.. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel ( http://clark04.com/press/release/124/ ), and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young ( http://clark04.com/press/release/138/ ).

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained ( http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll083.xml )). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/p...gns/09DEAN.html )"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) – and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him ( http://www3.clark04.com/forms/moore.mhtml ), to volunteer ( http://www.clark04.com/volunteer ), or to donate ( https://secure.clark04.com/ ). To find out about when your state's presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart ( http://www.vote-smart.org/election_...imary_dates.php ).

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

www.michaelmoore.com ( http://www.michaelmoore.com/ )

[email protected] ( mailto:[email protected] )

 

[HBK]

The stupidity of that fat jackass never ceases to amaze me.

 

[labgrade]

Jim, thanks for the post, but since I really don't want to vomit, I only read this far:

"He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

How is it that 'The rich" don't (other than their tax-lawyered-skirting the laws put in place by other tax-lawyers?). Another subject.

If I pay 50%++ (a rediculous sum at that!) of my taxes, how is it that "the rich" get to not pay their "fair share?"

(I know, other than that nasty l'il clause .... )

Who could even take the time to read this yahoo's nonsense?

Thanks anyway. Had to pass .....

 

[Mark Tyson]

Note that Michael Moore was against the war in Kosovo, and preferred to see Kosovars bulldozed into trenches by the thousands rather than lift a finger to stop them.

And anti-war? It looks now as if Clark was for the war - before he was a presidential candidate. Close your eyes Michael, and pretend it isn't so.

 

[romulus]

What happened to actual political philosophers of the left? If they're stuck with this meathead bearing their standard, I don't see them advancing the state-of-the-art...not that I have any complaints about this other than the ensuing coarsening of political debate

 

[BenW]

I made it this much farther than you did Labgrade:

He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich

How is "socking it" to a targeted segment of society helpful to the nation again?

 

[nico]

my opinion of that arrogant piece of ???? can't be expressed on this site without being censored (oops).
labgrade, I've heard a few times (can't remember the source) that something like 5% of Americans pay 45% of taxes. If that's not "their fair share" then *** is?
And mark, I believe these links agree with you:
link #1

Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK
Anti-War Candidate?
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won’t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.

Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom — by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success — but they can’t win. That’s done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armored fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armored vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimizing friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction.

It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime’s survival. And what it produces, it sells.

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. on’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next†if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road mapâ€, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

General Wesley Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1997-2000 and led Nato forces during the Kosovo campaign

Copyright 2003 Times/UK

and link #2

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

MORE

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... 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."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. 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. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

END

So far, the only rebuttal from clark is that he didn't write the op/ed and didn't say that in front of congress, even though the op/ed was published with him listed as the author (would a major newspaper do that if he hadn't written it?) and the TRANSCRIPTS of his testimony say otherwise. Clark should take some lessons from moore about how to lie better.

 

[critter]

And ANYBODY should care what MM thinks---WHY??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[nico]

critter, I personally wouldn't listen to anything he says. But the problem is people who can potentially cancel out my vote do, so whenever his movies are mentioned as "documentaries" I feel the need to point out that he's a liar. I've actually convinced a few people that he's full of you-know-what believe it or not

 

[Mulliga]

Wow. Mikey is an idiot. And this stuff is just WRONG.

The Columbine murderers (whom MM so gleefully glamorized in BFC) said themselves that they would have gotten the guns SOMEWHERE. We should only be happy that these psychos were incredibly poor shots.

Ballistic fingerprinting can be defeated by anyone with half a brain (and a file...). How would it have helped in the D.C. "sniper" case? Those guys didn't leave their fired shell casings everywhere, did they? After the bullets hit their victims, they can't be fingerprinted, can they? But MM and Wesley would create huge ATF bureacracy with their scheme...all without solving any crimes, with the side effect of increased tracking of our guns.

 

[Lord Bodak]

I love how point #5 talks about gutting our Second Amendment rights but then he follows it with point #6 claiming to restore our rights. You can't have it both ways and you can't say "only these parts of the Constitution apply"

 

[4v50 Gary]

Moore's logic is, well. Get this. According to Moore, ballistic fingerprinting would have identified the weapon of the DC "sniper" after the first shooting. Wonderful, so how do you track a gun that was stolen from a dealer?

 

[seeker_two]

I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush
— by Michael Moore

With friends like that, who needs enemies?....

 

[Standing Wolf]

Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites.

 

[jimpeel]

Thought I'd sit back and watch the hurl-fest for a while.

Mikey backs a man who, while a commander in Kosovo, was told by a British general that he would not start WWIII for him based upon an order that Clark had given. Now Mikey wants that same man in the office where the red button is located? (figuratively)

He is still under the impression that the DC sniper bought his firearm under his own name. I guess Mikey doesn't read the mainstream press very much or, if he does, he disbelieves all of the reporting that states unequivocally that the rifle was stolen. What does Mikey know that the rest of us don't?

Mikey wants to see a debate between Bush and Clark. What will Mikey do when Bush starts showing that Clark has changed his mind more often than Cher has had plastic surgery? In an interview today, a general who is very familiar with Clark said he is what is refered to in the military as a "two knot windsock". He changes position constantly depending on where the praise or flak are coming from.

I just think Mikey is enamored with the best looking candidate on his side of the fence. (bats eyes while looking coquettish)

Mikey also likes his position on affirmative action. He talks about how Blacks still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder. I guess I was right when I said he doesn't read the mainstream press much. There was a recent study that showed that Blacks are upwardly mobile -- just like the rest of us.

After he "socks it to the rich" within whose numbers Mikey numbers himself, he outlines how all of that extra largess will be spent when he says "He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America." Clark will attempt to fill every money pit. How fast we go under depends on how fast he can shovel.

Mikey is against guns, war, ands other causes of death and mayhem but is backing a guy who stated that he would fight for a mother's right to have an abortion right up to her delivery date. I guess Mikey chooses which murders are moral and which are not.

Mikey thinks that Clark wanting to cut the defense budget and sink the money into education and healthcare and "he will STILL make us safer than we are now." is a good thing. What will he do; mail a bag of gummy soldiers to every household in America so we can all set up perimeters around our houses? How will we feel safer than we do now?

Mikey is also under the "money will make smart kids" influence. Again, he must not read the mainstream press much as there was a school district that was ordered by a judge to pour ever increasing amounts into the district. At the point they were spending over $10,000/child, still getting no results, and bankrupting the city the judge finally came to his senses and retracted the orders. Just because IQs and dollars both use numbers doesn't mean they equate.

I guess Mikey is such an idiot because he didn't get enough dollars spent on him when he was a kid.

 

[labgrade]

Jeez, Jim, take a pill.

Don't you get it yet?

Just with our own who would puff up the po-po for anything they'd do, too, the "greater good" is for the "greater good," & all done for that is ...

... I just can't keep up the charade any longer.

Anyone else?

 

[geegee]

Wesley Clark must be feeling triumphant. He's now able to add Michael Moore's name to that of Madonna as his two "celebrity" endorsements. All he needs now is to pick up one from Sean Penn and he'll be headed to the White House for sure. geegee

 

[jimpeel]

I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush

Yeah, Mikey, good-bye Mr. Bush as he walks away in a landslide taking 49 states with him.

 

[jimpeel]

labgrade

Just with our own who would puff up the po-po for anything they'd do, too, the "greater good" is for the "greater good," & all done for that is ...

... I just can't keep up the charade any longer.

We've had lunch and some good conversation and I know you have a fine grasp of the English language. So what did you just say; or was that labonics?

 

[PeteyPete]

Word is that Clark was a lifelong Republican who after being canned by William Cohen during Clintons tenure offered himself to the Republican party as a hopeful in '08 only to be denied by Karl Rove. Only after this rejection from Rove has he begun his cacophony of shrill criticism against the Bush Administration.

Clark is no more a progressive Democrat than I am a Communist.

 

[Lancel]

There's no need to vote in the Republican primary since they already have a pretty good candidate.

So when I go to the primary, I'll be declaring myself as a Democrat so I can help them choose a proper candidate. Care to join me?

Larry

 

[jimpeel]

The thing I love about Rush Limbaugh is he posts his sources so you can go and listen to them.

Here is Clark, before Congress, praising Bush. Was he lying then or is he lying now?

Intro page on Clark. Links are at the bottom. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011604/content/can_t_get_out_of_this_one_.guest.html

Audio of Rush reading Clark's London Times op-ed in favor of Bush's Iraq policy. http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/04/01/011504_2_clarkI.asx

Audio of Clark testifying before Congress in support of Bush. http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/ru....com/5020/clips/04/01/011504_3_clarkaudio.asx

Drudge report on Clark making case for Iraq war. http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

Here are the stats from the IRS that show that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of all income taxes. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

An Excel file that shows the IRS stats. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html

And what will Wessy boy do about this bit of tax magic if he is elected and what does Mikey think about it? http://www.saljournal.com/stories/100102/mon_minTax.html.html

 

[Bruce H]

If Mikey Moore was on Wesley Clark, Clark would be down for the count. Wouldn't have to listen to his idiot blatherings.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Nobody's going to get stuck with Clark. Last I checked he was polling at 3%.

 

[Highland Ranger]

He's more of an "entertainer" than an activist but isn't this idiot a Canadian?