PDA

View Full Version : Michael Moore : I'll be voting for Wesley Clark.


Descartes Jr
17 januari 2004, 11:47
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 MUST 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, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.



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). 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"? 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, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state’s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.



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

solidarnosc
17 januari 2004, 11:56
Clark is de Republikeinse kandidaat van het Democratische establishment in de jacht op de vetpotten in Washington. Hij heeft zowaar nog voor Reagan gestemd. Een mens vraagt zich af of Moore zijn eigen boeken heeft gelezen.

Descartes Jr
17 januari 2004, 12:08
Clark is de Republikeinse kandidaat van het Democratische establishment in de jacht op de vetpotten in Washington. Hij heeft zowaar nog voor Reagan gestemd. Een mens vraagt zich af of Moore zijn eigen boeken heeft gelezen.
Ola, gij hebt hem precies niet gelezen ! In dat boek maakt hij ook brandhout van sommige democrats !

En na het lezen van dat boek had ik zelfs de indruk dat MM het opnam voor de 3° groene partij van Ralph Nader.

Het pleit dus voor zijn onafhankelijke, ongebonden journalistiek. Scherp maar rechtvaardig.

solidarnosc
17 januari 2004, 12:14
Clark is de Republikeinse kandidaat van het Democratische establishment in de jacht op de vetpotten in Washington. Hij heeft zowaar nog voor Reagan gestemd. Een mens vraagt zich af of Moore zijn eigen boeken heeft gelezen.
Ola, gij hebt hem precies niet gelezen ! In dat boek maakt hij ook brandhout van sommige democrats !

En na het lezen van dat boek had ik zelfs de indruk dat MM het opnam voor de 3° groene partij van Ralph Nader.

Het pleit dus voor zijn onafhankelijke, ongebonden journalistiek. Scherp maar rechtvaardig.

Hij stelt dat Democraten even erg zijn als Republikeinen. Dan oproepen om te stemmen op een quasi-Republikeinse kandidaat is.....vreemd.

Descartes Jr
17 januari 2004, 12:18
Hij stelt dat Democraten even erg zijn als Republikeinen. Dan oproepen om te stemmen op een quasi-Republikeinse kandidaat is.....vreemd.
MM schoot niet op de Democrats als Partij, wel op enkele figuren eruit.

Wat was de titel ook weer ? Stupid White Men ? ;)

Kotsmos
17 januari 2004, 12:59
[quote="Descartes Jr"]Het pleit dus voor zijn onafhankelijke, ongebonden journalistiekquote]

hihi :)

Descartes Jr
17 januari 2004, 13:43
Het pleit dus voor zijn onafhankelijke, ongebonden journalistiekquote
hihi :)
Is uw recht. Maar waar zijn uw argumenten ?

Die hebt u toch ? Bewijs in de hand ? :roll:

Kotsmos
17 januari 2004, 14:08
MM = eenzijdige populistische egotripper. En vermits het zaterdagnamiddag is ga ik daar verder geen woorden aan vuil maken.

Descartes Jr
17 januari 2004, 14:17
MM = eenzijdige populistische egotripper. En vermits het zaterdagnamiddag is ga ik daar verder geen woorden aan vuil maken.
Dus u hecht enkel geloof aan de teksten van onafhankelijke, ongebonden, straightforwarde journalisten ?

Al eens in een woordenboek gekeken hoe men de term "egotripper" omschrijft ? :roll:

Zoek dan ook eens naar "contradictio in ipsis terminis". ;)

Kotsmos
17 januari 2004, 14:31
FFS, Moore komt zelf meer in beeld in zijn documentaires dan de onderwerpen van die documentaires. Egotripper, ja.

Bluelagune
17 januari 2004, 14:58
Clark is de Republikeinse kandidaat van het Democratische establishment in de jacht op de vetpotten in Washington. Hij heeft zowaar nog voor Reagan gestemd. Een mens vraagt zich af of Moore zijn eigen boeken heeft gelezen.
Ola, gij hebt hem precies niet gelezen ! In dat boek maakt hij ook brandhout van sommige democrats !

En na het lezen van dat boek had ik zelfs de indruk dat MM het opnam voor de 3° groene partij van Ralph Nader.

Het pleit dus voor zijn onafhankelijke, ongebonden journalistiek. Scherp maar rechtvaardig.


Wesley Clark..die belachelijke egotripper die het moest afleggen tegen de nog belachelijkere Howard Dean. De democraten gaan de mist in eind dit jaar en gelukkig maar :D

RomeoAvioli
17 januari 2004, 15:47
Whatever, misschien niet slecht om eens een (ex-)militair tot president te verkiezen. Zoek eens op: chickenhawk.
Voor alle duidelijkheid, ik vind deze man allesbehalve een chickenhawk. Maar zoek eens naar een paar favorieten ?

[antwoord niet bekijken voor je gezocht hebt]
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B% 20Chickenhawks

<IMG SRC=http://www.nhgazette.com/NH_images/chickenhawks_logo.gif>

Descartes Jr
17 januari 2004, 20:19
FFS, Moore komt zelf meer in beeld in zijn documentaires dan de onderwerpen van die documentaires. Egotripper, ja.
Het zijn dan ook docu-films hé ?

Een journalist gaat op stapt, interviewt en filmt.

Maar in tegenstelling tot Jambers gaat het over ERNSTIGE onderwerpen ;)

boer_bavo
17 januari 2004, 20:23
Michael Moore steunde de vorige verkiezingen dacht ik Nadar.

Nu is hij blijkbaar van tactiek verandert en ziet hij in dat om Bush te overwinnen de democraten geen "linkiewinkie" als Dean in moeten zetten.
Ik denk dat hij gelijk heeft. Zelf ben ik eigenlijk meest fan van Lieberman. Maar Clark mag op de tweede plaats.

Antoon
17 januari 2004, 21:09
Clark is een onbetrouwbare vent. Vroeger was hij een Reagan adept, later ging hij mensen als Nader steunen (wat een stap).
Ondertussen wist hij zich ook als republikein te profileren, maar na een ontgoocheling wegens het niet mogen deelnemen aan de administratie van Bush :!: heeft hij beslist van een democratische kandidaat te worden voor het Presidentschap.

't Is maar voor diegenen die deze informaties nog niet hadden gekregen.

Descartes Jr
17 januari 2004, 21:36
Clark is een onbetrouwbare vent. Vroeger was hij een Reagan adept, later ging hij mensen als Nader steunen (wat een stap).
Ondertussen wist hij zich ook als republikein te profileren, maar na een ontgoocheling wegens het niet mogen deelnemen aan de administratie van Bush :!: heeft hij beslist van een democratische kandidaat te worden voor het Presidentschap.

't Is maar voor diegenen die deze informaties nog niet hadden gekregen.
Men kan zich de vraag stellen of Clark van mening of gezindheid veranderde dan wel degenen die hij steunde.

Als ik vandaag een overtuigd socialist zou zijn en Stevaert beslist morgen om Nederland aan te vallen om hun aardgasproductie in te palmen terwijl Spirit juist een samenwerkig met Nederland beoogt, zou ik dan een verrader zijn door voor Spirit te stemmen ? (hypothesisch didactisch ;) )

Bekijk alles in zijn contekst aub !

GC
18 januari 2004, 00:25
Moore steunde de vorige keer inderdaad Ralph Nader. En terecht! De keuze ging tussen twee rechtse kandidaten en het was een verademing dat een min of meer alternatieve kandidaat opkwam. Moest ik toen daar gestemd hebben, zou ik voor Nader gestemd hebben. Jammer genoeg lijkt het er nu op dat Nader niet zal opkomen, een gemiste kans!

In 'Stupid White Men' omschreef Moore Clinton als "de beste Republikeinse president ooit"... Waarom roept hij dan nu voor een gelijkaardig figuur op???

Descartes Jr
18 januari 2004, 00:30
In 'Stupid White Men' omschreef Moore Clinton als "de beste Republikeinse president ooit"... Waarom roept hij dan nu voor een gelijkaardig figuur op???Misschien is Clark in de ogen van MM de minst slechte kandidaat ?

Vergeet ook niet dat MM gevraagd werd om een keuze te maken. Het was mogelijk niet zijn wens om er mee uit te pakken.

Ik apprecieer alleszins wel zijn eerlijke beoordeling.

('t Is niet omdat onze Michel Sharon 0/10 gaf in een RTL-spelprogramma dat dit een werelddebat moest openen !)

boer_bavo
18 januari 2004, 08:59
In 'Stupid White Men' omschreef Moore Clinton als "de beste Republikeinse president ooit"... Waarom roept hij dan nu voor een gelijkaardig figuur op???
Lijkt me erg duidelijk: volgens mij is zijn redenering: alles beter dan Bush. En om dat te bereiken zal Nadar steunen contraproductief zijn. Dean steunen waarschijnlijk ook. Een rechtse democraat steunen is misschien nog het slimste. Onder het motto: het kan niet slechter dan Bush zijn.
Als in Antwerpen burgemeesterverkiezingen zijn, zou het dan slim zijn van Agalev om met een eigen kandidaat op te komen?
Toen in Frankrijk de presidentsverkiezing tussen Chirac en Le Pen ging hebben ook veel mensen die niet voor Chirac zijn voor hem gestemd omdat ze volledig tegen Le Pen waren.
Een presidentsverkiezing in 2 ronden is voor mij trouwens zoiezo wenselijk als de score te dicht bij elkaar ligt (zoals vorige keer in de VS). Maarja, ik kan het kiessysteem van de VS niet wijzigen hé.

Descartes Jr
24 januari 2004, 17:52
January 23, 2004

George W. Bush, A.W.O.L

In last night's Democratic Presidential debate in New Hampshire, broadcast on the Fox News (Nusciance?) Channel and ABC's Nightline, Peter Jennings went after Wesley Clark -- and me -- because I said I want to see Clark debate Bush... "The General vs. The Deserter."

Jennings, referring to me as "the controversial filmmaker," asked if Clark wanted to distance himself from me and my "reckless" remark. Clark would not back down, stating how "delighted" he was with my support, and that I was entitled to say what I wanted to say -- AND that I was not the only one who had made these charges against Bush.


The pundits immediately went berserk after the debate. As well they should. Because they know that they -- and much of the mainstream media -- ignored this Bush AWOL story when it was first revealed by an investigation in the Boston Globe (in 2000). The Globe said it appeared George W. Bush skipped out in the middle of his Texas Air National Guard service -- and no charges were ever brought against him. It was a damning story, and Bush has never provided any documents or evidence to refute the Globe's charges.

George W. Bush was missing for at least a 12 month period. That is an undisputed fact. If you or I did that, we would serve time.

Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and a World War II veteran, joined with Vietnam vets Sen. Max Cleland and Sen. Bob Kerrey to challenge Bush on the gaps in his military record. "The question is, where were you, Governor Bush? What would you do as commander-in-chief if someone in the National Guard did the same thing? At the least, I would have been court-martialed. At the least, I would have been placed in prison," Inouye said.

The Washington Post, the New Republic, and others also presented the evidence that Bush had fled from duty.

The most comprehensive piece I've seen was on Tom Paine.com with all the relevant links and documents.

There are far more important issues to deal with in this election year. Poor Peter Jennings. What was he doing on Fox? All that seems left of his Canadianess is the way he pronounced my name ("Michael Moooore"). The question he posed to Clark was typical of a lazy media looking for a way to distract the viewers from the real issues: the war, the economy, and the failures of the Bush administration. But if they want to really get into the issue of Bush and his "service record," then I say, bring it on! The facts are all there, including the empty flyboy suit.


Yours,


Michael Moore

Descartes Jr
27 januari 2004, 22:14
You Say Deserter, I Say More Dessert... by Michael Moore

January 27, 2004


Friends,


I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a "deserter." What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants. In fact, he “shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."

Actually, what I meant to say up in New Hampshire last week was that "We're going to have Bush for dessert come November!" I'm always mixing up "dessert" and "desert" -- I'm sure many of you have that problem.

Well, well, well. As George W. would say, "It's time to smoke ‘em out of their hole!" Thanks to my "humorous" introduction of Wesley Clark 10 days ago in New Hampshire -- and the lughead way the no-sense-of-humor media has covered it -- there were 15 million hits this weekend on my website. Everyone who visited the site got to read the truth about Bush not showing up for National Guard duty.

The weird thing about all this is that during my routine I never went into any details about Bush skipping out while in the Guard (it's not like it's the biggest issue on my mind or facing America these days!) I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown ("debate") which I called "The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!" (You can watch it here -- hardly anyone in the media has shown this clip because viewers would suddenly see the context of my comments.)

When the press heard me use that word "deserter," though, the bells and whistles went off, for this was one of those stories they knew they had ignored -- and now it was rearing its ugly, truthful head on a very public stage. Without a single other word from me other than the d-word, they immediately got so defensive that it looked to many viewers like they—the press—maybe had something to hide. After all, when I called Bush a deserter, how did they know I wasn't referring to how he has deserted the 43 million Americans who have no health coverage? Why didn't they assume I was talking about how Bush is a deserter because he has deserted the working people of this country (who have lost 3 million jobs since he's taken office)? Why wasn't it obvious to them that I was pointing out how Bush had deserted our constitution and Bill of Rights as he tries to limit freedom of speech and privacy rights for law-abiding citizens?


Instead, they have created the brouhaha over Bush's military record, often without telling their audience what the exact charges are. It seems all they want to do is to get Clark or me -- or you -- to shut up. "We have never investigated this and so we want you to apologize for bringing it up!" Ha ha ha.

Well, I'm glad they have gone nuts over it. Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.

What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, “Yeah, but he made up the time later.” So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.


Today, MoveOn.org has put together it's response to this issue, and I would love to reprint it here. It lays out all the facts about Bush and the remaining unanswered questions about where he went for many, many months:

Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, “The Lies of George W. Bush,” by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.

2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)

5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154.

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they’re not talking.

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.

Well, there you have it. Someone got some special treatment. And now that special someone believes he has the right to conduct a war -- using other not-so-special people's lives.



My friends, I always call it like I see it. I don't pussyfoot around. Sometimes the truth is hard to take. The media conglomerates are too afraid to take this on. I understand. But I'm not. That's my job. And I'll continue to do it.


And when I'm wrong, like the thing about Bush pooping his pants, I'll say so.


Yours,


Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

Pascal L.
28 januari 2004, 22:33
Ben verbaasd dat jullie nog geinteresseerd zijn in wat Michael Moron te zeggen heeft ...

Waarom zouden we naar hem moeten luisteren, omdat hij een interessante documentaire gemaakt heeft over een fabriekssluiting ??? Fuck him.

Descartes Jr
29 januari 2004, 07:35
Ben verbaasd dat jullie nog geinteresseerd zijn in wat Michael Moron te zeggen heeft ... Ben verbaasd dat iemand nog enig geloof hecht aan wat public liar Bush nog vertelt.

Maar beiden hebben natuurlijk vrijheid van meningsuiting, is het niet Pascalleke ? ;)

Antoon
29 januari 2004, 10:46
Iedereen heeft het recht om zijn kandidaat te kiezen en ervoor uit te komen. Daar ben ik het 100% mee eens. En dus ook Moore. Bovendien moeten we diens invloed sterk relativeren. Moore kwam met veel getoeter Clark steunen, en zie, Clark blijft ondermaats scoren.

Descartes Jr
29 januari 2004, 10:51
Iedereen heeft het recht om zijn kandidaat te kiezen en ervoor uit te komen. Daar ben ik het 100% mee eens. En dus ook Moore. Bovendien moeten we diens invloed sterk relativeren. Moore kwam met veel getoeter Clark steunen, en zie, Clark blijft ondermaats scoren.
Misschien is Kerry wel een bekwamer kandidaat. Nog wat afwachten.

Antoon
29 januari 2004, 10:59
Iedereen heeft het recht om zijn kandidaat te kiezen en ervoor uit te komen. Daar ben ik het 100% mee eens. En dus ook Moore. Bovendien moeten we diens invloed sterk relativeren. Moore kwam met veel getoeter Clark steunen, en zie, Clark blijft ondermaats scoren.
Misschien is Kerry wel een bekwamer kandidaat. Nog wat afwachten.

Jij weet ondertussen dat mijn voorkeur naar een herverkeizing van Bush gaat. Maar wanneer ik de democratische kandidaten bekijk, dan denk ik inderdaad dat Kerry meer kans maakt dan Clark. Vergeet niet dat Kerry reeds een lange politieke carriere heeft gehad, terwijl Clark voor de eerste keer in zijn leven meedoet om een politieke post te bemachtigen, en dan meteen de hoogste die er in de V.S. is.
Van Dean wist ik meteen dat hij te links is voor het Amerikaans kiezerspubliek. Dat heb ik trouwens reeds weken voor de eerste voorverkiezingen gesteld.
Edwards is nog een beetje te jong, en te vaag. Niemand weet echt waar hij voor staat.

Het zal dus waarschijnlijk Kerry worden. Of hij een kans maakt tegen Bush? Nog te vroeg om te weten. Bush moet zijn eigen campagne nog beginnen, en Kerry heeft ook nog niet in al zijn kaarten laten kijken. Het wordt hoedanook interessant.

Seba
30 januari 2004, 15:57
laten we hopen dat Kerry wint, alhoewel ik liever had dat Dean won, dat is duidelijk nog een echte Amerikaan met verstand. Antoon, ik denk dat het niet zo slecht zou zijn voor het imago van Amerika dat Bush verdwijnt, denk je niet?

zorroaster
31 januari 2004, 01:05
Een volgens mij uitwerkbaar scenario is dat Kerry de post van Buitenlandse Zaken of Defensie aan Clark geeft, in ruil voor steun aan zijn campagne.

Descartes Jr
31 januari 2004, 08:36
Een volgens mij uitwerkbaar scenario is dat Kerry de post van Buitenlandse Zaken of Defensie aan Clark geeft, in ruil voor steun aan zijn campagne.
Zit iets in.

De republicans hebben hun slagen thuisgehaald (met 'efficace' middelen), nu weer tijd voor menselijke politiek (met 'efficiënte' methoden) en het dichtgooien van het gat in de kelders van Fort Knox ...