Prev | List | Random | Next
Apparently Mike Moore doesn't think retired General Wes Clark is a stupid white man. Indeed, the Hollywood hitman has embraced the general as his man for the job of president. To further boost his candidate's chances, the rotund one has, during an introduction of the candidate, referred to the current president as a military deserter. Which led to this uncomfortable (pour le general) moment on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: But words are important, and as you well know under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if you're a deserter, the punishment is death during war. Do you disassociate yourself from Michael Moore's comments about the president?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I can't use those words and I don't see the issues in that way. But I will tell you this: that Michael Moore has the right to speak freely. I don't screen what people say when they're going to come up and say something like that. That's his form of dissent, and I support freedom of speech in this country, and I would not have characterized the issues in that way. I think this is an election where we have to look at the future, not at the past.
There are many troubling aspects to this. It could be dismissed if it was a one time ocurrence, but note this exchange from the New Hampshire debate.
JENNINGS: At one point Mr. Moore said in front of you that he'd like to see a debate between you and President Bush, who he called a deserter.
Now that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you think it would have been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so?
CLARK: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this. I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot. But to me it wasn't material. ... And I'm delighted to have the support of Michael Moore. ...
This story simultaneously illustrates Moore's ignorance of the military and Clark's feeble grasp of politics. Desertion is a crime the president didn't commit. Clark knows what desertion is, as a General and convening authority he is without a doubt familiar with the concept. His position that he is not familiar with his political opponent's record is ludicrous; ignorance of the opposition is unforgivable for generals and politicians alike. His assumption that the people will believe his claims to ignorance in this matter is pure arrogance, or a sign of the actual ignorance of his supporters. Finally, crime (in the military or civilian world) is not a matter of "feelings" or "opinion", and we don't need another president who thinks it is.
(But I've got a folder on Clark. More to come.;)
Upate: More from Mudville here.
(And USA Today has a look at Clark here.)
Gen Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the JCS when Clark was at NATO, said that Clark was relieved (a.k.s.fired) from his NATO job 1 year early for "character and integrity" issues. I'd like to have Clark tell us why he was fired. We've just gone through 8 years of "character and integrity" problems with Wm J. Pinocchio. This Country needs an honorable person in the White House - and G. W. Bush is just fine with me.Posted by Sooth Sayer at January 27, 2004 01:08 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(1) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)