Michael Moore and Wesley Clark are frauds

I generally try to be nice to people I disagree with. For example, I can respect and like Howard Dean, as much I disagree with him on important issues, because he's honest about what he believes, and is basically a good guy.

But here's an article Michael Moore wrote in 1999 condemning the U.S. war in Kosovo. Meanwhile, he's endorsing Wesley Clark, the general who ran that war, for president.

And Wesley Clark, who claims to be against the invasion of Iraq, wrote, on April 10, 2003 (the day after Baghdad was liberated):

Dave, look at your at own candidate.

Not sure what you mean.

I've never been in love with Bush. I don't make excuses for him when I disagree with him. But I think he's at least a bit more honest and has a definite sense of what he considers moral, even if he's often wrong.

Also, I should note that Wesley Clark is the only Democratic candidate I feel this way about. I have disagreements with all the others, but I think that they're basically saying what they believe. Like most politicians, they all will sometimes twist the truth or even pretend they believe things that they don't, but Wesley Clark is the only candidate who's really blatant about it and seems to care about nothing but getting elected.

So, what you hate about him is that he's not as good at lying as the others?

Not exactly. What I dislike is that he doesn't stand for anything.

Neither do the others.

He just hasn't had as much practice at obscuring it.

What did Clinton stand for? Which of his principles wouldn't he compromise to get elected?

I don't know enough about Clinton to answer that. I'm neither defending Clinton nor attacking Clinton. I'm talking about the six other Democratic presidential candidates. It seems like a conspiracy theory to not give the benefit of the doubt to them, and to assume that all politicians must necessarily be liars about everything they say.

Ok, well I'm sure that Clark isn't a liar about everything he says either.

I don't think that all politicians necessarily lie about everything they say. But I can't think of any who has been elected to a high office who doesn't lie occasionally (perhaps an exception is Ron Paul, but I'm not sure).

I can't prove it, but you have to really want to get elected to put up with all of the crap that they do, and you have to please a lot of different people with contradictory policy preferences in order to win. Under those circumstances, the temptation to adapt what you say to your audience is too great for most people to resist. Some of them might actually kind of believe what they're saying, while they're saying it; but it doesn't keep them from saying something contradictory a short time later. What they actually believe (if anything) I have no idea.

I'd like to point out that there is a difference between lying, not saying anything, and making a mistake. A lot of times all three just get lumped together and called a lie.

To be fair, Michael Moore has stated that the main reason he's supporting Clark is that he thinks he can get elected, not for what either of them necessairily stand for.

I disagree Dave. I think that being of the opinion that all politicians are liars is the most reasonable perspective, and as for conspiracy theories....dave, youre arguing for a candidate who is part of one of the most well documented conspiracies weve seen in a while. So any stigma on the word conspiracy kind of falls flat here.....anyways, maybe you hate moore because hes so close to you.....in a way...see, it seems you were scared shitless by september 11, and you seem to have forgotten about many of the things you believed in in favor of this authority who will murder and imprison all of these folks youre afraid of. moore was scared shitless by september 11th also. and so even though he knows clark is just another psychopathic politician, he thinks he can beat bush, and so is desperate for him to win. see, moore is scared shitless of bush. does that make any sense?

moore not the only one- it may be the Public consensus on bush-
From a recent Noam Chomsky essay on Znet
So, today our leader is in London. The mayor of London greeted him by declaring that George Bush is the greatest threat to life on the planet that we have most probably ever seen. As I walked in, I was told by someone that they just heard over the radio that someone else I forget who, announced that he is the most unwelcome visitor to England since William the Conqueror.

These sentiments are described here as rather -- met with some surprise, but that reflects again the useful category of the useful quality of forgetting the recent past. Similar sentiments have been very widely expressed since September, 2002, to some extent before, but particularly since then.

Within weeks after September, 2002, a crucial moment in world affairs, within weeks even the mainstream U.S. press was compelled to report that the world now regards George Bush as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein. That fact is an understatement because much as Saddam Hussein was hated and reviled, he was not regarded as a threat. Even by the countries that he had attacked, Iran and Kuwait, both of which understood perfectly well that after a decade of sanctions that had devastated the society, and after having been effectively disarmed, however awful Saddam Hussein was, he wasn't going to threaten anybody. In fact, it was the weakest country in the region. One of the reasons why it was attacked, it met the primary conditions for target of attack, it was defenseless and known to be. In fact, they had joined the other states in the region in trying to integrate Iraq back into the region for several years over strong U.S. objections. So, the statement, while correct is understated. These kinds of reactions that you hear today and you have been hearing for the past year if you pay attention, are as far as I'm aware, are entirely without precedent. I can't remember anything like them. And how one decides to evaluate the sentiments that are expressed, one thing is clear, no sane person should ignore them.

Just a couple of weeks ago, there was a European Union poll which aroused some interest here. The poll was asking Europeans what they thought was the greatest threat to world peace, and it turned ed out that the United States was ranked right next to North Korea and Iraq, same percentage.

Well, that was felt to be a surprise, but it shouldn't have been a surprise, because that's what polls have been showing for a year, over a year, growing concern and fear that the United States is out of control under the present leadership, and is a tremendous threat to peace.

Actually, the poll -- the commentary on the poll focused on something else, namely, the U.S., North Korea, and Iran were ranked right below Israel, which was ranked as the greatest threat to peace. But my strong suspicion is that that's because the questions in the poll were wrongly asked. You have to be really careful reading polls. Israel in itself is not a threat - much of a threat at all, but U.S. support for Israel is an enormous threat to world peace. And I presume that that's what people were answering.

However, the question was phrased, and if that's correct, then the major threat perceived to world peace in Europe are U.S. support for Israel, which is the regional superpower and the U.S. actions elsewhere in the world. Well, if that's the right interpretation, then the polls are reflecting an understanding of phenomena that are real and important and widely understood.

No sane person should accept Chomsky as a reliable transmitter of facts or balanced analysis.

He's consistently wrong, and consistently unable to recognize and admit it.

Sanity has nothing to do with it. He can be wrong, but he is certainly not consistently wrong, just biased. And angry. Everyone is angry. Heres a site with some of his mistakes. www.leftwatch.com/FAQ/people/noam_chomsky.html

I will admit he is an astoundingly self-righteous kind of bastard though. But hes a bit brilliant too, so we have to give him that (or a little of that)

I just used the "no sane person" line because he did.

I agree he's bright, but I do think he's often wrong, too.

If only he'd use his brilliance for niceness instead of evil.

down with evil

dude, HOWARD DEAN? you gots top be kidding... the guy is a serial purjurer and outright criminal scumbag. he should carry around a bucket to catch all the bullshit pouring from his trap. read g gordon liddy's book WILL. moore IS a zealot, socialist, paranoid nutjob who will scream and lie to convince people he is right. turns me off...