|
"A
... documentary filmmaker puts out a letter to a retired four-star general
urging him to run for president."
"For Michael Moore, the reaction is gratifying. But some of the reactions
are more apoplectic than kind."
"Quite
a few progressive activists are stunned, even infuriated, perhaps most of
all by four words in Moore’s open letter to Gen. Clark: 'And you oppose
war.'"
"[F]or
people who’ve greatly appreciated the insightful director of 'Bowling for
Columbine,' the claim is a real jaw-dropper."
"I agree
with much of what Moore wrote in his Sept. 23 essay. Certainly, 'we need
to unite with each other to keep our eyes on the prize: Bush Removal in
’04.' But with our eyes on the prize, we should not stumble into the
classic trap of candidate flackery while applying political cosmetics."
"[I]f
Wesley Clark is 'antiwar,' then antiwar is a pliable term that doesn’t
mean much as it morphs into a codeword for tactical objections rather than
principled opposition."
"[A]
strong case can be made that Clark would amount to a major improvement
over the current president. But those who recognize the importance of
ousting the Bush team from the White House should resist the
temptation to pretty up any Democratic challenger."
|
|
Here’s the real-life plot: A famous documentary filmmaker puts
out a letter to a retired four-star general urging him to run for
president. The essay quickly zooms through cyberspace and causes a
big stir.
For Michael Moore, the reaction is gratifying. Three days later, he
thanks readers “for the astounding response to the Wesley Clark
letter” and “for your kind comments to me.” But
some of the reactions are more apoplectic than
kind.
Quite a few progressive activists are stunned, even infuriated,
perhaps most of all by four words in Moore’s open letter to Gen.
Clark: “And you oppose war.”
The next sentence tries to back up the assertion: “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.”
But for some people who’ve greatly appreciated the insightful
director of “Bowling for Columbine,” the claim is a real
jaw-dropper. It could easily be refuted by
mentioning a long list of names such as Colin
Powell, Alexander Haig and William Westmoreland, along with John McCain
and other militarists who won high
elective office after ballyhooed service in the
armed forces.
Other flashbacks make Moore’s statement seem not only simplistic but
also gullible: After all, many presidents have touted war as a
“last resort” -- even while the Pentagon killed
people in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama,
Afghanistan, Iraq ... and, oh yes, Yugoslavia.
Moore’s Sept. 12 open letter doesn’t mention the 1999 war on
Yugoslavia -- which included more than two months of relentless
bombing under the supervision of Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied
Commander in Europe at the time.
A second letter, dated Sept. 23, does refer to that bloodshed.
Moore recalls his own opposition to the war while summarizing news
reports that Clark wanted to utilize ground troops, a move that
might have reduced the number of civilian
deaths. But the followup letter doesn’t mention
the huge quantities of depleted uranium used in Yugoslavia under
Clark’s authority. Or the large number of cluster bombs that were
dropped under his command.
When each 1,000-pound “combined effects munition” exploded, a
couple of hundred “bomblets” shot out in all directions. Little
parachutes aided in dispersal of the bomblets to hit what the
manufacturer called “soft targets.” Beforehand, though, each
bomblet broke into about 300 pieces of jagged
steel shrapnel.
Midway through the war, five springs ago, BBC correspondent John
Simpson reported from Belgrade in the Sunday Telegraph: “In Novi
Sad and
Nis, and several other places across Serbia and Kosovo where there are no
foreign journalists, heavier bombing has brought more accidents.” He noted
that cluster bombs “explode in the air and hurl shards of shrapnel over a
wide radius.” And he added: “Used against human beings, cluster bombs are
some of the most savage weapons of modern warfare.”
I agree with much of what Moore wrote in his Sept. 23 essay.
Certainly, “we need to unite with each other to keep our eyes on
the prize: Bush Removal in ’04.” But with our
eyes on the prize, we should not stumble into
the classic trap of candidate flackery while applying
political cosmetics.
Clark has yet to repudiate his own actions in 1999. And this
year, his espoused positions about the
war on Iraq have blended criticism with
ambivalence, equivocation and even triumphalism.
Many news outlets don’t seem very interested in contradictory
details. So, the Sept. 29 edition of Time magazine says in big
type: “Wes Clark has launched a presidential bid
that has a four-star luster. But is the antiwar
general prepared for this kind of battle?”
But if Wesley Clark is “antiwar,” then antiwar is a pliable term that
doesn’t mean much as it morphs into a codeword for tactical
objections rather than principled opposition.
“Nothing is more American, nothing is more patriotic than
speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders
accountable,” Gen. Clark said in a Sept. 24 speech. That’s a key
point -- and it must always apply to how we deal with all
politicians, including Wesley Clark.
Overall, a strong case can be made that Clark would amount to a
major improvement over the current president. But those who
recognize the importance of ousting the Bush
team from the White House should resist the
temptation to pretty up any Democratic challenger.
|