Michael Moore (almost, but not quite) endorses a General?!

[Sava]

I have, I just have never seen anyone debate his points... care to start?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Did Clark have orders?

Here's part of a PBS interview:

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: It was a surprising moment to me. It was Sunday the 13th of June, about 8:30 in the morning. And he said, "I'm not going to take your order to block these, this runway." And so we talked about it. He was extremely agitated and emotional and making all kinds of statements. So I said, "let's get your chief of defense," his boss in the British chain of command, "on the line." I talked to General Sir Charles Guthrie, the British chief of defense, and he said, "let me talk to Mike." And so I pass the phone over and then Mike handed the phone back to me. And the British chief of defense said, "well, I agree with Mike." And he says, "so does Hugh Shelton," the American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I was very surprised because I had gotten word from Washington that Washington supported, in fact, suggested that I block these runways and strongly supported how I did it, how I wanted to do it. So I called Hugh. It was about 3:00 in the morning in Washington, and I said, "well, you know, here is the problem and Guthrie says you support Jackson, not me. What... Do you support me or not?" Because you can't take actions in war without support of governments. He said, "well," he said, "I did have a conversation with Guthrie. I knew you were getting this order. Guthrie and I agreed we don't want a confrontation but I do support you." So I said, "well, then you've got a policy problem." And it really was a policy problem caused by the British government's differing perception than the American government's, and by Mike Jackson's perception of the situation.

MARGARET WARNER: What does this tell you about alliance warfare? I mean, that if push comes to shove, does the whole alliance command structure break down?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, only in... It tells you the same lesson we've always known about alliances, that if you are going to lead and you have the command positions, you have to back up that command position. You have to earn it by committing the resources. Now, in this case, although we had the majority of the aircraft and the air campaign, we had done our best to avoid taking a leadership role on the ground. The British had the vast majority of the forces. They were there first. They had the capital sector around Pristina and the Pristina Airport sector, and they had the commander on the ground. So it was going to be, except for the Apaches, it was all British troops at risk, and it was a British commander and therefore it was essentially a British operation under my command. It's the same thing that we would have found in the Second World War. Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander because the United States put the bulk of the forces in, not the Brits. In this case, because the United States didn't want to take the lead by committing its resources on the ground, when push came to shove, it was another country that actually set the policies.

Credit:PBS

[MikeH]

Seems reasonable.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
I have, I just have never seen anyone debate his points... care to start?

This will do for a start: http://hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Sava]

DD, you should bother to read your own stuff... I read that when it originally came out, and I recall the New York Times doing a piece debunking that conservadope's site.

next?

[chequita guevara]

Sava, try www.spinsanity.com for more about Moore. Spinsanity, while liberal, doesn't pull punches on their own side and has pertty thoroughly skewered Moore over both Stupid White Men and Bowling for Columbine. The big problem with Moore is he doesn't check his facts thoroughly, and like much of the left, is rather credulous when it comes to anti-right "news" (kinda like NewsMaxies are about anything anti-Clinton).

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Michael Moore edited the Heston speech, very true. However, he edited out details that, if left, did not change the overall meaning of the speech. They were suplerflous details, that in a theatrical documentary just don't work. It does not make Moore's use any less true.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
I read that when it originally came out, and I recall the New York Times doing a piece debunking that conservadope's site.

Then you should have no problem debunking it on your own or finding the article you are refering to yourself.

In the mean time, here's something to entertain you from the site che linked to: In "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore once again puts distortions and contradictions before the truth

[Sava]

Hmmm, if this is true about Moore, why isn't he working for the Bush admin?

Anyways, I have some info about Gen. Wesley Clark. He taught economics at West Point, where he graduated from in 1966 first in his class. He has 3 Master's degrees from Oxford... Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He's also a Rhodes Scholar. Clark has been awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart; as well as the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He also is a licensed investment banker.

[Paul Hanson]

IIRC, Philosophy, Politics and Economics is only one degree (it's refered to here as PPE).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ahh the Moore haters come out of the woodwork.

[C0ckney]

is it a degree? i've been reading william woodruff's book 'the road to nab end' (and its sequel) and he talks about doing PPE at oxford, but then doing a degree afterwards, the PPE being a sort of 2 year course but not a degree. don't know if things have changed now though.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
I have, I just have never seen anyone debate his points... care to start?

It's like debating Coulter's "points." The ones on their heads are congenital, and those are the only ones they have.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but let's not forget Jackson and Grant. Some of our best President's have been generals, but also some of our worst.

I consider Jackson to be one of the best . But yeah, some generals haven't been that great, but we haven't elected generals much in the last 100 years.

[Drake Tungsten]

You obviously haven't seen his movies.

"Stupid White Men" wasn't exactly filled with credible information either. I remember laughing out loud at some of the "facts" presented.