It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore

[rodeodance]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:51:20 -0400
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: xxxxx


Friends,

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?

To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.

If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.

Yours,
Michael Moore
[e-mail]
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.

[Broken_Hero]

1. Good letter...:) nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. Michael Moore speaks for me!

:patriot:

[unkachuck]

100. me too....n/t

[Alexodin]

3. Hillary doesn't care about progressives she doesn't care

that the Iraq war is for a treasonous lie she doesn't care about people that need to file for bankruptcy protection and she doesn't care that the Patriot Act violates your civil rights, she doesn't care if your child dies in Iraq for a bald faced treasonous lie, she loves Bush co and she's obviously playing for a chunk of the 35% brain dead and taking our vote for granted.

Hillary doesn't care about you, your family, or your children she only cares about Hillary. Hurray! Lets all die for a lie so Dick Cheney can stuff money in his pocket and make angel wings when he rings the cash register on his desk. Vote Hillary! Send your children to die for a lie!

Hillary Clinton supports and condones American children, sons and daughters dieing for a goddamn lie.



ed sp

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

6. Hillary doesn't care about 9/11, or the fact that the widows' questions

were never even addressed, let alone answered.

[OzarkDem]

37. That's absolutely not true

She has worked very closely with those widows to help them get their message to the public and to have an impact in Congress. Those women are her constituents and if you were to ask them, they would tell you the same.

[petgoat]

45. "She has worked very closely with those widows"

Then why can't she get their questions answered, or at least
complain about the terrible response rate?

60% of the widows' questions were never even addressed, let alone
answered!

And how come Hillary's not screaming bloody murder about the fact
that the Clinton-Boxer bill that would have outlawed the blackbox
voting machnes has been hung up in committee for three years?
Doesn't she care about democracy?

[OzarkDem]

50. Because the GOP is in charge

Why would they grant Hillary's wishes on these issues when they ignore her and Dems on virtually every other issue they disagree with.

Why do you even ask this question, when you already know the answer?

[petgoat]

52. All I ask is a statement on the non-answers in the 9/11 Commission

Report, and on the obstruction of the anti-blackbox voting
bill.

The Republicans are not responsible for Hillary's silence.

[Leilani]

102. Hillary is a New York Senator

The Jersey Girls are from New Jersey...they are not her constituents.

[AtomicKitten]

7. self-delete

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

11. ouch

I don't even like Hillary, but I loathe people lying in the name of politics, stating with certainly what others think, believe, and feel.

There are miles between "Hillary is god" and the truth, but some of you are too dense to find it.

Your assessment of the status quo is based on NOTHING except an imagination and an agenda.

[Alexodin]

13. My agenda is nothing less than to end our involvement in a

failed occupation of a foreign land that posed no danger to us and bore us no ill will. If Sen Clinton and no other Senator except Boxer knew that at the outset I blame her and the rest of them for being automatons. I will not forgive such ignorance.

I am a simple man but even I could see the IWR was treason. I suspect her finger was in the wind and not on the pulse.

Hillary Clinton has distinguished herself from the rest of the democratic Senators by continuing to shill for US involvement in the failed occupation of Iraq even more fervently than the right wing nutters. So she owns it now.

Clinton is alone in this disastrous mis-step but her endorsement of the curtailing of free speech rights by prohibiting flag burning by means of a Constitutional amendment shows her true colors. We do not need a leader that marches right when we face the very real possibility of tyranny from right wing extremists.

If Sen. Clinton wishes to appear as a moderate middle of the road candidate she can take one giant step to the left.


Please refrain from unfounded accusations of Sen Clinton's opponents as being undemocratic.

[AtomicKitten]

14. You are dumping this on her when the blame

belongs to every single knucklehead that voted yes on the IWR. And I won't reward any of them with a vote in the primary, so I don't disagree on the egregious nature of the vote. However, you continue to harshly condemn Hillary in particular on admitted "suspicions" rather than looking at the facts.

There is such a thing as reason and truth that should spill over into our view of the world. Drama is flowery and makes the blood boil, but it's not real and it's not truthful and it's often not fair. And I will step up when inclined and right the scorched earth rhetoric that offends me whether you like it or not.

I never accused anyone of being "undemocratic." I said those that can't appreciate the truth which isn't particularly nuanced are dense, and I might add purposely so because of an agenda or an affinity for drama or frustration or misery, but is nonetheless not the truth.

[Alexodin]

16. The fact is Sen Clinton has continued to bray hard-ely well after

the facts were established that the IWR was based on treasonous lies. It is for this that I condemn her and yes she is not alone in that condemnation. I do not take kindly to any politician that commits our children to fight an die in an illegal war and then stands steadfastly by it.

It is for fear of appearing soft on national defense, I suspect, and I can't imagine what could be more detrimental to our national defense interests than the failed Iraq occupation. Sen Clinton is and has been wrong in her undying support for the failed occupation of Iraq. I despise this position in the Republican party and condemn it in the Democratic party if this qualifies as dense I can only hope and pray that more people become as dense as I.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

51. right ...

and maybe he's doing what he's supposed to do as an ex-president, act like an adult and not act out your rage.

[AtomicKitten]

4. "We'll take care of you this November"

Nice.

But sadly some of you couldn't buy a clue.

First of all, Hillary didn't vote on the bankruptcy bill because Bill was having bypass surgery then.

Secondly, no Democrat (except Lieberman and he is gone) supports Bush or this goddamn war. They voted yes on the IWR. That doesn't translate into either supporting Bush or the war OR being warmongers. I will not vote for anyone in the primaries that voted yes on the IWR, but that doesn't give anybody license to lie about them as revenge for that vote.

I am so sick of some of you giving the Democratic Party a bad name with your idiotic drivel.

You are truly an embarrassment to the rest of us with your bullshit.

[Ragin1]

12. "I am so sick of some of you"

Sorry Kitten, any Democrat who voted to give him the keys supported the war. Period. If they couldn't tell wich way the wind was blowing, they shouldn't be sitting in the voting chair.

[AtomicKitten]

15. I do not disagree

that anyone what voted yes on the IWR is complicit and an epic asshole and I despise them and will not forgive them or reward them in the primary .... I'm just saying CONDEMN THEM ALL and quit holding one accountable and absolving others.

THAT is bullshit.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. WHOA HOLD ON - WTF??

Earlier you said "IWR doesn't mean they supported Bush or war or are warmongers."

NOW you're saying that "anyone who voted yes is complicit and an epic asshole and I despise them and will not forgive them"??

How in Christ's name do you reconcile those two statements.

Frankly, that second statement I find every bit as kneejerk and disgusting as the very people you are railing against in this thread. How can you condemn their rhetoric even as you parrot it yourself?

[AtomicKitten]

47. here you go ...

I am divulging my gut feeling about the yes vote on the IWR which manifests itself in my resolution to not vote for anyone in the primary that voted yes on the IWR. It expresses my displeasure about the vote without throwing them under the bus.

However, even that doesn't mean those same Democrats are warmongers which is, pejoratively, someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war, nor have any of them supported Bush in his endeavors. That was Lieberman who did that to illustrate what that actually looks like.

It was a vote put before the Dems before an election, a quintessential Rovian tactic used many times before, most notably DOMA while BC was running for reelection in 1996.

I can understand the action but I don't have to like it. It's called critical thinking.

Any more questions?

[WildEyedLiberal]

56. You still haven't reconciled your statements

Your rhetoric earlier was unmistakable: "you despise them" and think they are "epic assholes". Is that critical thinking? I don't think so - especially when you admit in the next breath that you understand that they were not "PRO-WAR."

I understand the reasoning you put forth in this most recent post and it's your prerogative to vote for whomever you want in the primary for whatever reason you wish. What I object to is the crass, over-the-top hateful rhetoric you employed earlier which contradicts every other reasonable post you've made. I expect better from you than throwing out pure vitriol like that; it's beneath you and it's the type of thing I'd expect to hear from the resident Dem-haters here.

[AtomicKitten]

58. you are focusing on adjectives

rather than the gist of my statement, but now you know WHY I won't vote for any Dem in the primary that voted yes on the IWR. It was a mistake of monstrous proportions with devastating, catastrophic results.

The critical thinking involves reconciling my feelings about the IWR with how I'm going to manage them in dealing with my vote in upcoming elections. I think I've illustrated that clearly and it isn't at all contradictory. It's complex but concise. Perhaps you need to get beyond my adjectives.

Psssst. Just between you and me, I was under the influence last night in celebration of the Lamont victory, so there it is. It is what it is. Margarita-induced adjectives.

Now, are you done spanking me? :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. Not just yet

:spank: :spank: :spank:

:P

I disagree that the IWR was responsible for much of anything - I think the DSM proves that Bush was going to go to war regardless of anything. Bush himself claimed the IWR was "not a vote for war." Was it a mistake? Sure, and I understand your feelings even if I don't agree. But it didn't cause the war - 100% of the blame for that goes to Bush.

I have definitely said things I regretted while under the influence too, but I hope you understand that adjectives ARE important - saying you disagree with someone's choice and will not vote for them is a whole world away from saying you "despise" them.

I'd certainly hope you don't despise Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Reid, and others even if you disagree with their vote.

[AtomicKitten]

66. OK, you can spank me some more.

But just this time. :)

I ABSOLUTELY agree Junior was going to war anyway. I hated the "yes" vote because the Rs alleged it was permission for Junior to do what he wanted (it was not) and also because the Dems fell into Rove's trap. I REALLY despise the Republicans for their games in that regard. I think some Dems voted "yes" to cover their butts in future elections, not wanting to be painted weak on security, which the Rs will do anyway. Only they could put a man's honorable military record in doubt at the same time covering up Junior's own shoddy record. Brilliant albeit EVIL politics.

Sometimes my real feelings spill out here on DU. I hated the IWR vote, I don't really hate the Democrats; that was the Margaritas talking. I think the Dems have been put in a horrible, untenable position for the most part and that this administration has schemed and manipulated and lied to create an effective dictatorship, enabled by the ever-compliant Republican Congress.

Here are other topics you might want to spank me on:

I don't think Fight Club is a violent movie.

I think OJ's verdict was correct because the planted evidence (blood with preservative) provided reasonable doubt.

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. Hmmm, can't spank you for either of those

I saw Fight Club but I wouldn't define it as a "violent" movie - it made me think too much to be a "violent" movie.

Also, you are technically correct about OJ although I do wonder how his search for the "real killer" is going.... :eyes:

So no more spankings from me. Dammit, and I had the paddle out and everything. x(

:P

BTW slightly back on topic, The Magistrate articulates my feelings on IWR/Iraq more elegantly than I managed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2768734&mesg_id=2768766

[joeprogressive]

59. There are distinctions

Hillary is unapologetic in her IWR vote and Edwards has apologized. Big difference; I can forgive the mistakes from people that can admit them.

[AtomicKitten]

61. a distinction in your own analysis

which forms the basis for your opinion. IMO it's semantics and I'm not so sure those that apologized are actually apologetic and not just running for president in 2008. But, again, that's my opinion.

That's what we are here for, to discuss our feelings about the political environment, hopefully to expand our minds and grow, often finding we really are for the most part on the same page.

[blm]

77. If IWR was a vote for war then why did Bush have to issue a signing

statement, and why did Gonzalez UNDER OATH a few weeks ago admit that IWR was NOT authorization for war?

[AtomicKitten]

81. I never said it was a vote for war.

It was a vote that allowed Junior to allege he was given a hall pass by the Democrats, a vote purposely held before an election, a vote that put Dems between a rock and a hard place just as Rove intended, a vote that in a perfect world would have been rejected by the Dems en masse, a vote that I would love to have seen registered as present rather than yes or no.

[blm]

84. But a resolution that some Democrats used to get Iran and Syria OFF

the table as targets.

And a resolution that was USED by the WH and their media whores to get the left to cannibalize itself by claiming it WAS a vote for war, which the many on the left promptly proceeded to do for the next 4 years.

[AtomicKitten]

86. And that appears to be working out quite nicely, right?

... as BushCo is clearly itching to get their war on with both.

You don't negotiate with jackals - not on something as serious as war - not when their intent was obvious from the get-go.

I realize my unyielding stance on this issue may seem harsh, but, again, my displeasure will be manifested in my primary vote alone across the board. It's something I feel very strongly about. And then it will be time to kick some Republican ass in the general.

[blm]

90. Point is that exercise of spreading INACCURATE perception of IWR was

incredibly useful to BushInc. to further hurt the Democratic party and to protect themselves from greater scrutiny when they violated the IWR.

Just as they would have done with ANY resolution that was crafted.

Even one that was accepted by ALL the Dems.

[Skittles]

19. THANK YOU

the theft of the 2000 election should have been their first clue

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. How do you hold the contradictory position that

"IWR doesn't translate into either supporting Bush or the war or being warmongers"

and yet insisting you refuse to vote for anyone who voted yes?

I agree with your statement about what the IWR is; given that, it seems dumb to rule out anyone who voted yes on it - especially those who were never for the war and who have been vocal opponents of the war and proponents of bringing the troops home.

I know you're dead set on Al Gore and that's fine, but your repeated belligerence about the IWR mystifies me, frankly, especially because you seem to understand that it was NOT a "vote for war."

[AtomicKitten]

49. ***

answered here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2767100&mesg_id=2768595

Please note the nuance in my resolution to not support anyone who voted yes on the IWR IN THE PRIMARY which, if extrapolated without breaking too much of a sweat, means I will support any Democrat in the general election.

I'd prefer Gore, Clark, or Feingold as the nominee in 2008.

I hope that clarifies what seems to mystify you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

57. See my response above

It's not your position so much as the rhetoric you used.

[Eurobabe]

8. Spot on!!

eom

[Blue_Tires]

10. ttt n/t

[unblock]

17. why should hillary switch? paragraphs #3 belies paragraph #4.

personally, i opposed the war from the get-go; but strategically, this letter is flawed.

if hillary were to take michael moore's advice from paragraph #4 and switch to the anti-war stance, all she gets is promoted to paragraph #3, lumped in with kerry and edwards who switched but still displayed a "massive error in judgment ... proof that they are not fit for the job ... they may never enter the promised land."

i share his anger at anyone who failed to stand up to shrub on any of a host of issues. however, if he can't show any forgiveness, he doesn't give anyone any incentive to change their view.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I don't see MIchael's letter in that way.....

Michael is saying that those who voted for War were wrong, and those who voted for war but then became sorry are no longer wrong, but nevertheless are not fit for the highest office in the land....meaning, one doesn't get rewarded for being wrong before being right on an important issue such as War and Peace by getting to become President.

I hope that these politician folks Moore refers to don't all just "live" to become President and nothing else! There is integrity and principle involved. Staying with the wrong view on this war is a terrible thing, IMO....while changing your wrong view at some point on this war makes you a much better person, but does not provide you with the keys to the White House.

[Skittles]

18. thank you, Michael

I am so tired of these warmongering freaks giving us meaningless rhetoric while our troops and so many innocent Iraqi civilians are being killed EVERY DAY

[Jeffersons Ghost]

30. and that's the REAL point, skittles!...

:yourock: all the other debate on the board is meaningless dribble by comparison.

[calimary]

55. Yep. It's about getting into bed with bush - who's brought us this

war among so many other loathesome, anti-American, anti-democracy, evil (and utterly VILE) things. But the war is tops. If you have to list them in order, I think VAST majorities everywhere including here will list the war FIRST. And you also have to keep in mind, the war was like the head of the octopus, whose tentacles then were able to reach out into so many other areas from presidential overreach and flouting of the law and trashing of the Constitution, spying, torture, violation of civil liberties, silencing the opposition - too often with threats and harassment, and all the rest of it. The apologists (who probably are loathe to raise their ugly heads above ground level from down in the trenches) always fall back on "but we're at war." They don't say "but we're saving the unborn," or "we're saving Terri Schiavo," or "he's the poor folks' president" or "you're with us or agin us regarding consumer protections" or "you're with us or agin us on global warming." AS CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT TO a progressive/liberal/Democrat/even enlightened moderate's heart these issues are. It's ALWAYS the war. The war has been used as a cover and a justification and an excuse for every frickin' thing these vermin have been able to shove down our throats. Just as all roads lead to Rome, every loose end here leads back to the war.

Yes. To paraphrase James Carville - It's The War, Stupid.

And it's finally grown 'nads. And teeth.

[Skittles]

85. you are correct

conservatives have trashed everything they have touched - I really feel for the real president who has to clean up after this incompetence - but the number one casualty that needs fixing RIGHT NOW is THAT DAMN WAR

[Skittles]

83. you are correct, JG

when I hear people say IRAQ IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE (re; the L/L campaign) - well, no it isn't, but it certainly COULD BE - people are getting KILLED and MAIMED EVERY DAY - what is it about this issue so many people do not seem to UNDERSTAND ???

[formercia]

20. Wake up and smell the burning meat.

Who's next to have their nads put to the fire?

[demdiva]

21. Michael Moore does NOT speak for me

First of all, the war wouldn't exist without Bush and Cheney and their lies and manipulations. Second of all, this kind of talk does NOTHING to help the Democratic Party -- In fact, it hurts the Democratic Party. How can you all support someone sending out an e-mail with the sole intention of attacking democrats? This is something a Republican does ... NOT a democrat.

[readmoreoften]

22. She's in a primary race. This hurts no democrats.

It's an attempt to get the DLC out of the party. They are strangling, triangulating, and destroying our party. They are a complete and total 5th column. Case in point: they are suggesting that Joe Lieberman run AGAINST the Democratic Party!

Hillary is a DLCer but she's so wishy washy I kind of have a little hope for her because she can be made to swing away from appeasing the conservatives (Bush's base) and towards her own. She's being challenged by a grassroots labor progressive who has a $150,000 war chest. He won't win, but if he gets enough of the vote. He'll strike fear into her heart. Or maybe even courage.

Wimpy dems are doing us a disservice. We need to be an opposition party.

[demdiva]

23. There's no primary race there

and I'm not talking about him chastising Hillary. He mentioned several prominent democrats in that e-mail. What is the point of that? Advocating AGAINST this many democrats is advocating for republicans.

[readmoreoften]

24. Yes there is a primary race there.

Clinton vs Tasini

Tasini is a former president of an AFL-CIO affliated union. www.tasinifornewyork.org


And Moore isn't taking anyone to task but Hillary and Joe in this letter.

[demdiva]

25. He mentions Kerry and Edwards by name

and there is no way Hillary is loosing her primary this fall.

[readmoreoften]

63. I didn't say that Hillary is losing her fall primary. I said that there IS

a fall primary. What does that matter. The point is that there IS a primary.

Yes, she won't lose her seat because her challenger has a $150,000 war chest and was just permitted to enter the race about five weeks before the elections. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a sincere challenge and that there aren't many NYers who plan on to vote for their candidate of choice. And it doesn't mean that the Dem base can't send a message to her through that candidate. Tasini doesn't have to win to force Hillary to the left; he only has to get about 25% of the vote to humble her.

And he mentions Kerry and Edwards to applaud them for making a GOOD decision after making a bad one. That's hardly an insult.

[OzarkDem]

35. I don't agree with all of it, either

Its not Dems fault, its Bush and the GoP's fault.

I'd also rather rely on the wisdom of our military experts who also oppose the Iraq War to give Dem leaders input on how to begin the end of this war without hurting our own troops.

That said, I also still support and commend Moore for his work in bringing all these issues to the attention of the American public. He deserves a great deal of credit for changing the dialogue about the Iraq War in the US. It would not have been accomplished without his work.

[LynneSin]

46. If Moore had endorsed Nadar in 2004, I would have agreed with you

I know alot of people who have regrets for Nadar back in 2000. I mean we all knew it would be bad with the Bush Regime, but even in my worst nightmares I never expected anything THIS bad!

[petgoat]

54. The war wouldn't exist without the Dems who went along with it. nt

[ProSense]

26. This is utter divisive BS!

Why the hell is Michael Moore sending a letter claiming that Kerry and other Democrats sided with Bush?

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war.

Yeah, this sounds like a Joe Lieberman tactic! Reminder to Moore: George Bush and his cabal is responsible for this war!

He should be supporting Kerry-Feingold and efforts for withdrawal instead of trying to confuse the issue with this letter that is filled with lies!

[tulip]

44. Moore takes to much credit

for work he did not do.

[petgoat]

53. Because Kerry and other Democrats sided with Bush.

I say everybody who voted for the USA Patriot Act without
reading it betrayed their duty to their constituents to
legislate responsibly and is not fit for office.

They gave away my rights, and then they voted to extend the
damned thing this year.


When someone you're doing business with demands a blank
check, the correct response is not "Okay, just this once."

[saracat]

27. F-ck Michael Moore! I applaud the Lamont victory but why

doesn't he take some responsibility for his Nader support before pointing the fingers at our former standard bearers? Both Kerry and Edwards have been man enough to admit their mistakes, something Mr. Moore seems inacpable of.This statement is divisive and a disgrace.He is no better than Lieberman.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

32. HEAR HEAR TO THAT SARACAT!...

except what you say about Moore. I think he's simply trying to light a fire under Democrats who are not solidly antiwar yet.

On an even more important note, without the leadership of JOHN KERRY, the occupation would be FAR more popular today! Kerry spoke out against the attrocities in Iraq VERY early and he still speaks the loudest and most often to end the occupation.

[OzarkDem]

39. You make a good point n/t

[Dr Ron]

28. How misinformed

The IWR vote was a Rove tactic to divide Democrats. It is not a way to differentiate those who supported or opposed the war. I would think that by now anyone who is paying attention should be aware of this.

Bush promoted the vote as a sign of unity--not a vote saying that we would necessarily go to war or that war was imminent.

Kerry quoted Bush and made it clear that he was only voting to authorize war as a last resort if we were proven to be threatened by WMD. He also made it clear that Bush had not proven this and argumed many times up until the war started not to go to war. He even called for regime change in the United States in protest at the onset of the war.Sure he made a mistake in trusting what Bush said. When it became clear after the Downing Street Memos came out that Bush was lying, he admitted his mistake and stated he should not have voted yes.

Falsely claiming that people like Kerry, who strongly opposed going to war, were in support of the war just plays into Rove's hands and weakens the anti-war cause.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

33. thanks for that solid info Dr Ron. It's accurate and says it all. n/t

[OzarkDem]

40. Agree, Bush tricked Dems w/ the vote

Naive as it may seem now, at the time those Dems sincerely believed Bush would come to them for permission before he actually invaded Iraq. Bush put them in a no-win situation, good presidents don't pull such dirty tricks.

Never in history has an American President manipulated Congress so callously and dishonestly when taking the country into war. Never.

[NobleCynic]

29. Dead on

[blm]

34. Don't stop there, Michael - get rid of ANY Dem who blocked BCCI - because

what happened there has led to EVERYTHING That is happening today.

And what Dems chose to NOT INVESTIGATE the Downing Street Memos, Michael? I think they all need to be disqualified.

And thanks for having a brain fart, Michael, and not realizing that IWR did not send this country to war as the media obviously spun you, and even Gonzalez admitted a few weeks ago in a hearing that IWR did NOT grant Bush unlimited war powers.

But, you siding with media spin on IWR, does keep letting Bush off the hook for being in violation of the IWR.

[agincourt]

73. Thank you,

Bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal and it was not blessed by Democrats in Congress unless Saddam refused to let inspectors in. Saddam let inspectors in, therefore Bush committed another offense in a long line of impeachable offenses. What if the Democrats voted as a block against Bush's naked aggression? Any terrorist attack that occured later would be blamed on the Democrats by the pigboy media. Who would allow the terrorists to attack us? Why Bush of course. If the pigboys called for violence against Democrats in Congress ,would we protect them? The Democratic senators and reps will only have as much guts as we do, no more.

[paulk]

41. what a jackass!

More of the same from Moore.

As others have pointed out, the IWR was not a vote for war. And HRC doesn't "support" Bush's war. If you want to throw some blame around, Mike, look in the mirror - you're the asshole that campaigned for Nader, remember?

Moore is just another self aggrandizing loudmouth who's made his fortune pimping the extremes. Period.

[Little Star]

42. More needs to STFU. His letter is just plain immature.

[petgoat]

69. If the IWR was not a vote for war, then why did no one stand up and

object when Bush used it as one?

I didn't hear any Dems in Congress howl "I voted for
military force thinking we were talking about air strikes
on power lines and railroads! I never voted to authorize
an invasion!"

Did anybody say anything like that?

[paulk]

80. that's about as logical as the crap

you post down in the dungeon.

:tinfoilhat:

[petgoat]

88. Answer the question. Did anybody say that?

No! Nobody had the guts.

What's illogical about my post?

And as to the dungeon, don't go mistaking your own ignorance
for analytical superiority.

[paulk]

94. go away

you're an idiot

[petgoat]

96. IOW nobody said it and my post is logical. Thanks for clarifying. nt

[LoZoccolo]

43. No one would sleep with /him/ until he was 32 years old; it's in his book.

I believe this admission was in Dude, Where's My Country.

[readmoreoften]

64. That's really immature. /nt

[Guaranteed]

60. Nope. Don't like this letter.

It's narrow-minded, needlessly threatening (yes, I'm sure she gets the point- now let's see what she does) and only feeds into the idea that this was all about the war.

[NoPasaran]

65. Continuing to condemn every Democrat who voted for the IWR

Is as ridiculous as continuing to condemn Michael Moore and everyone else who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

[petgoat]

70. I disagree. The Dems who voted for the war and who voted for the

Patriot Act owe us Big Time.

They need to earn our respect.

[NoPasaran]

72. And what, o holder of grudges, would it take

To earn your respect?

[petgoat]

74. Admitting that they failed in their duty to protect the precious freedoms

Admitting that they wimped out when our nation went in a
dangerous direction.

Admitting that they failed to protect the integrity of
our electoral processes.

Admitting that they failed to oppose the expansion of
executive powers to dictatorial proportions.

Admitting that they have allowed this administration
to lie about Iraq and about 9/11.

Explaining why they failed to protect, failed to oppose,
wimped out, allowed, and acquiesced in a turn toward
fascism.

Resolving to restore the rule of law, to impeach, to
investigate 9/11, to outlaw the hackable voting machines,
to repeal the USA Patriot Act, to impeach justices Thomas,
Scalia, and Kennedy, to censure former justice O'Connor,
and to hold the Bush regime accountable for its crimes.

For starters.

Edited to add:

And anybody who stayed quiet because they were physically
afraid needs a new career in the hospitality industry
because we've got no room for cowards in our legislature.

[NoPasaran]

76. Good luck with that!

:hi:

[blm]

78. Who told you IWR was a vote for war?

It was not - and Bush even had to have a signing statement because it was NOT authorization for war, and Gonzalez even ADMITTED under oath a few weeks ago that IWR did NOT blanketly authorize war.

[petgoat]

79. As I recall, Bush did, and no body told him any different.

And Kerry ran a campaign claiming that he had voted for the
war, and later he even said he would vote for it all over again.

[blm]

82. Not quite accurate - kerry said Bush RUSHED to war when weapon inspections

and diplomatic efforts were WORKING to prove military force was NOT needed. Or did you miss every one of the hundred times he said it?

And, as nominee, Kerry was dealing with the fact that we were IN Iraq and his plans were developed to address the reality of that.

Soundbite claims only work on those susceptible to them - not on people able to comprehend full paragraphs.

[petgoat]

89. I can comprehend full paragraphs just fine.

However in August of 2004 I was too busy trying to defeat
Bush to have the luxury of the time for full paragraphs.
Sound bites was how it came on the news, and sound bites
was all I (and most voters) got.

[blm]

91. Considering he had been saying it since Bush chose war, I can't imagine

how anyone missed it by August 2004.

Did you miss his call to fire Rumsfeld in 2003 and 4, too?

[petgoat]

92. I did. I had a life in those days. nt

[blm]

93. Well, if you didn't KNOW, then you should avoid broad claims that have

no basis in reality.

[petgoat]

95. It's not my fault Kerry couldn't get his message through NPR filters.

And it's a pretty bogus statement he made, too.

Asked if he would change his vote knowing what he knew now,
he said he would not. Then he said he would have handled
the diplomacy differently. But since the question was a
yes or no question about a real situation, trying to
nuance the statement by saying what he would have done if he
were President is completely bogus. The vote was to authorize
Bush to do it. Would he change the vote? No.

How he would have handled it was beside the point.

[politicasista]

97. Yeah it's his fault he didn't have a unified Democratic Party

to back him up. :sarcasm:

[blm]

98. I understood him just fine. You assumed, prejudged and stuck with it.

.

[petgoat]

99. It was a bogus, completely illegitimate, and illogical statement.

The question was:

Knowing what you know now, would you have voted the same?
Yes or no? He said he'd vote the same--that is, he'd vote
to give Bush the power to do what Bush was going to do.

The fact that he wouldn't have done what Bush did is not
part of the question, and is thus irrelevant. It only
confuses the issue. That's why it didn't get through the
the sound bite filter. Not even on NPR.

It's as if someone asked: "If you knew your daughter was
going to wind up pregnant, would you have let her go to the
beach with Sam?"

And you answered: "Yes, I'd let her go to the beach with Sam.
But if I took her to the beach, she wouldn't get pregnant."
So fucking what?

The truth was, he was afraid to say he was against the war,
and you guys are trying to make out like he was some kind of
hero for making an equivocating, unintelligible, and illogical
statement.

[blm]

103. The IWR did not GIVE Bush any more power than he already had.

Read the signing statement and read Gonzalez testimony under oath.

You want logic? Every time you pretend the IWR took this country to war and gave Bush a blank check, you let Bush off the hook for his decision as if he had NO guidelines in the IWR that he needed to administer.

Hell, by your logic, Bush HAD To go to war because the Dem senators FORCED him to with that nasty, evil resolution - you know, the one wcalling for a decision to be made AFTER weapon inspections and stepped up diplomacy.

[petgoat]

104. By My Logic

Our representatives in Congress were obligated to stand up
and scream bloody murder when Bush went to war.

They didn't. Either they were just as warlike as Bush,
or they buried their misgivings and then later tried to
deny they ever had them.

This attempt at rewriting history, saying Bush went to
war over objections that never happened, is shameful.

[silverweb]

68. Amen, Michael.

Amen.

[Eric J in MN]

71. If John Kerry is "not fit for the job" of president,

then why did Michael Moore support him in 2004 and even go the Democratic Convention?

[petgoat]

75. Anybody but Bush. nt

[Dr Ron]

87. Links ot more info on Kerry's real position on the war

This was actually written in response to similar false claims from Kos that Kerry supported going to war, but much of this will be useful in response to Moore's incorrect account of Kerry's position on the war.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=17

This is so absurd that we are continuing to have to argue not over an issue but over what a candidate's position really is. The anti-war movement would be a lot stronger if they concentrated on opposing the war and not making false claims that someone like John Kerry (who was one of the earliest opponents of Bush's foreign policy) supported the war when he opposed it.

[tomreedtoon]

101. Mr. Moore, chill out. Don't get so excited.

Don't assume that since Lieberman has been spanked, that a whole lot of liberal people will win.

In the general election, for instance, Lieberman has the help of Rove and Diebold, or in the case of those old lever voting machines, the good ol' crowbar to the gears for the machines in Democratic precincts. And there's also the good old hijacked ballot boxes...

There's also that Green Party candidate who got something like 99 percent of his financial support from right-wing Republican sources. The Greens are proving to be the hidden left hand of the Bushies. You probably know the details about that better than I do, Mr. Moore. You supported the Green Party, and that support helped put George Bush back in office in 2004.

And let's not forget the Democrats who are about to blow everything. The Democratic candidate for Governor of Florida, Jim Smith I think, who has the full support of the DLC, has put out two of the most lame, stupid, pointless, non-motivating political commercials I've seen in decades. They'll waste their money on bland spots, while the Republicans will lie and implicate all through their professionally made spots.

So don't put your tight pants on yet, Mr. Moore. Don't even bother to shave. Lieberman's defeat ain't nothing.