New War President? Meet Old Fraud Filmmaker!
By Mitch Berg
Michael Moore descends into madness in this open letter to the President re his Afganistan speech tonight:
Dear President Obama,
Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point [at 8PM this evening] and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.
In other words, “we elected you for the pork; forget about all that “defending the nation” BS, Mr. President.
Of course, Moore is being just as disingenuous and selective and context-challenged here as he’s been in every single one of his movies. And who’s busted him on it? That noted right-wing tool Crooks and Liars:
In an open letter to President Obama, Moore on Monday seems to have forgotten candidate Obama’s aggressive stance towards Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan:
Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.
But at almost every turn in the 2008 campaign (for example, starting at about the 17:30 mark in the video above), it was Barack Obama who pledged to “finish the fight in Afghanistan.”
In August 2007, as you’ll recall, Senator Obama received a hellstorm of criticism for his statements regarding attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. As part of a broad – and forceful – foreign policy speech on August 1, Obama rightly took the Bush administration to task for the failure of its “no safe havens” doctrine in Pakistan. Regarding the Al Qaeda sanctuary safely nestled along the Afghan border, Obama declared:
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
In other words, Obama has always – at least, in front of politically-mixed crowds – parroted the lefty conventional wisdom that while Iraq was wrong wrong wrong, Afghanistan, the “Real War”, was right right right.
But facts have always been stupid things to Michael Moore.
It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do.
Put another way, Moore would have Obama fire the guy who he hired to replace the first guy he fired.
Which may be is the way the prima-donna Moore runs his production company, but it’s really not good leadership.
Of course, everything Moore doesn’t know about leadership is matched by his ignorance of history:
So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea — “Let’s invade Afghanistan!” Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.
It wasn’t “the Soviet generals’ idea”, and it wasn’t anywhere close to a dispositive nail in the USSR’s coffin; they absorbed 25 million dead in World War Two, and murdered at least 40 million of their own on top of that, and that led them to the peak, not nadir, of their power. It wasn’t Afghanistan that led to the USSR’s fall; it was contemporaneous political changes the regime had to adopt to try, and eventually fail, to survive in the face of Reagan’s aggressive containment.
Afghanistan’s nickname is the “Graveyard of Empires.” If you don’t believe it, give the British a call. I’d have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number.
[MOORE’S LEGIONS OF FORMER EMPLOYEES: “Then you must have his Yahoo IM Chat handle, you tyrannical jagoff”]
But the Soviet reference is fully appropriate – because although this fisking has gone on a bit already, it’s really just a tangent. The real meat – or, given the subject matter, suet – of this post follows.
Moore:
Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you’re doing it so you can “end the war”) will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you’ve said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone — and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout “tea bag!”
“The haters”.
My high school history teacher, a Vietnam-era veteran, noted that one of the most important things he learned in basic and infantry training was that the enemy was not, in fact, human. He was a “Gook”, a “Slope”, or whatever it took to believe that you weren’t really shooting, bayonetting, grenading or shelling a human, but a not-quite-human caricature embodying everything you were trying to fight.
In the thirties, when Stalin wanted to soften society up for a purge, his PR minions – sort of the 1930’s versions of “Media Matters” and the “Center for “Independent” Media” – would popularize a simple, 1-2 syllable, endlessly-repeatable terms to refer to those to be purged. Not specifically, as a very general rule, although Stalin did purge plenty of specific people and groups.
But during the purges of the ’30s, when Stalin’s paranoid imagination told him that his economic plans were being sabotaged, he sent his minions far and wide denouncing “wreckers” – people who were ostensibly sabotaging the Soviet economy in ways big and small. The idea, of course, wasn’t to actually find people who were throwing monkey-wrenches into turbine assemblies or pouring sugar into diesel tanks. The idea was to have an instant, memorable, chantable term to use as a cover for every abuse they were ready to inflict. And so Stalin and his minions denounced as “wreckers” everyone who got in his way; it wasn’t that he needed help dehumanizing his opponents – but it certainly made it easier for the rest of society to go along with it.
Moore is onto the same thing, here (emphasis added):
Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn’t be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can’t change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.
The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can’t be won over by abandoning the rest of us.
Leaving aside that the independents – who were the ones that elected him – will be re-hristened as “haters” for commiting the apostasy of forsaking “The One”, do you see what Moore is doing here?
One facile, hate-enabling, defamatory catch phrase after another. Those of us who dissent from Obama aren’t people who disagree; we “hate” him.
So overwrought with hatred for “haters” is Jabba The Mike that he forgets exactly who he, himself, is:
All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights,
Really, Jabba? You endured this? Your “rights” were “suspended?”
As bad as things were for the GOP from 2004 through Obama’s election, I could always give thanks for one thing; Michael Moore was not on my side.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
You know, I heard Joe Biden criticized our buildup as well. And that in itself highlights a key difference between parties. Republicans don’t tolerate dissent or criticism, certainly not public, whereas from Moore to Biden to Olbermann, many Democrats find a way to respectfully disagree with the President, proving both that there isn’t “lockstep” approach on issues (as you’ve asserted OFTEN in the past), and that multiple opinions are welcome in their party. Perhaps it’s not the most homogeneous or even harmonious, and certainly it creates an appearance of disunity, but from the other side, what it appears like is that LOYALTY and WINNING aren’t as important as doint what is right or ethical, including allowing others to voice their opinions so that we find the best ideas, not just the ideas that sell (like say, calling someone like GW Bush a ‘war President” while he flubbed – thru Rumsfeld – getting Bin Ladin).
December 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
BTW Mitch – for you and the right to be carping about facile hate-mongering is rather hilarious.
Care to talk about how Muslims embrace terrorism again? Or about how Liberals are generally stupid or a host of other groupings you’ve put forward lumping entire classes of people together as ignorant, blithely treasonous or worse?
Whatever you may dislike about Moore, he’s doing nothing different than you. Further, he’s not wrong to call people who embrace murderers likee the guy who killed Dr. Tiller, haters. He’s not wrong to call people who want to spew hate like “Death Panel” BS haters, especially when they effectively suggest the rest of us would stand by while our grandparents were killed off. That’s hate speech Mitch – no different from inferring Muslims accept and approve terrorism more so than other groups.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Michael Moore is an idiot.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Moore was the topic of a Bleat back in 2004:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/070804.html
December 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Mitch,
Best line about Jabba the Putz…
[MOORE’S LEGIONS OF FORMER EMPLOYEES: “Then you must have his Yahoo IM Chat handle, you fat tyrannical jagoff”]
December 1st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
You know, I heard Joe Biden criticized our buildup as well. And that in itself highlights a key difference between parties. Republicans don’t tolerate dissent or criticism, certainly not public,
Pen, I’m afraid you’ve been drinking someone’s koolaid. Republicans don’t “tolerate dissent?” We’re the party that includes everyone from Tom Tancredo to Olympia Snowe to John Kyl to Ron Paul to Jim Ramstad to Michele Bachmann.
You are indulging in stereotype-driven wishful thinking.
whereas from Moore to Biden to Olbermann, many Democrats find a way to respectfully disagree with the President, proving both that there isn’t “lockstep” approach on issues (as you’ve asserted OFTEN in the past)
And justifiably so. None of the people you cite above differs from the President, from Rahm Emanuel or George Soros for that matter in any appreciable way. They exemplify much less variety than the republicans I named.
and that multiple opinions are welcome in their party.
I’ll await evidence that your short little list has “Multiple Opinions” of any sort. “Your idea of diversity is someone in a skirt or with different-colored skin who thinks exactly as you do” (Alan Dershowitz).
Perhaps it’s not the most homogeneous or even harmonious,
The group you cite is utterly homogenous; insufferable oveducated white liberal who’ve been promoted far beyond their level of competence.
and certainly it creates an appearance of disunity, but from the other side, what it appears like is that LOYALTY and WINNING aren’t as important as doint what is right or ethical, including allowing others to voice their opinions so that we find the best ideas,
What you – and most liberals – mean by that is “holding accountable Republicans who act like Democrats”.
not just the ideas that sell (like say, calling someone like GW Bush a ‘war President” while he flubbed – thru Rumsfeld – getting Bin Ladin).
I remember those pictures of the two of them, wrapped in bandoliers of 7.62mm ammo, pausing for a smoke break high up in the Hindu Kush as Bin Laden skipped merrily past.
BTW Mitch – for you and the right to be carping about facile hate-mongering is rather hilarious.
Right, right – the old I’m Glue, You’re Rubber bit. I fall for it every time.
Care to talk about how Muslims embrace terrorism again?
When and where did I say any such thing? I mean, you were the one who accused all Republicans of talking about “Ay-rabs”; I suspect you’re the one with the prejudices to deal with.
Or about how Liberals are generally stupid or a host of other groupings
Um, that’s not hateful. In many, many cases, especially among left-leaning bloggers (no, not you and DG) it’s a clinical observation.
you’ve put forward lumping entire classes of people together as ignorant, blithely treasonous or worse?
Really?
Where?
Please provide a link. Or any substantiation.
You can’t, of course – you never do. But I figured I’d ask.
Whatever you may dislike about Moore, he’s doing nothing different than you.
No, he’s pretty much the opposite of me, ethically as well as politically.
Further, he’s not wrong to call people who embrace murderers likee the guy who killed Dr. Tiller, haters.
Really? I must have missed the part where he got specific about who was doing the “hating”. Because it looked to me as if he was saying everyone who disagreed with Obama on any issue was a “hater”.
He’s not wrong to call people who want to spew hate like “Death Panel” BS haters,
Well, yes he is. I mean that’s just absurd; to call disagreement with a policy and administrative structure, even if the disagreement is inaccurate (for sake of argument; it’s not) “hate” devalues the term.
Which, to be fair, the left does all the time, but you’ll pardon me for fighting for the sanctity of my language.
especially when they effectively suggest the rest of us would stand by while our grandparents were killed off.
Where do we “effectively suggest” that?
That’s hate speech Mitch
Pen, that is not the most catastrophically absurd thing you’ve ever said, but it’s right up there.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Two words for Peev: Joe Leiberman.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
hate speech is the Nazi’s marching in Skokie. Which was still covered by the Constitution. Or was. Allows us to keep an eye on the really whacked out people. It isn’t speech that you just don’t agree with. Moore is a idiot. He is pretty much telling us he was a member of the hate party for the last 8 years. That no matter what Bush did, he could never win him over. I think he is once again delivering possibly the largest case of projection ever recorded by man. Peeves blather isnt even worth addressing.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
To Peeve, everything is hate speech.
In fact, Kermit’s insistance that Joe Leiberman is somehow demonstrative of how left-leaners can’t get along with themselves is hate speech. HATE speech, I tell you!
December 1st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
hate speech isn’t criminal or illegal Peeve. That pesky 1st amendment protects it. If it be disgusting (Nazi’s marching on Skokie) or disagreeable (poltical bs). The ONLY type of “hate speech” that isn’t protected is when someone promotes and encourages people to harm someone else, even then that’s a tough one.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Defining “hate speech” is interesting, but not especially germane. Moore is doing something even more insidious than a false allegation of a moral wrong (“hate speech”); he’s ascribing all dissent and disagreement to “hate”.
It’s like people who called opposition to affirmative action a “holocaust” back in the eighties – it pretty deliberately tried to frame principled opponents of affirmative action as the moral equal of Nazis. Calling a “dissenter” a “hater” is just stupid.
Both examples devalue words that should never, ever be devalued.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Moore- “Until every last dollar is extracted from the poor or soon to be poor.” Who knew the poor paid taxes?
December 1st, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Badda is right. I hate hypocracy. I hate subversives even more. This is why I no longer watch network “news” programs (except FOX of course.)
Mitch has noticed that Moore is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky. The tactic of isloating and defaming opposition voices is as obvious as it is subversive. It denigrates democratic debate.
Moore may be an idiot as Clownie says, but bigger idiots have made him a very rich man.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pm
JimF-
You don’t understand New Speak. despite the fact that the poor pay no income taxes, cost society more in terms of welfare, crime, the criminal justice system, healthcare, etc, and the top 5% of filers pay 60% of income taxes — the rich are heavily subsidized by the poor.
Just ask RickDFL.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Well, Moore is right about one thing: Obama is the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces, and that does mean that he has real choices. A stopped clock, and all. If — and I do mean if — Obama’s decided that the war is unwinnable, this decision is horrible; if he’s decided that it’s winnable, I don’t see how his Surge Lite With Offramps makes any sense, either, as it makes all sorts of assumptions — the rightosphere has been listing them, as has part of the leftosphere — that just don’t make a lot of sense.