My Photo

Rock City Recommends

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« JANE'S ADDICTION'S SAD DEMISE | Main | MOORE INTERVIEWED »

June 26, 2004

Comments

CDash

Of course, you just got totally manipulated. Moore's great hero, Richard Clarke, is the guy that facilitated the Saudi (Bin Laden) flights out of the country. Moore knows that, but he didn't tell his audience because he is certain that it is comprised of credulous, uninformed, ignorant dupes.

It is really shocking how easy this country could be had. All you have to do is make an MTV style documentary and serve it to the intellectually lazy masses.

I think we should pull out of Iraq and disband our military. If Moore's film does get Kerry elected, I think Red America will sit out the next war.

Whatever happens in and to Blue America--we're not interested.

More than a few Blue State elected officials on the Hill sent the boys off to war only to abandon them and use incidents like Abu Ghraib to demoralize the Country and inspire the terrorists.

I think a partition of America is the way to go. It is the culture of Blue America that has so offended the muslims anyhow. You guys can defend yourselves-- we're not carrying you anymore.


CDash

What did you think war would look like-- a Justin Timberlake video?

Of course, it's horrifying. This isn't exactly a revelation.

Do you think the half a million Americans who died in WWII died in their sleep?

No they died terrible, violent deaths. Hundreds of thousands were maimed.

The trouble with the latest Moore propaganda flick is that the Country is more ignorant and divorced from our history and from reality than ever.

I agree with Hitchens. What Moore has done is criminally irresponsible. He has every right to do it, but it doesn't make him any less of a shit for doing it, "Just because he can."

RC, you disappoint me.

rock city

[More than a few Blue State elected officials on the Hill sent the boys off to war]

This point is made in the film.

It would help, CD, if you saw the movie before attempting to argue about it with me. Especially if you're going to imply I am an incredulous, uninformed, ignorant dupe. I am critical of Moore, he is a propagandist, but the facts are facts.

I certainly do not think these things of you even though I disagree with your perspective of how best to defeat terrorism and think your trust in Bush/Cheney is misguided.

Yes, war sucks. This is why we should never invest in one unless it is absolutely necessary. You and I will have to agree to disagree on whether invading Iraq was necessary.

If you believe I am intellectually lazy, a hypocrite, dishonest, morally corrupt, etc. then I do not see how we can possibly have a discussion. Your generalization of voters in "Blue States" is as reprehensible as an elitist's generalization of voters in "Red States," perpetuating the divisiveness you argue comes exclusively from the Left.

[I think a partition of America is the way to go. It is the culture of Blue America that has so offended the muslims anyhow. You guys can defend yourselves-- we're not carrying you anymore.]

Give me a big fat break. It is both distressing and weird that you follow up compelling and persuasive arguments with this kind of mess.



CDash

I don't need to see the movie when I know that Moore has always been a liar. In "Roger and Me" he went around filming black families getting evicted and never showed that they were employees of GM. In "Bowling for Columbine" he said a Lockheed (or maybe it was Boeing) plant near Columbine HS was making weapons of war, but it was really making weather satellites.

In BFC, he said the NRA was an off shoot of the KKK to persecute blacks in the South, but in reality, the NRA helped Southern blacks immeasurably because it enabled them to protect themselves against the KKK since the local police wouldn't. IN BFC, he also said Clinton's war in Kosovo made Dylan and Eric go postal. And he highlighted Wes Clark as a villain. Of course, that didn't prevent him from endorsing Clark's Presidential candidacy.

And now in this latest piece of propaganda, he makes Richard Clarke the star of his movie and simultaneously makes the "Bush flew the Bin Ladens out of the country" conspiracy theory as the cornerstone of his movie. He slyly puts up a newspaper article that reportedly shows that Clarke was the guy that made that decision (but no one saw it, it was merely cover when the criticism started), but it isn't spoken. Now he says Clarke did it because the FBI duped him.

Given that Clarke was the guy that let the Saudis (and Bin Ladens) go, there is no conspiracy theory. Why include it? It's clear that Moore is more interested in weaving a dishonest narrative, than telling the facts. And if he so blatantly misled in this incident (and so many times in the past), how can you have confidence in anything in the movie?

Perhaps, my remarks were sophmoric, but they were the evidence of exasxperation. And it won't be generalization if this dishonest movie rocks the vote of the Blue Staters (which you said you hope happens) to say that they are credulous dupes who have no sense of history.

Apparently, you'd rather follow Moore (a congenital, self promoting liar) than Bush-Cheney. Fine, go ahead. I am merely saying, that Red State America wants a divorce if that's the case.

And when Moore shows that Blue State politicians were "Me too" on the War, does he isolate Kerry, Edwards and Hillary?? Clearly, Moore is a lying fraud. I can accept if the Left buys Moore's dishonest line (that's their problem, that they know nothing) but what I can't accept is that this "should elect Kerry."

Moore has every right to make a hopelessly flawed, decptive documentary designed to get blissfully dumb, disaffected white Suburbanites to vote against Bush. But I'd like to see a modicum of honesty, Moore should have made an anti-Bush, anti DC Dems (Kerry) and pro Nader movie. That would have at least been coherent.

CDash

The hysterical thing about all of this is that Candidate Dean would be (if the Left was honest) more able to profit from Moore's Bush bashing.

It really shows how bankrupt the Left is that they abandoned Dean in the primary. And now, the Left uniformly believes all the tales that Moore tells, but they don't have the honesty or authenticity to abandone Kerry and vote Nader.

Like I said in my space, the Nader vote added to the Kerry voter beats the Bush vote. The Nader people (the only Leftists with any integrity) won't budge. Since the Lefties voting for Kerry have no principles, why don't the Kerry voters (who aren't exactly hot for Kerry) all shift to Nader.

I don't want to lose this election, but if I lose it honest, I can accept it better. i think it will be terrible for America if we defeat ourselves and vote out Bush-Cheney. But if the "Bush is wrong" constituency carries the day, the nation should go in that direction-- strongly and on conviction. The murky land of Kerry won't accomplish that.

If you guys want a revolution, don't settle for an establishment pol. Go bravely and honestly with the man who is unafraid to voice your best hopes. If Bush is as wrong and evil as you guys say, then voting for Kerry (a guy who was "Me Too" on many of the policies you hate Bush for) shouldn't be an option for you.

I can accept and respect an honest, authentic opponent. I can't accept Kerry. That's why I don't respect the Left-- all it is is posing. What is more chic than hating Bush? Nothing.
It's just so phony and unimaginative, RC.

If you Lefties vote for Nader, you might actually save the Democrat party from itself. Why can't we have a third party "untainted" (from your perspective) President?

rock city

All valid arguments. Cheers, CD. But you would be more persuasive seeing the film and refuting it by point.

As you know, I am uncomfortable voting for Kerry simply to exorcise Bush from power. If Edwards were appointed as VP candidate, I would feel more comfortable. He voted for the war and hasn't apologized for it as far as I know.

And criticism of the war's prosecution is not a betrayal of principle. Not being critical at this point, to me, is baffling.

CDash

Critical? Fine. But It has transcended critical and become paranoid and conspiratorial.

Carping without real and serious solutions is useful how? I am extremely apprehensive, but I realize there are things that I don't know. I also realize that the carpers are bankrupt. Knowing that is knowing something. Right now I am hopeful and optimistic. I am not going to be led by my worst fears and doubts--that's un-American.

BTW, You're not bothered that Edwards and Kerry both voted for the War and then both refused to support the supplemental for the troops (so they could get through a tough Leftwing dominated primary)?

That bothers me. Leaving the boys you sent to war in the lurch over petty politics is really rancid.

RC, vote for Kerry. But I'll never say a good thing about your decision. And the people who question everything and everybody should have a little tougher skin when they are questioned. Isn't it fair to question the critics for voting for Kerry?

rock city

[BTW, You're not bothered that Edwards and Kerry both voted for the War and then both refused to support the supplemental for the troops (so they could get through a tough Leftwing dominated primary)?]

This is from JohnKerryIsADouchBagButI'mVotingForHimAnyway.com:

"Did John Kerry really vote against Kevlar jackets for our soldiers? Could a person be such a ruthless monster? Technically yes, but in reality, no, not really. All of the issues listed in the advertisement were part of an 87 billion dollar proposition for money to be set aside for the war in Iraq . Kerry supported these provisions that in turn supported our soldiers; what he didn’t support, however, was the method of paying for all of these provisions. In its final inception, which Kerry did indeed vote against, all of the funding would come directly from the pockets of taxpayers. There was, however, a previous version of this bill that drew some funding from oil revenues in Iraq , which just so happens to be the nation we’re pouring our money and lives into rebuilding. This is the version that Kerry supported, and rightfully so. If we continue to avoid conceding that our actions in Iraq were rash and premature, we have no hope of securing international help in rebuilding that nation. Without any help, the financial burden falls directly on the United States , though the cost in lives is being paid dearly as well. It only makes sense that some of these funds come from the nation they directly benefit, and that is the view that Kerry was expressing."
* * * *

My understanding regarding Edwards is that he voted no because there was not a clear plan on the table for how that money would be used, as there was not a clear plan at the time as to how the Bush Administration was going to maintain the nation-building process. He felt it important that other countries contribute, as was his position when he voted for the war, and the $87 billion would have endorsed further unilateralism.

But I think both should have voted for the money.

CDash

[This is from JohnKerryIsADouchBagButI'mVotingForHimAnyway.com]

RC, doesn't that website say it all? Mark my words, RC-- this vote will be the most cynical you ever cast.

["Did John Kerry really vote against Kevlar jackets for our soldiers? Could a person be such a ruthless monster? Technically yes, but in reality, no, not really.]

Not exactly a good defense for Kerry's undefendable, craven vote.

[All of the issues listed in the advertisement were part of an 87 billion dollar proposition for money to be set aside for the war in Iraq . Kerry supported these provisions that in turn supported our soldiers; what he didn’t support, however, was the method of paying for all of these provisions.]

Too nuanced. Either you support the troops come what may or you don't.


[In its final inception, which Kerry did indeed vote against, all of the funding would come directly from the pockets of taxpayers.]

When has that ever bothered Kerry in the past?
Kerry is a penny pinching when it comes to funding our troops in a warzone, but he is profligate when funding pork projects to satisfy special interests. Fuck Kerry!

Supporting soldiers in wartime is the most serious responsibility an elected representative has. Kerry shirked it. How can you vote for him?

[There was, however, a previous version of this bill that drew some funding from oil revenues in Iraq , which just so happens to be the nation we’re pouring our money and lives into rebuilding.]

So Kerry would have only supported the troops if their was a provision in the bill that allowed for the seizure of Iraq's oil money? So Kerry's problem with the bill was that it wasn't about the oil? Kerry is a pretzel. What a joke!

[This is the version that Kerry supported, and rightfully so.]

So the Lefties who hate Halliburton, who chant mindlessly, "No Blood for oil," are peeved that
the bill to support the troops didn't include a provision to take Iraq's oil? Are you shitting me, RC?

[If we continue to avoid conceding that our actions in Iraq were rash and premature, we have no hope of securing international help in rebuilding that nation. Without any help, the financial burden falls directly on the United States , though the cost in lives is being paid dearly as well.]

And when was it ever different? Incidentally, the first Gulf War had UN backing (International consensus--the French were on board} and Japan and Germany paying for a lot of it--yet John "Multilateral" Kerry voted against it.

RC, the Left is on quicksand with this guy?

[It only makes sense that some of these funds come from the nation they directly benefit, and that is the view that Kerry was expressing."
* * * * ]

So Kerry wanted to take Iraq's oil and Bush and the GOP were against that, since Kerry lost the vote, he decided that the troops he voted to send to war should get fucked? What a hero!!!

[My understanding regarding Edwards is that he voted no because there was not a clear plan on the table for how that money would be used, as there was not a clear plan at the time as to how the Bush Administration was going to maintain the nation-building process. He felt it important that other countries contribute, as was his position when he voted for the war, and the $87 billion would have endorsed further unilateralism. ]

Face it, they cast an undefendable vote to get them through a nasty, Leftwing primary. It is worth noting that more Senators voted for the supplemental for the troops than voted for the War. In other words, there were Democrat senators who voted against the War who voted for the money for the troops because it was the right thing to do.

Edwards and Kerry are the only two Senators who voted for the War and then voted against the troops. How they live with themselves is beyond me. RC, you should think about those "no" votes when you get into the voting booth.

[But I think both should have voted for the money.]

Why? Because it was immoral for them not to, right? I guess I'm old school-- my conscience wouldn't let me abandon boys I sent to fight and die. Shame on John Kerry! Shame on John Edwards!

rock city

Kerry and Edwards both knew that vote would pass anyway. Every politician sells out in order to get elected.

But I realize there is no winning a debate to defend them, so I won't bother.

Bush and Cheney, though, sent those girls and boys to fight and die unnecessarily in the first place, and put us all in further danger for some sketchy ass shit. You want to talk about appealing to best hopes instead of worst fears like your Gipper? Well, sweetie, they did this by appealing to the worst fears of the mass population, a post 9/11 exploited opportunity.

They made us afraid to not do it. Even if Michael Moore says so too.

And they continue to appeal to the worst fears of bigots, by supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, pandering to Christian theocrats who not only believe gays will destroy the "sanctity" of the institution, but will destroy civilization itself.

Fuck them.

You, by claiming gay marriage will recruit terrorists in Africa, which is sickening, are guilty of this yourself.

You are so one-sided, CD, and your arguments suffer for it.

So what? Vote for Nader and be honest? Well, I think Nader is full of shit too.

These are the options on my plate and it sucks, all across the board.

CDash

[Kerry and Edwards both knew that vote would pass anyway. Every politician sells out in order to get elected.]

That's all of have been saying. They sold out the troops. I'm not going to forgive that--I'm not built that way.

it was a lousy message to send to our troops and to the mosters that our fighting our troops. It was divisive, opportunist, short-term, gutter politics

[But I realize there is no winning a debate to defend them, so I won't bother.]

That should be significant to you. Voting for them is so cynical.

[Bush and Cheney, though, sent those girls and boys to fight and die unnecessarily in the first place, and put us all in further danger for some sketchy ass shit.]

The refusal of the Left to take responsibility for the votes it casts and the rhetoric it uses is troubling. Going to war was bi-partisan. If the war is evil and illegal, it hardly seems rational for you to reward a guy (Kerry) and a party (the Democrats) who were complicit in the War.

[You want to talk about appealing to best hopes instead of worst fears like your Gipper? Well, sweetie, they did this by appealing to the worst fears of the mass population, a post 9/11 exploited opportunity.]

Wouldn't you say the same thing about Roosevelt? You know there is a nontrivial number of people who believes that FDR took the hit in Pearl Harbor just to bring us into War.

The truth is, when a country gets horribly sucker punched-- the immediate future doesn't look like the movie "From Justin to Kelly." The country has to rethink its posture and its assumptions.

Buhs's greatest problem is that we live in a sitcom-thirty-minutes-until-the-credits-roll-press-the-snooze-button culture. Bush is working with an electorate whose idea of real sacrifice is eliminating carbs.

After 9-11, it was never going to be a PDiddy white party. Victory isn't autmatic. I wish we could accomodate the carpers with an instamatic victory. But dropping a couple laser guided bombs and jumpimg Paytonesque over the goal line isn't realistic.

[They made us afraid to not do it. Even if Michael Moore says so too.]

We are doing it. The train has Left the station and crying over the price of the ticket isn't helpful. It is reminiscent of the "are we there yet?" pestering that kids give their parents on a road trip. Have faith that eventually we'll get off the loop and see Big Ben.

[And they continue to appeal to the worst fears of bigots, by supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, pandering to Christian theocrats who not only believe gays will destroy the "sanctity" of the institution, but will destroy civilization itself. ]

So why hasn't Kerry come out strongly for gay marriage? You are a cheap date. Kerry gets your vote, why?? He is against gay marriage in Mass. and is even for amending the state constitution to get there. And aren't you curious why John Kerry (a convictionless pol) is against gay Marriage? It isn't a rightwing thing, it is a mainstream thing.

[Fuck them.]

You're entitled to that. But my "Fuck them" directed at Kerry is for larger issues (War and peace) than about an amendment that isn't exactly being puched with seal by the President.

{You, by claiming gay marriage will recruit terrorists in Africa, which is sickening, are guilty of this yourself.]

I'm not claiming that. I am taking the word of the people on the gound. I am not so hubristic that I think I know what's happening in Africa from soft, super-sized America.

[You are so one-sided, CD, and your arguments suffer for it.]

No, I'm not. I am not wishy washy, and I'm glad for it. And please show me the nuanced, fair-minded Leftists who don't treat their political foes as demonic cartoons.

[So what? Vote for Nader and be honest? Well, I think Nader is full of shit too.]

Explain.... Nader looks like a he is allergic to bullshit compared to John Kerry.

[These are the options on my plate and it sucks, all across the board.]

Since we've been going back and forth, you've become markedly less in your face and self righteous. Good deal.

That has been what has gotten me so peeved. The "We're right. Americans who like Bush are Redneck fascists! Saddam would never have anything to do with Al Qaeda, but Bush-Cheney are simpatico with AQ" rant is so old, unsupported by reality and obnoxious.

CDash

There are so many typos in my post. But you get my point. "Seal" should be "zeal." And there are a million other typos. But you're smart--you'll figure it out.

rock city

lol...indeed.

[After 9-11, it was never going to be a PDiddy white party. Victory isn't autmatic. I wish we could accomodate the carpers with an instamatic victory. But dropping a couple laser guided bombs and jumpimg Paytonesque over the goal line isn't realistic.]

This is a succinct criticism of the war in Afghanistan. Well done.

[That has been what has gotten me so peeved. The "We're right. Americans who like Bush are Redneck fascists! Saddam would never have anything to do with Al Qaeda, but Bush-Cheney are simpatico with AQ" rant is so old, unsupported by reality and obnoxious.]

Dude. Why do you do that? You know very well this was not my argument. In fact, I have consistently condemned that sort of thing. I said this: "Your generalization of voters in 'Blue States' is as reprehensible as an elitist's generalization of voters in 'Red States,' perpetuating the divisiveness you argue comes exclusively from the Left."

The reason I read your blog and other pro-war blogs is to get a better understanding of where you're coming from. Nowhere, nowhere in my arguments have I ever even inferred that I thought pro-BCO4 folk were redneck fascists. Some are. Many are not. Misguided? You betcha.

I still do not believe Bush/Cheney took us into Iraq because of an Al Qaida link. They were planning to do it anyway before 9/11 and this is documented. They should be honest about this. Saddam Hussein violated the terms of his surrender in the Gulf War and had proven time and again that he would not be forthright about his weapons programs. This justifies military action enough.

But if fighting terrorism was the justification, it was a mistake to do it. All it has done is fan the hatred of the US that fuels Al Qaida in the first place. In my view, Bush and Cheney were willing to accept an increase in terror attacks in order to turn oil rich Iraq into a client state, asserting America's geopolitical advantage just as Europe and most especially China emerge as rival superpowers. Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists who have a real chance of succeeding in turning the country into an Islamo-fascist state. This would be a disaster the likes of which we could hardly comprehend. Incompetence in conducting this war is a major contribution to the current mess we're in. Bush refuses to acknowledge Rumsfeld's mistakes, and it is frightening.

Yes, now we're there. I hope to glorious GOD that it turns out okay. Recent developments with the transfer of power are encouraging, and I agree that Allawi seems to be right on.

[No, I'm not. I am not wishy washy, and I'm glad for it. And please show me the nuanced, fair-minded Leftists who don't treat their political foes as demonic cartoons.]

That doesn't mean you should do it too. Although it makes your blog more entertaining.

[Explain.... Nader looks like a he is allergic to bullshit compared to John Kerry.]

True. But I think Nader is an opportunistic ego man. He knows a vote for him is a vote for everything he is supposedly against... Bush. He's a tool.

Your arguments about Kerry, though, are quite persuasive. What do I do when I don't trust anybody?

Should I not vote at all?


CDash

[This is a succinct criticism of the war in Afghanistan. Well done.]

Have we done anything remotely of the sort? We are still there, operating in a heavily mined, backward country. Having a large footprint like the Soviets had is precisely the wrong way to go. We are building the road from Kandahar to Kabul and the economy is up sharply.

I don't disagree that the Taliban remnants in the hinterland are an issue, but we were never going to have the whole country occupied in the manner that you suggest. The porous border is an issue as well.

By the way, the Taliban was a horrific regime, but they weren't the problem. Al Qaeda was. AQ went there because Clinton, rather than taking Bin Laden, allowed the Sudan to ship him to Afghanistan--the worst place he could have gone. The Taliban will hopefully never come back. Lord knows the Afghan people don't deserve it. But it seems as though a devoutly muslim Pashtun majority will be the shot callers in Aghanistan.
It isn't a country of 25 million Mormons.

[That has been what has gotten me so peeved. The "We're right. Americans who like Bush are Redneck fascists! Saddam would never have anything to do with Al Qaeda, but Bush-Cheney are simpatico with AQ" rant is so old, unsupported by reality and obnoxious.]

That hasn't exactly been your spiel, but you did have a staggeringly self righteous, moveon.org flavored "Bush is Satan" rant going when we first started talking.

[Dude. Why do you do that? You know very well this was not my argument. In fact, I have consistently condemned that sort of thing. I said this: "Your generalization of voters in 'Blue States' is as reprehensible as an elitist's generalization of voters in 'Red States,' perpetuating the divisiveness you argue comes exclusively from the Left." ]

I remember you suggesting that I might hate Dino because he is Eyetalian. Which is of a piece of the "You support Bush, you racist, monosyllabic hick" broadside.

[The reason I read your blog and other pro-war blogs is to get a better understanding of where you're coming from.]

I'm not pro-war, I'm anti-capitulation. And I do call people unpatriotic. What I deem reflexive America loathing is tres chic on the Left. That bothers me, and I'm not saying you.

[Nowhere, nowhere in my arguments have I ever even inferred that I thought pro-BCO4 folk were redneck fascists. Some are. Many are not.]
I direct you back to the Deano comment.


[Misguided? You betcha.]

Do you think you're morally superior and more principled than the average Bush voter?

[I still do not believe Bush/Cheney took us into Iraq because of an Al Qaida link. They were planning to do it anyway before 9/11 and this is documented. They should be honest about this. Saddam Hussein violated the terms of his surrender in the Gulf War and had proven time and again that he would not be forthright about his weapons programs. This justifies military action enough.]

So are they staggeringly evil or fantastically naive? And why did Kerry, Hillary and Edwards vote for the war. And the dodge , "They believed Bush, and Bush lied" ain't gonna make the cut, RC.

[But if fighting terrorism was the justification, it was a mistake to do it. All it has done is fan the hatred of the US that fuels Al Qaida in the first place.]

Because going on offense will get them pissed at us? During the Clinton years, our absolute duck and cover posture hardly made them want to have a beer with us.


[In my view, Bush and Cheney were willing to accept an increase in terror attacks in order to turn oil rich Iraq into a client state, asserting America's geopolitical advantage just as Europe and most especially China emerge as rival superpowers.]

We're pushing for democracy-- an unpredictable form of government. If we wanted a client, we would just push for another tyranny. If we get a shia theocracy, they aren't likely to be a good client.

What we did was risky and revolutionary. It seems to me that the whole Iraq policy was borne out of the realization that corrupt client states don't work. We want to have a success story in the region. Your client state theory is completely off.


[Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists who have a real chance of succeeding in turning the country into an Islamo-fascist state.]

I worry about it too, but that doesn't need to happen. The endless carping weakens the President's hand and makes it more likely. So what really is the utility of all this half-baked, conspiracy minded, often partisan carping?

[This would be a disaster the likes of which we could hardly comprehend.]

I think we have an idea. The Democrats losing China and Iran come to mind.

[Incompetence in conducting this war is a major contribution to the current mess we're in.]

It's an extraordinarily complicated project that we're in. Today's carpers would have also thought Ike, Lincoln and George Washington were incompetent stooges. The striking thing is just how capable the people liek Bremer, Rummy and the gang are.

It is amazing to hear Lefties that couldn't plan a rave call the Bush adminisration incompetent. And I'm not talking about you. It's just funny hearing the architects of the debacles of Waco and Somailia tell everybody what smooth, infallible operators they are.

[Bush refuses to acknowledge Rumsfeld's mistakes, and it is frightening.]

When in war is it a good time to have a public, morale killing inventory on fuck ups and miscalculations to satisfy your partisan critics? Never. War isn't an episode of "American Idol." However much the administration's critics might enjoy Rummy getting chewed out by Paula, Simon and Randy-- it isn't a good idea.

[Yes, now we're there. I hope to glorious GOD that it turns out okay. Recent developments with the transfer of power are encouraging, and I agree that Allawi seems to be right on.]

That's how we should proceed. With humility and faith. Let's face it, if you or I or Kerry and everybody else with an asshole and an opinion were in charge of bringing Iraq from dictatorship to representative democracy, we would be lucky to have it go as well as it's going.

[That doesn't mean you should do it too. Although it makes your blog more entertaining.]

I plead guilty, I do think Kerry is a demonic cartoon. and I'm not backing off of that commitment.

[True. But I think Nader is an opportunistic ego man. He knows a vote for him is a vote for everything he is supposedly against... Bush. He's a tool. ]

Why because the Left's full of shit? No, he's a true believer and if the Left wants to talk idealistically and vote cynically (even though it appears that Nader could win if all the Left and Left-leaning voters went for him), they are the tools--not Ralph.

[Your arguments about Kerry, though, are quite persuasive. What do I do when I don't trust anybody?]

Why don't you trust anybody? And I disagree with that. You seem to trust a lot of the Bush haters. You seem to have bought their line completely. I don't mean any offense, but that's my opinion.

[Should I not vote at all? ]

Do what you want. I don't know why the Left can't get together and vote Nader. This blind loyalty to a party that was "me too" on the War and so much else (that you say you hate) doesn't make sense to me.

rock city

[I remember you suggesting that I might hate Dino because he is Eyetalian. Which is of a piece of the "You support Bush, you racist, monosyllabic hick" broadside.]

Hate? No. Liked Reagan, Wayne, and Hope more?

Only to antagonize you.

Glad I did too, or else we wouldn't be having this debate.

independent

What really bothers me about this film, which I have seen, is that it blames the Bush administration for utilizing fear and lies to sway the sentiment of the American public, while doing the same exact thing in the opposite direction. Be afraid of George W. Bush and vote for John Kerry, who also supported this war. Moreover, what really bothers me is that Micheal Moore is essentially profiteering off of this war just like his targeted enemy and in an equally heartless manner. Is Micheal Moore a rich man because of Bowling for Columbine? Most definitely. Will he become even more wealthy from this film? Most definitely. It bothers me that this man makes a villain out of the members of the United States military. The soldiers in Iraq are villains, who blast rock music and kill innocent civilians, the recruters in the states are villains, who draw in innocent minorities to fight wars for rich white men. Ultimately what really bothers me is that this film may very well have an effect on the election and this is very disheartening as an election should be based on facts and not fiction. RC you're right, facts are facts, but if you think that this film is fact you are as ignorant as others have labeled you to be. Facts are not quotes taken out of context. Facts are not making money off of the sadness of a mother losing her son to a war. Atleast Haliburton is doing a service to the Iraqi people while they make their profits, conversely I'm sure the injured Iraqis pictured in the film will never even know who Michael Moore is.

independent

And one more thing, please don't complain about Rumsfeld's so called bad planning and incompentencies if it is based in critique of his deployment of the military in this war. The fact that Rumsfeld put such a light force on the ground in Iraq saved the lives of THOUSANDS of civilians at the expense of the security of our own troops. That my friends is a fact. Had we placed a larger force on the ground to invade Iraq, the capture of Baghdad would have taken much longer which would have meant more guessing by our troops as to deciding who are civilians and who are enemy fighters which would have undoubtly lead to a number of mistakes.

rock city

My original post on this was a visceral response to seeing the film. It was powerful, and while I certainly do not apologize for my feelings, I have also been quite open and sympathetic with Moore's critics.

[The fact that Rumsfeld put such a light force on the ground in Iraq saved the lives of THOUSANDS of civilians at the expense of the security of our own troops. That my friends is a fact.]

Actually, it is not a fact it is speculation.

The fact remains there were not enough troops to secure Iraq's borders effectively, or even the cities' borders effectively - allowing foreign and cross-crountry insurgents to proliferate and murder civilians, not to mention the various hospitals, museums, and various other civilian institutions that were looted in the post invasion chaos. My understanding is that reputable military strategists repeatedly warned Rumsfeld that he would need to prepare the forces for these contingencies and he ignored them.

Additional soldiers could have arrived after the invasion, no?

But what Rumsfeld should be fired for is Abu Ghraib. Even he admits it was his own responsibility. That was absolutely the worst failure imaginable besides actually losing the physical war.

Even William F. Buckley agrees with me on this one. He writes in National Review:

"The best evidence of the incongruity of Abu Ghraib with American standards is the universal revulsion felt by the American people when those photographs were published. But right now there are only seven soldiers being prosecuted, and the sense of it is that that does not go deeply enough. If what happened was odious, but what happened did so under the auspices of a well-organized military, then you scratch up against the lessons of Nuremberg, which held superiors responsible for misconduct by subordinates. And people are wanting to know what are the relevant jurisdictions, and what tribunals do we have in mind to convoke in order to satisfy ourselves — and the world — that America wants more the merely to punish the people who did it. We need to punish also the people who let it happen."

windspike

Hummmm, this is a lively and entertaining exchange. The intersting thing about Abu Ghraib is not only that Bush can't pronounce it, but that he wants to tear it down so he can pay Halliburton to build another.

Yikes, the profiteering on war matters should be stopped and all corporations doing business should be turned to not-for or non-profit status. Would they still want the job? I think not.

This whole predicament sucks. Lets do the best thing for our troops and bring them home. I say that is the only means of supporting troops at this point. Bring them back to where they are out of harms way.

cigarette lectrique

Strikingly well written blog...

desperate wife

What an all 'round amazingly written post!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.