Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
August 21, 2006
WAR: But Don't Question His Patriotism

Michael Moore film used by terrorists as propaganda. But of course; what else was it for?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:52 AM | War 2006 | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

And your point is . . .

Posted by: Steve at August 21, 2006 11:08 AM

Let's see...what created more terrorists? Michael Moore's film or this admin's ill-advised, ill-planned, amazingly expensive and incalculably deadly foray into Iraq? But certainly don't question you-know-who's patriotism.

Posted by: jim at August 21, 2006 1:09 PM

I have never questioned Mr. Moore's patriotism. There is no point is questioning something that doesn't exist.

You may question the administrations decision to liberate Iraq, but I would rather fight terrorist there than in downtown St. Louis or Kansas City or Los Angeles or New York.

Posted by: maddirishman at August 21, 2006 9:54 PM

Maddirish & Crank (and anyone else)-

I don't like Michael Moore either. He's a grandstander, and egomaniac, and not nearly as clever or as "effective" as he thinks.

That said, I see no reason to doubt his love of his own country. I see no such doubt with 99% of Americans. I think Bush's policies hurt the US. But I don't have reason to question his "patriotism."

My question: why do you suppose the right needs to toss around the "Un-American" or "un-patriotic angle" so much? The left has a mirror problem with unjudicious playing of the "fascist" card.

I don't mean this question as sarcasm/snark/aggression. I'm just curious to hear your answers.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2006 5:54 AM

It's always people in the left, and even mere liberals, who have their patriotism questioned. Never is a right winger questioned in this way. Questioning someone's patriotism seems right out of some nefarious handbook.

Posted by: steve at August 22, 2006 10:30 AM

Mike -- My question would be regardless of whether you think some/all of Bush's policies have hurt the country, which one would you label Un-American? In the case of Mr. Moore, he has sought to divide the country at a time when we should be walking together.

Posted by: maddirishman at August 22, 2006 10:53 AM

The relevant point is, the man has chosen to produce anti-American propaganda - false and misleading propaganda, at that - during wartime. I don't see how that shouldn't warrant the strongest of condemnation.

Posted by: The Crank at August 22, 2006 10:59 AM

Mad & Crank-

Is Moore's propaganda anti-American, or anti-Adminstration? Either way, I agree, it's more than pen to "the strongest of condemnation," but we should make sure the label fits.

I understand both of you hold to your opinions, and I respect you for it, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

But don't you see that much of the "anti-American propaganda" that you object to is seen by others as "anti-war" propaganda? It's a matter of definition, and the debate has many angles to it.

But the phrase "anti-American," or the word "unpatriotic" is a powerful one, and one that should be tossed about very carefully, in my opinion. Just as I think the left should be far more careful throwing around the "fascist" label.

I assure you, as someone who's met many of the anti-war crowd (many of whom I vehemently disagree with on many issues, not just Iraq): these people may be naive, they may be smart, they may be wrong, they may be right, they may be idealistic, they may be manipulative . . . but almost to a man (or woman), they are very patriotic, and they love their country.

I just wish that left & right could continue to disagree, to debate, to pose questions, to fight if need be . . . but stop tossing around names that are merely inflammatory & don't advance the discussion. And I'm speaking to the extremists on both sides.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2006 11:58 AM

Maddirish-

which one would you label Un-American?
Neither. I hate the term, and I never use it. If you're an American citizen, anything short of treason is undeserving of the "unamerican" label. No matter what one thinks of Moore, he's not a traitor.

In the case of Mr. Moore, he has sought to divide the country at a time when we should be walking together

I'm not sure he's trying to divide the nation, so much as engage in a quixotic effort to galvinize the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Either way, it's not treason.

I don't think G. Gordon Liddy deserved the "unamerican" label, and he did far more harm to his country than Moore did.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2006 12:02 PM

Mad,

You do the same thing the Administration constantly does by offering the choice of "fighting the terrorists in Iraq or in whatever American city you choose to name." The Admin always poses these false dilemmas such as "you are with us or with the terrorists" and so on. Iraq and St. Louis are not the only 2 choices. Most rational people would argue, especially at this point, that Iraq has done less to stem the terrorism and more to create it in larger quantities.

As for Moore putting out misleading information in his movie; How does that contrast with this Administration consistently putting out false information about this entire war. For every supposed false and/or misleading and/or "un-American" statement Moore has in F911 it would be easy to point out 10 that the Admin has made. Why do those on the right get so easily ruffled by Moore's movie that they see as having false statements but when the government does it they have no problem with it?

I would rather have someone produce a film that has bias (sorry, I don't see it as un-American) than our government lie us into a war then lie about the war and the activities within. That seems way more un-American to me.

Posted by: jim at August 22, 2006 12:31 PM

Mike -- I agree with you about Libby. He was not Un-American. He was, in his view, trying to protect the country. I didn't sy more was guilty of treason, but he clearly wasn't trying to move the country forward. He was trying to motivate liberals against the President.

Jim - Maybe you haven't heard, but the goal of credo of radical Islam is convert or die. Do you think that unchallanged they would settle for killing Americans (or other unbelievers) only in Arab or Muslim countries? As for Irq stemming terrorism, my arguement would be that it has directed their attention to their own region instead of spreading the voilence other parts of the world. I would much rather have these battles fought in Iraq than on US soil. Surely you don't believe they are just going to sit there and not bother ayone else. History would disagree.

Posted by: maddirishman at August 22, 2006 2:08 PM

he clearly wasn't trying to move the country forward.

Can't go with you there. I feel funny "defending" someone I loath, but I think he believes -- like Liddy -- he's doing good.

He was trying to motivate liberals against the President

Exactly. And while you disagree with this politically, how can you define it as anything hurtful to the country?

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2006 3:20 PM

Mad,

Sorry but again you operate with a false dichotomy-either Iraq or here. I would argue that Iraq was not nearly the problem our wonderful Admin lied to us that it was, that doing what we have done has removed natural tensions between Iraq and Iran, made Iraq (now that it is essentially a Shia run theocracy) much more Iran-friendly and that we have created a nice little training ground for terrorists and terrorist-wannabees to have live, real-time training operations.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world no doubt of many different mindsets. Most of their hostilities, until recently, focused on the Middle East. In no way do I or have I ever advocated that we take no role in keeping a lid on and trying to progress this part of the world. I would argue that current tactics have made it more likely that something will again happen here. We have wasted time, resources, incredible-untold amounts of money, goodwill and no doubt other commodities on this fruitless take on "Middle East Democratization" (or whatever the hell they are calling it these days).

Posted by: jim at August 22, 2006 4:02 PM

Jim-

I think the President referred to it as the "freedom agenda" in yesterday's press conference.

Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2006 4:29 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg