EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Never Forget: Bad Wars Aren't Possible Unless Good People Back Them
I know we've been "free" of the Iraq War for two weeks now and our minds have turned to the new football season and Fashion Week in New York. And how exciting that the new fall TV season is just days away!

But before we get too far away from something we would all just like to forget, will you please allow me to just say something plain and blunt and necessary:
We invaded Iraq because most Americans -- including good liberals like Al Franken, Nicholas Kristof & Bill Keller of the New York Times, David Remnick of the New Yorker, the editors of the Atlantic and the New Republic, Harvey Weinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry -- wanted to.
Of course the actual blame for the war goes to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz because they ordered the "precision" bombing, the invasion, the occupation, and the theft of our national treasury. I have no doubt that history will record that they committed the undisputed Crime of the (young) Century.
But how did they get away with it, considering they'd lost the presidential election by 543,895 votes? They also knew that the majority of the country probably wouldn't back them in such a war (a Newsweek poll in October 2002 showed 61% thought it was "very important" for Bush to get formal approval from the United Nations for war -- but that never happened). So how did they pull it off?
They did it by getting liberal voices to support their war. They did it by creating the look of bipartisanship. And they convinced other countries' leaders like Tony Blair to get on board and make it look like it wasn't just our intelligence agencies cooking the evidence.
But most importantly, they made this war (and its public support) happen because Bush & Co. had brilliantly conned the New York Times into running a bunch of phony front-page stories about how Saddam Hussein had all these "weapons of mass destruction." The administration gleefully fed this false information not to Fox News or the Washington Times. They gave it to America's leading liberal newspaper. They must have had a laugh riot each morning when they'd pick up the New York Times and read the nearly word-for-word scenarios and talking points that they had concocted in the Vice President's office.
I blame the New York Times more for this war than Bush. I expected Bush and Cheney to try and get away with what they did. But the Times -- and the rest of the press -- was supposed to STOP them by doing their job: Be a relentless watchdog of government and business -- and then inform the public so we can take action.
Instead, the New York Times gave the Bush administration the cover they needed. They could -- and did -- say, 'Hey, look, even the Times says Saddam has WMD!'
With this groundwork laid, the Bush crowd ended up convincing a whopping 70% of the public to support the war -- a public that had given him less than 48% of its vote in 2000.
Early liberal support for this war was the key ingredient in selling it to a majority of the public. I realize this is something that no one in the media -- nor most of us -- really wants to discuss. Who among us wants to feel the pain of having to remember that liberals, by joining with Bush, made this war happen?
Please, before our collective memory fades, I just want us to be honest with ourselves and present an unsanitized version of how they pulled off this war. I can guarantee you the revisionists will make sure the real truth will not enter the history books.
Children born when the war began started second grade this month.
Kids who were eleven in 2003 are now old enough to join up and get killed in Iraq in a "non-combat capacity."
They'll never understand how we got here if we don't.
So let me state this clearly: This war was aided and abetted by a) liberals who were afraid to stick their necks out and thus remained silent; and b) liberals who actually said they believed Colin Powell's cartoon presentation at the U.N. and then went against their better judgment by publicly offering their support for the invasion of Iraq.
First, there were those 29 (turncoat) Democratic senators who voted for the war. Then there was the embarrassing display of reporters who couldn't wait to be "embedded" and go for a joy ride on a Bradley tank.
But my real despair lies with the people I counted on for strong opposition to this madness -- but who left the rest of us alone, out on a limb, as we tried to stop the war.
In March of 2003, to be a public figure speaking out against the war was considered instant career suicide. Take the Dixie Chicks as Exhibit A. Their lead singer, Natalie Maines, uttered just one sentence of criticism -- and their career was effectively dead and buried at that moment. Bruce Springsteen spoke out in their defense, and a Colorado DJ was fired for refusing to not play their songs. That was about it. Crickets everywhere else.
Then MSNBC fired the only nightly critic of the war -- the television legend, Phil Donahue. No one at the network -- or any network -- spoke up on his behalf. There would never again be a Phil Donahue show. (Little did GE know that, when they soon filled that 8pm hour with a sports guy by the name of Keith Olbermann, they would end up with the war's most brilliant and fiercest critic, night after night after night.) There were a few others -- Bill Maher, Janeane Garofalo, Tim Robbins and Seymour Hersh -- who weren't afraid to speak the truth. But where was everyone else? Where were all those supposed liberal voices in the media?
Instead, this is what we were treated to back in 2003 and 2004:
** Al Franken, who said he "reluctantly" was "a supporter of the war against Saddam." And six months into the war Al was still saying, "There were reasons to go to war against Iraq ... I was very ambivalent about it but I still don't know if it was necessarily wrong (to go to war)."
** Nicholas Kristof, columnist for the New York Times, who attacked me and wrote a column comparing me to the nutty right-wingers who claimed Hillary had Vince Foster killed. He said people like me were "polarizing the political cesspool," and he chastised anyone who dared call Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq "lies."
** Howell Raines, editor-in-chief of the "liberal" New York Times, who was, according to former Times editor Doug Frantz, "eager to have articles that supported the war-mongering out of Washington ... He discouraged pieces that were at odds with the administration's position on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction and alleged links of al-Qaeda." The book "Hard News" reported that "according to half a dozen sources within the Times, Raines wanted to prove once and for all that he wasn't editing the paper in a way that betrayed his liberal beliefs..."
** Bill Keller, at the time a New York Times columnist, who wrote: "We reluctant hawks may disagree among ourselves about the most compelling logic for war -- protecting America, relieving oppressed Iraqis or reforming the Middle East -- but we generally agree that the logic for standing pat does not hold. ... we are hard pressed to see an alternative that is not built on wishful thinking."
(The New York Times is so left-wing that when Raines retired, they replaced him with... Keller.)
** The New Yorker, the magazine for really smart liberals, found its editor-in-chief, David Remnick, supporting the war on its pages: "History will not easily excuse us if, by deciding not to decide, we defer a reckoning with an aggressive totalitarian leader who intends not only to develop weapons of mass destruction but also to use them. ... a return to a hollow pursuit of containment will be the most dangerous option of all." (To cover its ass, the New Yorker had another editor, Rick Hertzberg, write an anti-war editorial as a rebuttal.)
Some of the above have recanted their early support of the war. The Times fired its WMD correspondent and apologized to its readers. Al Franken has been a great Senator. Kristof now writes nice columns (check out last Sunday's).
But the support of the war by these leading liberals and the majority of the Democrats in the Senate made it safe for the Right to let loose a vicious and unchecked tirade of hate and threats on anyone (including myself) who dared to step out of line. It was not uncommon to hear the media describe me as "un-American," "anti-American," "aiding the terrorists," and being a "traitor."
Here are just a couple of examples of what was said about me over the airwaves by two of the nation's leading conservative commentators:
"Let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my 'What Would Jesus Do' band, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: 'What Would Jesus Do?' And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." (Glenn Beck)
And:
"Well, I want to kill Michael Moore. Is that all right? All right. And I don't believe in capital punishment. That's just a joke on Moore." (Bill O'Reilly)
(Ironically, O'Reilly made his threat/joke the night after Janet Jackson's breast was bared at the Super Bowl -- which got CBS fined over half a million dollars because, you know, nipples are far more frightening than death threats.)
So that's how I'll personally remember the early war years: living with a real and present danger caused by the hate whipped up by right-wing radio and TV. (I've been advised not to recount certain specific incidents that happened to me, as it would only encourage other crazy people.)
So I dealt with it. And I'm still here. And I know many of you went through your own crap, standing up against the war at school, or work, or at Thanksgiving dinner, taking your own blows for simply saying what was the truth.
But how much easier it would have been for all of us if the liberal establishment had stood with us? We didn't own a daily newspaper, or a magazine with a circulation in the millions. We didn't have our own TV show or network. We weren't invited on shows like "Meet the Press," because they simply could not allow our voice to be heard.
The media watchdog group FAIR reported that in the three weeks after the war started, the CBS Evening News allowed only one anti-war voice on their show -- and that was on one night in one soundbite (and that was four seconds of me in a line from my Oscar speech) -- even though in March of 2003 our anti-war numbers were in the millions (remember the huge demonstrations in hundreds of cities?). We were around 30% of the country according to most polls (that's nearly 100 million Americans!) and yet we had no way to communicate with each other aside from through the Nation and a few websites like CommonDreams.org and Truth-Out.org.
But that was no way to build a huge mass movement of Middle Americans to oppose the war. Unless you had just lucked out and been handed an Oscar on live television in front of a gazillion people where you had 45 seconds to say something before they cut you off and booed you off the stage (hahahaha), you had no public platform. (Jeez, I sure did get booed a lot that year: simply walking through an airport, or eating dinner in a restaurant, or sitting at a Laker game where they suddenly put me up on the Jumbotron and the place went so angry-crazy that Larry David, who was sitting next to me, felt that maybe for his own safety he should perhaps slide a few seats down or go get us a couple of wieners. Instead, he stuck by my side -- and his skillful ninja moves got us out of there alive after the game.)
I know it's hard to remember, but when this war started, there was no YouTube, no Facebook, no Twitter, no way for you to bypass the media lords so you could have your own friggin' say.
Too bad for the bastards, those days are over.
The next time around, it won't be so easy to shut up a country girl band or try to silence someone while he accepts his little gold statue -- or completely ignore the millions of citizens in the streets.
So now we can hope that one of our wars is over. Too bad we lost. I hate to lose, don't you? But the fact is, we lost the very day we invaded a sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to us and had nothing to do with 9/11. We lost lives (over 4,400 of ours, hundreds of thousands of theirs), we lost limbs (a total of 35,000 troops came back with various wounds and disabilities and God knows how many more with mental problems). We lost the money our grandchildren were supposed to live on.
And we lost our soul, who we were, what we stood for as a once-great country -- lost it all. Can we now ask for redemption -- for forgiveness? Can we be... "America" again?
I guess we'll see. The vast majority of the country eventually came around to the Dixie Chicks' position. And we elected an anti-Iraq-war guy by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.
But, please, promise yourselves never to forget how our country went crazy 7 1/2 years ago -- even though, to many people at the time, it seemed completely normal. And I'm here to tell you, no matter how much better it's gotten, no matter how normal you may think things are now, we're still halfway nuts. Just listen to the new batch of "sensible pundits" as they start to beat the drums about what we should do to Iran. One war down, one (or two or three) to go.
C'mon, Mr. President, not one more kid needs to die overseas wearing a uniform with our flag on it. We can't win like this. Let's dig a few thousand wells in Afghanistan, build a few free mosques, leave behind some food and clothing, fix their electrical grid, issue an apology and set up a Facebook page so they can stay in touch with us -- and then let's get the hell out. Your own National Security Advisor and your CIA Director have told you there are less than 100 al-Qaeda fighters in the entire country. 100???
100,000 U.S. troops going after 100 al-Qaeda? Is this a Looney Tunes presentation? "A-ba-dee-a-ba-dee-a-ba-dee -- That's All Folks!" Let's get real. I'm glad one war is "over." But I know how we got there -- and I'm willing now to fight just as hard to stop these other wars if you won't, Mr. Obama.
Your call.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Mike@MichaelMoore.com
MichaelMoore.com
P.S. Just a thought, Mr. President. Can I ask that you go back and watch this movie I made -- "Fahrenheit 9/11." There might be some answers there. I give you my permission to download it for free by going to this site: TorrentHound.com. Don't tell the studio I said it was ok! They've only made a half a billion $$ on it so far.
P.P.S. To everyone on my list: Thanks to your thousands of generous donations, we've raised over $60,000 for the Muslim community center near Ground Zero. This has made news around the world, that there are Americans who believe in our stated American principles.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


278 Comments so far
Show AllI get pissed when I read terms like "conned" when referring to the Times and the Press. Conned my ass. The majority of the Press were COMPLICIT in a war crime, plain and simple, ansd should be held accountable for it. They too, have blood on their hands.
And excuse me Mike, so does your guy Obomba....big time!!!
The only person conned here Mr. Moore, is yourself, for supporting this war criminal now occupying the White House.
Agree. The NY Times wasn't conned. Remember the Times ignoring the millions of protestors against the war by putting a tiny article somewhere in the back pages of the paper. It was no accident. It is now pushing the same hyperbole regarding Iran. Look at it's pro-Israel coverage of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. The Times has an agenda.
"The Times has an agenda."
And this escapes Moore???
I work with many Democratic Party apologists who to this day tell me that Democrats who voted to invade Iraq had no way of knowing that what they were reading in the NYT and other publications at the time was BS. Allegedly they were making the best decisions they could given the information at hand.
I remind the apologists that since a dumb working guy like me saw through the BS, I won't vote for electeds who are either too dumb or too corrupt to cut through the BS.
What is Moore's definition of a "GOOD" person ?
"What is Moore's definition of a "GOOD" person ?"
In this case, someone who supports the brutal killing of innocent people, mostly children.
What's in the water!
This astonishing piece of machination was reported by Washington Times-
The Senate's No. 2 Democrat says he knew that the American public was being misled into the Iraq war but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy as a member of the intelligence committee.
"The information we had in the intelligence committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said Wednesday when talking on the Senate floor about the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002.
"I was angry about it. [But] frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress."
Mr. Durbin's comments come after years of inquiries and debate about prewar intelligence, and as congressional leaders clash over Democrats' calls to pull out of Iraq---By Sean Lengell
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 27, 2007
I got a kick out of Hillery gushing on and on about holding some African leaders accountable for war crimes.. Mean time our native born terrorist--war criminals-- are out playing golf.
As long as these bastards are not prosecuted the usa had just better keep its mouth shut.
How about giving those great freedom fighters in Saudi Arabia 60 billion dollars worth of war planes etc. the other day... Make no mistake the us tax payers will pay for this.. They call it a sale but that is just an accounting gimmick.
The only bombs these criminals should receive is on their heads.
Sure am glad its football season..
after a few beers thinks just float away
Right on! Everyone knew he was a voter for wars! oh sorry, some didn't. They jumped on the band wagon anyway. Who cares what he votes for, he has a snappy, in-crowd, popular following! Norm Solomon! John Nichols! all the coolest of the cool, plus he has a very excellent hopey changey music video! Didn't you watch it?!! Wow! "Yes They Can" (all go to hell as it turns out but oh well, we got to cry all those tears of joy. That in itself was worth it .... don'tcha think?)
You say "war criminal."
Well ....he may be a war criminal, and, yes, there are dead little children all over the place in Afghanistan,Pakistan, Gaza, and Iraq .... but he's ours! and he's black with darling children and a very cool wife .... and wasn't he, once, long ago or something, a "community organizer?
What's in the water?
Hooooorayyyy for Michael Moore.
No. 1, first and foremost, Moore still believes in Obama. Has he been watching Obama vis-a-vis the wars? Obama on Israel? Obama on Iran? I counted the days until Bush was out of office, naively thinking that threat would go away. But then I also naively thought the drone attacks would end. Moore is still -- in spite of everything -- in the naive phase when it comes to Obama and a great many Dems in Congress.
I hook into Kristof's Facebook page on my Facebook page -- as a result of those nice articles that Moore talked about. But, make no mistake, when it comes to those so-called terrorists, Kristof is right back in 2003. We found that out when he wrote on his Facebook page about the latest two terrorists, the Christmas Day incident and the one in Times Square. He basically fell back on a couple of Bush favorites about security and fighting them over there so they don't fight us over here (sigh, sigh)
Really, folks, what has changed. Oh, we have YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. So far I am not impressed. Facebook has been effective for small movements (but important for life), yes, and helping to get Betty White on SNL, but the wingnuts are all over these same outlets and their voice is still being heard louder because that is what the MSM picks up from those outlets. All of these outlets have the danger of being swallowed up by the MSM, in any case. I mean, the little twerp CEO of Facebook is not someone I would consider altruistic -- he's simply a clone of Gates and Jobs.
So, really, Mr. Moore, with Obama at the helm it's actually getting worse and the war drums are beating just as loud and the saber rattling is deafening.
"...promise yourselves never to forget how our country went crazy 7 1/2 years ago..."
Not so Michael. The country went crazy...wild-eyed, stupefied crazy...on 9/11/01. That event was the most successful psy-op in history and reduced a proud people to quivering jelly. It was this madness...this reaction to the original "shock-and-awe" that allowed the illegal wars and the elimination of our civil liberties.
Don't you think that for such a profound event...an event that shifted the course of our history...we should have a thorough, independent investigation?
I agree.
1) World Trade Center 7 fell on its footprint shortly after Silverstein, the lease holder, ordered "Pull it!".
2) No skyscraper in history has ever fallen because of fire. Yet, on 9/11/01, several of them fell because of fire. There have been lots of skyscraper fires in history, including the Windsor fire in Madrid, where the entire skyscraper burned down for 24 hours, but didn't fall, even though several top floors collapsed on each other.
3) ALL eyewitnesses reported hearing many "explosions", and people came out of the basement floors bloodied and injured.
4) Firefighters arrived at the buildings to find the lobbies "totally destroyed".
5) The BBC reported that the "highjackers" are alive and well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm
6) A plane with a wingspan of 140 feet hit the pentagon and left a 15-foot hole. Although the WTC bldgs allegedly fell down because of fire, there was almost no fire at all at the Pentagon. A big book can be seen in one of the photographs sitting atop a locker... open and unburned.
7) The phone calls were fake, using voice recognition technology.
8) Where were our air defenses?
etc, etc, etc...
Michael Moore still is not getting it. He has done so many good revelatory things and yet, even here, where he appears to be objective, he is still letting the democrats seem like victims.
*** "Of course the actual blame for the war goes to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz..."
*** "They did it by getting liberal voices to support THEIR war" (emphasis added).
*** "Bush & Co. had brilliantly conned the New York Times..."
*** "And I'm here to tell you, that no matter how much better it"s gotten, no matter how normal you may think things are now, we're still halfway nuts."
These quotes are all intended to reinforce the false idea that the democrats and even the blatantly corrupt New York Times were merely misled and that, if it weren't for the democrats we would be more than "halfway nuts." The fact is, as Mr. Moore cleverly (and disingenuously) points out, that these wars were adamantly supported by these agents of THE agenda.
It is no mere oversight that Mr. Moore does not mention the two democrats who played the most significant part in pushing for war, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
Their absence from this article is a deliberate and desperate attempt to rewrite the actual history in order to maintain the fraud.
Michael Moore is too smart for these misrepresentations to have been mistakes.
My first sentence is incorrect. Further proof of how easy it is to fall for this game.
Birdbrain Alley
Very well said. It is difficult to know where to begin in addressing how Moore, who makes such splendid films, can be so taken in by the Democrats. What MM conveniently neglects to mention is that while he chastised some of the Democrats he never tells his readers that he supported John Kerry in the 2004 elections. Kerry's message, like almost all the Democrats, was that he was against Bush because he felt that he could "manage" the Iraq occupation better than Bush while making sure that the word withdrawal would never pass from his lips. Instead of backing a true antiwar candidate like Ralph Nader Moore instead went on Bill Maher's show and begged Nader not to run for president apparently believing that third party candidates do not have the right to challenge the Savage Mules.
As for Moore's claim that Al Franken is a "great senator" it would seem that the criteria for being a great senator in the eyes of Michael Moore is to pledge undying fealty to the state of Israel. Moore also appears to be blissfully unaware that Franken is not calling for the immediate withdrawal of US soldiers and mercenaries from both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Here is a little suggestion for Mr. Moore. If he is actually sincere about wanting peace overseas then he should stop supporting the Democrats and start backing genuine third party antiwar candidates who have the courage to run against both the GOP and the Savage Mules.
I remember saying many of these things about Moore in 2004. He hasn't changed at all, and won't. There's something about "progressive" Democrats that makes them impervious to change. It's like the very idea of third party alternatives to the duopoly somehow short-circuit their brains. They can't even think about it for more than 3 seconds, before dismissing the whole thing as a Republican plot. To their dying breath (and I mean people like Moore, Solomon, Hightower, et al.) they will campaign tirelessly for More Democrats of the vaguely progressive persuasion, for every last political office in this tortured land. When said candidates get elected and prove in about a week how shallow and uncommitted their "progressive" convictions really are, these Moore types just go looking for more pseudo-progressives to champion. They can't learn anything useful.
I simply must stop while belatedly reading a string of excellent comments to note with profound regret that Glenn Greenwald is presently in this group.
He recently made an effusive pitch to contribute to a "money bomb" for Russ Feingold, and both he and the sycophants among his regular commenters-- and there are always a clique of such loyalist sycophants in comments threads-- were bitchily derisive and dismissive to dissenting views.
Glenn is young enough to still evolve, but at present he too short-circuits at the notion of undermining, not supporting, the duopoly coiled around ordinary unprivileged citizens like a boa constrictor.
Cheers for that OS!
Greenwald and Moore are OK. Doesn't matter if they embrace the lessor of evil nonsense or not. Commondreams posters should never go along with that nonsense and have no reason to because they don't have a public ear. I'll forgive these two only because they have both done good work saying what needs to be said in public when the rest of the media is cheering on war, banker bailouts, and the homeland security complex. Moore clearly states he is against war with Iran, continuing the wars we are in, is the only half msm person I know asking for the release of Bradley Manning. I disagree with Moore alot but If he is going to continue these actions I'm not going to nitpick about him not screaming about how evil Obama and the DNC crowd is. That should be our job anyways until we get politicians who aren't souless Napoleons.
Lol... All you have to do is read my comments in other articles on commondreams. I am against supporting any democrat candidate.... Ever. I know they are evil. Yes it is a mistake for Moore and Glen to offer them a bone and imply they really are less evil... I happen to think they are worse than Bush and Cheney because at least Bush and Cheney were belligerent about killing people which led to opposition against them. The DNC soft soaps their killing by bringing the Europeans onboard and trying to pay off enough locals to get on board the destruction of their land that it gives it an aura of credibility. But they both have clearly stated the wars are wrong. They need to end. And we should not wage war with Iran. You show me one instance where either of these two stated otherwise and I will change my opinion.
"The DNC soft soaps their killing by bringing the Europeans onboard"
HORSE FEATHERS ! Prove it !
"Erroll"
"Savage Mules" is an interesting image. I'll remember the letters S & M.
Birdbrain Alley
I must confess that that phrase did not originate with me. It is a title of a book which I have that came out during the 2008 presidential campaign which was written by Dennis Perrin. The author does an excellent job of demonstrating how the Democrats have been just as militant over the years as the Republicans.
"It is no mere oversight that Mr. Moore does not mention the two democrats who played the most significant part in pushing for war, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton."
Actually he does name Hilary Clinton in bold in the third paragraph.
"hamster"
Ouch.
Thank you.
I'll try to be more careful.
If Obama was so "anti-war," why did he consistently vote IN FAVOR of it?
Kristof opposed the war from the start.
See:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E2DB113CF934A1575BC0A9649C8B63.
Wikipedia: "In the run-up to the Iraq War, Kristof opposed the impending invasion and occupation of Iraq..."
The article you cite by him is from 2004 and is not in opposition to the war but to some of the points in your movie.
Including Kristof's name in that bold sentence implies that he supported the Iraq War, which he never did. Please correct it.
Mr Moore,
i love your films, all of them. but,
"Please, before our collective memory fades, I just want us to be honest with ourselves and present an unsanitized version of how they pulled off this war. I can guarantee you the revisionists will make sure the real truth will not enter the history books."
this statement is a little over the top w/out calculating the president's decision to retain the leadership in the DOD (gates - just like the gold man sacks crew over in treasury). obama owned these wars from day 1 - and my friend, we both know it - revisionist history aside.
...peace...
Moore,
Thanks for raising the money for the Muslum cultural center. However, you are still blinded by your support of the Democratic party and have sprinkled misstatements throughout this article (see other posts I've already read) and understated the Democratic parties complicity. Since when is Clinton a good liberal?
Moore has been bought off buy the Democrats. Fuck Michael Moore.
Amen wobblie
Fuck Michael Moore.
He is so goddamn confused and such a democratic apologist its absolutely shameful.
Hillary Clinton "a good liberal who backed a bad war" amongst his other list. LOL
To simply blame the Republicans on the Iraq war is to completely be ignorant on how the USA rolls.
Dumb ass = M. moore.
Looks like people like you will only be happy when the tea baggers control the country. Duh!
The "tea baggers" are against the Tarp bailout and for anything that will promote US job creation. Tax cuts, construction subsidees, loans to small business, etc. The only problem I have with them is they still embrace the empire and the military. Ron Paul runs a counter revolution inside the party but he only has 30 percent or so of them. The tea party has much more promise then the progressives. I think as things continue to get worse Ron Paul will gain a bigger influence on them. When this started out Ron Paul was loved by Libertarians and booed and heckled by Republicans. Now he is loved by libertarians and tolerated by republicans... By tolerated I mean they no longer boo when he speaks ill about the empire and the military. He is making progress because he talks to them. These are real people. White, working class, religious, poor, and struggling. Progressives are too busy enforcing idealogical purity to be bothered with these "unsophisticated" people. It is a shame. Maybe they wouldn't be so irrelevant if they did bother engaging the only people who bother protesting our current kleptocrats
The tea party may have a lot of people who are there simply because they are fed up with both parties selling out but the tea party itself is just an illusion of a third party. I tell you what. Wait until the Republicans are in office and by the end of next year, see what the Tea Party is like by then. No, make that give both chambers of Congress back to the Republicans this year and the White House to the Republican in 2012 and more GOP in House and Senate and see where the Tea Party is by 2014. I'll bet you they'll be silent as a mouse. Your attack on progressives suggests that you totally misunderstand them but what else to expect from people like you who keep this nation a LOST SOUL ?
"And we lost our soul, who we were, what we stood for as a once-great country -- lost it all. Can we now ask for redemption -- for forgiveness? Can we be... "America" again?"
This is where Mr. Moore loses me (aside from his fantasy that the Dems aren't a bunch of war-mongering corporatized hypocrites). When has "America" been "America" as Mr. Moore conceives it in his imagination? That's what I love about people like Noam Chomsky. They are able to criticize current policy without the romantic notion of a never-never land America that never existed.
Speaking of Chomsky, why isn't he published here on CD? (rhetorical question) Or University of Illinois law professor, Francis Boyle (who filed a complaint to the International Criminal Court against war criminals Bush and gang, and is currently preparing one against Barack Obama)
You never hear from these great minds on CD. You must go to Znet for that level of information and analysis.
GOOD PEOPLE SUPPORT WARS?
As evidence by the shape of his body, Michael Moore has his brains pickled in butter fat and this article is a prime example.
For NOT does “the war go to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz.” As the upper half of society has greatly enriched itself upon the misery of those our imperial Empire has brutally plundered.
Moore, how did you and your upper half of society get to divide up all the wealth in our Empire, as evidenced by you elite 51% being the only ones with great jobs, terrific homes and deluxe healthcare?
Anytime a man with wealth tries to tell you what’s good for America -- tell him to shove it.
Now your almost out of darkness, just one more step and your into the light.
Except the reality that the public upper half is NOT fooled by the lies, but greedy in love with the darkness generated by the lies, as they are greedy enriched in such deep shadow and darkness, having all elite 51% achieved by it great jobs, terrific homes and deluxe healthcare.
"He strikes me as exactly one of those "good" or perhaps actually good liberals who supports the atrocities of his president and party."
You hit the nail on the head! So called "good Democrats," often referred to as "spineless," support and profit from wars and the killings of innocents, including - and sometimes mostly - children. Democrats have been in charge of many wars and have been responsible for the deaths of millions of people (think Viet Nam). When voters support these killers, they are responsible for the deaths.
When the spineless voters say: "We are in a double bind!" I say, "So get the f--k out of it!"
Michael Moore is a good capitalist, he has made a fortune selling media to a certain segment of the population.
Said segment being the voting majority, all those with great jobs, terrific homes and deluxe healthcare.
"Michael Moore is a good capitalist, he has made a fortune selling media to a certain segment of the population."
You got it Dave...Just a guy selling a product...Most contemporary media "heroes' simply target a carefully identified demographic. The same way we sell music,movies,cars, shampoo,toothpaste and etc., etc,.....Know who your customers are and what they want to see and hear.....It works!!!!
Thomas Gilbert
neo-mole alert. do not feed the worm.
Michael Moore is simply full of himself.
AS for what is going on with him? People are simply seeing the real Michael Moore. Not what he purported to be, but what he is.
Of course he is supporting Obama, he knows very well which side his bread is buttered on.
you're talking to yourself, but why?
i smell a neo-mole.
If you're referring to Jill, she's by no means "talking to herself". She's talking to me and many others who are always glad to see her intelligent and insightful comments.
No offense, but maybe you're smelling yourself.
BINGO!
You must be joking. Jill is one of the best and brightest here. Perhaps you think she's a mole because she doesn't follow along with the tired line that Democrats are simply dumb, duped by the oh so smart Republicans - even with a majority and the White House! Perhaps she, like me, has come to realize that the two parties are in collusion with one another, keeping the scam going as long as they can ..... as the agenda moves forward.
Thank you Jill!
Jill's comments are always well written and quite insightful.
Boy Michael is proof given enough money anybody can be bought ! Yes it is true that many people went along with the war that shouldn't have, but it wasn't because they are good people, they were just told about how much damn money they were all going to make. I'm sure promises were made. Not one person that voted to invade Iraq is a good person. They will all burn in hell together. Michael Moore has lost his way ,I guess his next movie will be about how "we should put more trust in our leaders," or some dumb shit.
I am just a regular civilian and I knew from day one, just from the information that was made public, that we had no basis for war. Those people all just made stuff up, and lied themselves into believing their lies. My only real disapointment was Colen Powell, as far as the rest ...all human garbage !