Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Before anyone goes rabid on me - (Disclaimer: The views expressed in the piece are Michael Moore's...not mine.)

This post originally appeared in PEEK's blog.

Confession: I have not yet read all six (short, illustrated, large type) chapters of Mike's Election Guide 2008, Michael Moore's, latest work of jaunty political opinion. Am I supposed to discuss it with him on "Meet the Bloggers" tomorrow? Yes. But I'm not worried. It's a breezy read, has already made me laugh out loud, and besides, I may have already found the best part in Chapter One.

The title is "Ask Mike!" and, in it, ordinary voters, old and young, pose questions about politics and current events. Some are more serious than others ("If Iran has weapons of mass destruction, we should invade, right?"), which does not make Moore's answers any more subtle. ("Excuuuuuse me? Did you say the words, 'weapons of mass destruction?' Take it back. I SAID TAKE IT BACK!") Of course, the "questions" are really satirical jabs at the media -- "When a Republican wears a little American flag lapel pin, what is he trying to say?" "If Obama can't bowl, can he govern?" -- but there's one in particular that is worth paying attention to -- especially if you happen to be a member of the press and have been utterly unwilling to take McCain's supporters and opponents alike to task for perpetuating a narrative that would be central to a McCain victory, and which has already become a dominant theme in this election: The McCain as War Hero canard.

The "question" is posted thusly:

"Why did the Vietnamese shoot down John McCain and put him in prison for five years? He seems like such a nice guy."

ANSWER: I'm guessing, in spite of his anger management issues, he is a nice guy. He has devoted his life to this country. He was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our nation. And for that, he was tortured and then imprisoned in a North Vietnamese POW camp for nearly five-and-a-half years.

That's the set-up. It gets better. Moore proceeds, not to question, as Wesley Clark recently did to so many shrieks of criticism, whether McCain's capture really makes him qualified to be president of the United States -- the answer, any thinking person realizes, is "no" -- but whether the Vietnam war was a conflict that can really be said to have produced the breed of "American hero" McCain is so often celebrated as.

"Sadly," he writes, "McCain's sacrifice had nothing to do with protecting the United States. He was sent to Vietnam along with hundreds of thousands of others in an attempt to prop up what was essentially an American colony, South Vietnam, which was being run by a dictator whom we installed."

Lest we forget, the Vietnam War represented a mass slaughter by the United States government on a scale that sought to rival our genocide of the Native Americans. The U.S. Armed Forces killed more than two million civilians in Vietnam (and perhaps another million in Laos and Cambodia). The Vietnamese had done nothing to us. They had not bombed or invaded or even sought to murder a single American. President Johnson and the Pentagon lied to Congress in order to get a vote passed to put the war in full gear. Only two senators had the guts to vote "no."

But the parallel between Iraq and Vietnam is not the only point Moore is making. He makes it personal.

John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over North Vietnam in a campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. During this bombing campaign, which lasted for almost 44 months, U.S. forces flew 307,000 attack sorties, dropping 643,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam (roughly the same tonnage dropped in the Pacific during

all

of World War II). Though the stated targets were factories, bridges, and power plants, thousands of bombs also fell on homes, schools, and hospitals. In the midst of the campaign, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that we were killing 1,000 civilians a week. That's more than one 9/11 every single month -- for 44 months.

What's not heroic about that? Is it any wonder all politicians speaking in public about John McCain are required to preface their remarks with a fawning admiration for his war service?

Alas, McCain does have some regrets about Vietnam. As Moore points out, in his memoir Faith of Our Fathers, McCain called it "illogical" and "senseless" that he was limited to bombing only military targets.

"I do believe," McCain wrote, "that had we taken the war to the North and made full, consistent use of air power in the North, we ultimately would have prevailed."

In other words, McCain believes we could have won the Vietnam War had he been able to drop even

more

bombs.

When McCain was shot down, on October 26, 1967, he was busy bombing what he would describe as a "heavily populated part of Hanoi."

What follows is a a rather entertaining passage in which Moore then asks what you would do to a man who "fell out of the sky" after dropping bombs on you or your children. But the most important question comes at the end:

John McCain is already using the Vietnam War in his political ads. In doing so, it makes not just what happened

to him

in Vietnam fair game for discussion, but also what

he did

to the Vietnamese …

I would like to see one brave reporter during the election season ask this simple question of John McCain: "Is it morally right to drop bombs and missiles in a 'heavily populated' area where hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians will perish?

"

Of course, no member of the "mainstream" media is going to ask John McCain that question. (And given his famous quips on "Bomb-bomb-bomb-ing Iran" or, when asked to comment on the U.S. exporting cigarettes to the country, on the speculation that "Maybe that's a way of killing them,", the answer may be too disturbing to bear.) Regardless, this is the same press that obligingly calls McCain a "maverick" and McCain's campaign bus the "Straight-talk Express." Going after his war hero credentials? Why, that would be ... un-American.

Luckily, in the absence of an effective media -- or one that takes its cues from Michael Moore -- there are some people who are uniquely qualified to ask tough questions about the war hero John McCain, and they can't all be considered "surrogates" for Barack Obama. One of them is a man named Phillip Butler, who, on AlterNet today, has an article whose point, really, is laid out in the title:

I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button

Originally published on Military.com, it's a scathing, point-by-point indictment of McCain that punctures the war hero mythology he has so successfully insulated himself in.

It is part fact-check ("Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969"), part much-needed perspective ("Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda"). But perhaps its most compelling characteristic is that it is written by a former POW of a misbegotten war, who has seen the death and destruction firsthand, and who is fearful of what McCain would do as commander in chief. "I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that

red button."

Now that's a quote. Maybe it's time for a new 3 AM ad.

Liliana Segura is a staff writer and editor of AlterNet's Rights and Liberties and War on Iraq Special Coverage.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/95906/michael_moore_dares_to_ask%3A_what%27s_so_heroic_about_being_shot_down_while_bombing_innocent_civilians/

[almaty 19]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

[alienlovechild 75]

John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over North Vietnam in a campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. During this bombing campaign, which lasted for almost 44 months, U.S. forces flew 307,000 attack sorties, dropping 643,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam (roughly the same tonnage dropped in the Pacific during all of World War II). Though the stated targets were factories, bridges, and power plants, thousands of bombs also fell on homes, schools, and hospitals. In the midst of the campaign, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that we were killing 1,000 civilians a week. That's more than one 9/11 every single month -- for 44 months.

Michael Moore doesn't like to recall that the NVA were fighting in South Vietnam and shooting at American and ARVN troops the whole time. Uncle Ho could have withdrawn his troops but choose not to. Right or wrong, countries at war make choices and have to endure the consequences.

Edited August 22, 2008 by alienlovechild

[DeadPoolX 9]

Something I've always found interesting about the Vietnam War is that Democrats (Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) got us into it, while a Republican (Nixon) pulled us out. However, Democrats are still viewed as the "party of peace and tolerance" and Republicans seen as "warmongers."

[chri'stina 190]

Something I've always found interesting about the Vietnam War is that Democrats (Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) got us into it, while a Republican (Nixon) pulled us out. However, Democrats are still viewed as the "party of peace and tolerance" and Republicans seen as "warmongers."

Good point. hehe. There have been other times in history when democrats weren't the symbol of tolerance...during the civil war for example. Lincoln was a Republican and the Democratic leaders of states called him names and wanted to have their own country for "state's rights" (slavery being a huge right they wanted). If people want to always draw down party lines to make the other one look bad, there is always something in your own party that can look bad. I accept it, there have been some scandals and problems in the Republican party. It's not any different in the Democratic party.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

I agree. This line of attack on McCain is unfair.

[Dan J 277]

Something I've always found interesting about the Vietnam War is that Democrats (Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) got us into it, while a Republican (Nixon) pulled us out. However, Democrats are still viewed as the "party of peace and tolerance" and Republicans seen as "warmongers."

What a party stands for has changed over time.

Republicans used to very non-confrontational when it comes to use of military power. Their opinion was essentially that the US should not get involved in conflicts around the world unless absolutely necessary. But that's until they become deeply connected with the money side of it.

They were also fiscally conservative until Reagan took office. When they figured out that they could use the government as a way to make money.

The Republican party of today is not the Republican party of 30 years ago. Probably the only thing similar is the name. And the few representatives that were elected then and are still in office today.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh brother, what?

The last part I agree with, in that he is known to suffer from PTSS with bouts of fierce rage. As to whether he would literally 'have his finger on the button' I don't really understand this idea unless what is being said is that whoever is in the Whitehouse can just flick a switch and nuke whoever he feels like without anyone saying boo! That's seems idiotic.

For the rest, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Vietnam war and there are many, McCain's opinion as to how it should have been conducted in terms of bombing civillians is neither here nor there (if we are looking at what he thought at the time). He wasn't responsible for operations and decision making.

A good question might be, both candidates opinion on what war should and shouldn't allow but we aren't going to get that discussion. Anyway, more bah, humbug!

[chri'stina 190]

Something I've always found interesting about the Vietnam War is that Democrats (Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) got us into it, while a Republican (Nixon) pulled us out. However, Democrats are still viewed as the "party of peace and tolerance" and Republicans seen as "warmongers."

What a party stands for has changed over time.

Republicans used to very non-confrontational when it comes to use of military power. Their opinion was essentially that the US should not get involved in conflicts around the world unless absolutely necessary. But that's until they become deeply connected with the money side of it.

They were also fiscally conservative until Reagan took office. When they figured out that they could use the government as a way to make money.

The Republican party of today is not the Republican party of 30 years ago. Probably the only thing similar is the name. And the few representatives that were elected then and are still in office today.

So the downfall of the Republican party, right? Now can you tell me about the Democratic party over time. Do you see them as improved? Does the fact that you aren't a Republican or agree with many Republicans effect your views you think? I am sure you are being completely objective.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

I agree. This line of attack on McCain is unfair.

Not to mention incredibly f&cking stupid. Anyone who agrees with Moore's line of reasoning is going to vote for McCain's opponent anyway. Anyone who doesn't (most people) is going to have a bad taste in their mouth.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

I agree. This line of attack on McCain is unfair.

Not to mention incredibly f&cking stupid. Anyone who agrees with Moore's line of reasoning is going to vote for McCain's opponent anyway. Anyone who doesn't (most people) is going to have a bad taste in their mouth.

Yup.

Michael Moore isn't the brightest. That should be common knowledge by now.

Edited August 22, 2008 by A.J.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well lets be honest - the war record of John McCain is something that has been touted continuously as one of his attributes that make him suitable for the office of President. At the end of the day it just isn't very relevant to his overall candidacy as much as that it simply adds a bit of patriotic jingoism to prove that he's "all-american".

Of course you can't trump up someone's war service without some questions being asked about what that actually means - otherwise you're deliberately ignoring the wider context that it took place in.

That said where I think Moore is going wrong here is in assigning responsibility by proxy to McCain for a very controversial policy. Its not like he made the decision to go to war after all... That IMO is unfair. Does this mean that in the future it will be fine to question the suitability of today's Iraq veterans who end up going into political careers?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That said where I think Moore is going wrong here is in assigning responsibility by proxy to McCain for a very controversial policy. Its not like he made the decision to go to war after all... That IMO is unfair. Does this mean that in the future it will be fine to question the suitability of today's Iraq veterans who end up going into political careers?

Good point.

The troops follow orders. Those who don't follow orders aren't heros, they're dirt.

If we dislike the war (and I do) then assign blame where it belongs - to the civilian leadership.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

I agree. This line of attack on McCain is unfair.

Not to mention incredibly f&cking stupid. Anyone who agrees with Moore's line of reasoning is going to vote for McCain's opponent anyway. Anyone who doesn't (most people) is going to have a bad taste in their mouth.

Yup.

Michael Moore isn't the brightest. That should be common knowledge by now.

he's a sandwich or two shy of a picnic.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

interesting view..never seen it stated..of course, i do not agree with it.,.as mccain was a tough sob to perserve through this..i doubt, if i could have

I agree. This line of attack on McCain is unfair.

Not to mention incredibly f&cking stupid. Anyone who agrees with Moore's line of reasoning is going to vote for McCain's opponent anyway. Anyone who doesn't (most people) is going to have a bad taste in their mouth.

Yup.

Michael Moore isn't the brightest. That should be common knowledge by now.

he's a sandwich or two shy of a picnic.

I don't have the slightest idea what that means