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

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I thought McCain didn't think torture was torture at all if the Americans are doing it? I could be confused though, it's hard to keep up with the punch and counter punch that keeps going on and on and on...

He says he opposes torture.

But he also says things that Democrats consider torture aren't torture. Things that were done to him, things he called torture once, no longer are.

But those thigns that are torture... he is against.

Edited August 22, 2008 by A.J.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its fairly simple I think. McCain the presidential candidate is not the same McCain who courageously went against the prevailing party line to take a stand against torture.

Its par for the course in politics - how far are you willing to compromise, ignore or otherwise #######-off your principles in order to secure the top job. Its old as the hills - you've got to take stands not on what you necessarily believe but on what core groups of voter demographics believe.

the type of torture mccain and many others had to endure was world class..and a throw back to the middle ages....

No doubt of that.

[Peikko 1,575]

Right, how brave they are these veterans - and those who have never served. Brave! Ha, humbug again!

[chri'stina 190]

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.

Well certainly you can't blame someone for a policy they had no hand in making - especially for Vietnam vets given that there was a draft in place at that time. To this day the Vietnam War is a prominent example of shady foreign policy strategies. Essentially it means that banging on about McCain being a "war hero" ignores the context of his service, and the accepted views of that war.

I think Moore's point (though he didn't explain it particularly well) is in questioning what it means to trump up someone's war record as the qualification for political office. If you think about it - it doesn't mean a whole lot. It doesn't mean he can balance the budget, it doesn't mean he can stop illegal immigration and it doesn't mean he can revolutionise the healthcare in this country. All of the things which reflect McCain's ability (or inability) to do the job of the President have absolutely nothing to do with his war service.

In other words - its largely irrelevant.

I beg to differ. Only those who have experienced war know fully how horrible war is.

He also took a stand against torture in opposition to W's position mainly because he has been POW and knew the ramifications of this on US POWs in future wars.

I might also add that McCain's 18 year old son is fighting as an ordinary marine in Iraq. it's a fact that McCain refused to exploit in his campaign. For a millionaire's son that is pretty admirable.

mcCain's son

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought McCain didn't think torture was torture at all if the Americans are doing it? I could be confused though, it's hard to keep up with the punch and counter punch that keeps going on and on and on...

He says he opposes torture.

But he also says things that Democrats consider torture aren't torture. Things that were done to him, things he called torture once, no longer are.

But those thigns that are torture... he is against.

That sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.

Loretta: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: Yeah.

Loretta: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

Reg: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!

Xerxes: The aqueduct?

Reg: What?

Xerxes: The aqueduct.

Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

Commando 3: And sanitation.

Loretta: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.

Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.

Matthias: And the roads!

Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--

Commando: Irrigation.

Xerxes: Medicine.

Commandos: Huh? Heh? Huh...

Commando 2: Education.

Commandos: Ohh...

Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

Commando 1: And the wine.

Commandos: Oh, yes. Yeah...

Francis: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.

Commando: Public baths.

Loretta: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

Francis: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this!

Commandos: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Xerxes: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, pea-- Shut up!

[chri'stina 190]

Its fairly simple I think. McCain the presidential candidate is not the same McCain who courageously went against the prevailing party line to take a stand against torture.

Its par for the course in politics - how far are you willing to compromise, ignore or otherwise #######-off your principles in order to secure the top job. Its old as the hills - you've got to take stands not on what you necessarily believe but on what core groups of voter demographics believe.

Well that is true a lot of the time, for both sides. At the discussion last week with Obama and then McCain at the church, Obama's slow answering to me seemed he was weighing his words so carefully as not to offend anyone that it got a little annoying. I am not saying McCain might have only answered the way he really wanted to, but Obama is afraid of causing any offense within his own party it seems.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well yes - pretty much everyone is doing it.

[alienlovechild 75]

For those keeping score at home. I think its 31 U.S. presidents were in the military and 11 weren't the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...y_military_rank

In any case the number of veterans in the U.S. has been declining since the 1970 census so more and more citizens have no first hand experience in uniforms. Based on this trend, you'll see fewer men (or women) in the White House and Congress that know what the implications of their actions or inactions will be when they make foreign policy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For those keeping score at home. I think its 31 U.S. presidents were in the military and 11 weren't the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...y_military_rank

In any case the number of veterans in the U.S. has been declining since the 1970 census so more and more citizens have no first hand experience in uniforms. Based on this trend, you'll see fewer men (or women) in the White House and Congress that know what the implications of their actions or inactions will be when they make foreign policy.

Hmmm - I don't think thats true to be honest. Given that the most of the most dodgy military foreign policy decisions of the late 20th century were carried out by men with military experience.

I'd say it doesn't make much of a difference at all - outside of developing the skills to lead and inspire people. But you don't need to be in the military to do that.

[dalegg 143]

I thought McCain didn't think torture was torture at all if the Americans are doing it? I could be confused though, it's hard to keep up with the punch and counter punch that keeps going on and on and on...

He says he opposes torture.

But he also says things that Democrats consider torture aren't torture. Things that were done to him, things he called torture once, no longer are.

But those thigns that are torture... he is against.

Maybe he would consider being forced to watch Michael Moore's films torture.

[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.

I don't have the slightest idea what that means

A few fries short of a happy meal? a few cards short of a full deck? Don't tell me you don't know what those mean. (same meaning as what Charles wrote)

he's such a fob.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The one thing that's disgusted me is we're keeping anyone who's serving or served in the military out of the realm of criticism merely because they were serving? And people wonder why we end up with people who throw puppies off cliffs, shoot, torture, and do all of the sickening #### that some of us have seen on video or in pictures? When you keep anyone out of the reach of criticism, you open the door for them to do whatever the hell they want.

The fact is, he is one of millions who served in that war. Many did without choice. Many did out of heritage.

Merely being a prisoner of war and fighting a war doesn't qualify one as President. There hasn't been a President to actually fight in a war in quite a while. 18th/19th century. Using that is much like John Kerry's flashing of his purple hearts. Means. Absolutely. Nothing.

Michael Moore's stance, on the other hand, asks a very critical question, but is mostly, and rightfully seen as political demagoguery. He's really abusing the fact that he had decent questions to ask from BFC, F911, and Sicko.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, really. Surely you've heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, who served in office from 1953 to 1961. If you might recall, he did serve an important role in a little military action called "World War II," which I'm sure that counts for something. B)

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Maybe he would consider being forced to watch Michael Moore's films torture.

The one thing that's disgusted me is we're keeping anyone who's serving or served in the military out of the realm of criticism merely because they were serving? And people wonder why we end up with people who throw puppies off cliffs, shoot, torture, and do all of the sickening #### that some of us have seen on video or in pictures? When you keep anyone out of the reach of criticism, you open the door for them to do whatever the hell they want.

The fact is, he is one of millions who served in that war. Many did without choice. Many did out of heritage.

Merely being a prisoner of war and fighting a war doesn't qualify one as President. There hasn't been a President to actually fight in a war in quite a while. 18th/19th century. Using that is much like John Kerry's flashing of his purple hearts. Means. Absolutely. Nothing.

Michael Moore's stance, on the other hand, asks a very critical question, but is mostly, and rightfully seen as political demagoguery. He's really abusing the fact that he had decent questions to ask from BFC, F911, and Sicko.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, really. Surely you've heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, who served in office from 1953 to 1961. If you might recall, he did serve an important role in a little military action called "World War II," which I'm sure that counts for something. B)

i guess jfk being on pt-109 didn't count either.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Maybe he would consider being forced to watch Michael Moore's films torture.

The one thing that's disgusted me is we're keeping anyone who's serving or served in the military out of the realm of criticism merely because they were serving? And people wonder why we end up with people who throw puppies off cliffs, shoot, torture, and do all of the sickening #### that some of us have seen on video or in pictures? When you keep anyone out of the reach of criticism, you open the door for them to do whatever the hell they want.

The fact is, he is one of millions who served in that war. Many did without choice. Many did out of heritage.

Merely being a prisoner of war and fighting a war doesn't qualify one as President. There hasn't been a President to actually fight in a war in quite a while. 18th/19th century. Using that is much like John Kerry's flashing of his purple hearts. Means. Absolutely. Nothing.

Michael Moore's stance, on the other hand, asks a very critical question, but is mostly, and rightfully seen as political demagoguery. He's really abusing the fact that he had decent questions to ask from BFC, F911, and Sicko.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, really. Surely you've heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, who served in office from 1953 to 1961. If you might recall, he did serve an important role in a little military action called "World War II," which I'm sure that counts for something. B)

i guess jfk being on pt-109 didn't count either.

Oh and what about George H. W. Bush, who flew as a pilot in WWII as well? I'd say there have been at least a few presidents who've actively served in the military during the 20th century.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Maybe he would consider being forced to watch Michael Moore's films torture.

The one thing that's disgusted me is we're keeping anyone who's serving or served in the military out of the realm of criticism merely because they were serving? And people wonder why we end up with people who throw puppies off cliffs, shoot, torture, and do all of the sickening #### that some of us have seen on video or in pictures? When you keep anyone out of the reach of criticism, you open the door for them to do whatever the hell they want.

The fact is, he is one of millions who served in that war. Many did without choice. Many did out of heritage.

Merely being a prisoner of war and fighting a war doesn't qualify one as President. There hasn't been a President to actually fight in a war in quite a while. 18th/19th century. Using that is much like John Kerry's flashing of his purple hearts. Means. Absolutely. Nothing.

Michael Moore's stance, on the other hand, asks a very critical question, but is mostly, and rightfully seen as political demagoguery. He's really abusing the fact that he had decent questions to ask from BFC, F911, and Sicko.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, really. Surely you've heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, who served in office from 1953 to 1961. If you might recall, he did serve an important role in a little military action called "World War II," which I'm sure that counts for something. B)

i guess jfk being on pt-109 didn't count either.

Oh and what about George H. W. Bush, who flew as a pilot in WWII as well? I'd say there have been at least a few presidents who've actively served in the military during the 20th century.

Yes, and also Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were WW2 vets. Truman was in WW1