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

[jundp 191]

Oh, and wouldn't Fox news be considered right wing propaganda?

I don't think there's much "media filter" there that isn't also in Moore's "documentaries."

[Teacher Mark 53]

Oh good. Because, since I'm so shy and quiet I was surprised

Moore's problem is that while he may have a point -- and sometimes a very good one at that -- his methods are so underhanded and biased that it detracts from his overall message. In other words, he loses much of his battle by not being completely honest and relying on trickery in order to make his films. Maybe if he were more objective in his films wouldn't have the "shock" value they do, but at the same time, he'd gain a lot more respect and credibility.

I absolutely agree. I use Fahrenheit 9/11 to illustrate propaganda in my Mass Media class.

I agree with many of Moore's viewpoints (especially the film about healthcare) but his tactics are no better than any other type of propaganda, IMO.

Not exactly. I never seen a right-wing documentary with widespread distribution so we haven't the other side of the coin yet except through a media filter.

I have. It's called Nazi Propaganda. Ever heard of Der Ewige Jude? I'd say that's a right wing documentary with wide-spread distribution. And it's still used today...in America among the Ku Klux Klan. Who is one of the best-known KKK men in politics?

Robert Byrd?

[IAMX 3,055]

That Robert Byrd one was pretty funny.

I swear, old people should not be running this country. He's a perfect example.

Edited August 25, 2008 by SRVT

[Heracles 417]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

He's certainly opened up plenty of people's eyes to legitimate issues this country is facing. For that, he's a genius, and I respect him. But sometimes I think of what he complains about like listening to Don Cherry talk, and sometimes just let it pass because, like everyone else, he has a political position, and of course not everyone will agree with it.

Moore has some good points but I lost respect for him after Fahrenheit 9/11. Not only was he extremely biased but he also tarnished the United State's reputation overseas.

Some extreme Democrats don't ever stop and think what effect anything they say or write will have overseas. To them it is Democrats vs Republicans. To people abroad this is just another piece of the puzzle, cementing their hatred of America.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Aficionado

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I honor McCain's service and feel much more comfortable having a President who served in the military. It counts because not only will the President be commander in cheif, but because the primary duty of the federal government is to defend the nation and it's sovereignty. I doubt that a dude whose main working experience was as a community organizer can step into that role more easily than a former POW who served his country at great perial can. I'm not all that crazy about McCain, but Obama isn't qualified to hold his skivvies.

[IAMX 3,055]

Moore, America's disingenuous documentary film maker.

He's certainly opened up plenty of people's eyes to legitimate issues this country is facing. For that, he's a genius, and I respect him. But sometimes I think of what he complains about like listening to Don Cherry talk, and sometimes just let it pass because, like everyone else, he has a political position, and of course not everyone will agree with it.

Moore has some good points but I lost respect for him after Fahrenheit 9/11. Not only was he extremely biased but he also tarnished the United State's reputation overseas.

Some extreme Democrats don't ever stop and think what effect anything they say or write will have overseas. To them it is Democrats vs Republicans. To people abroad this is just another piece of the puzzle, cementing their hatred of America.

I can safely assure you there's nothing that tarnished the country's image more than Republican foreign policy.

Moore's pointing out, for instance, the U.S. not joining the rest of the first world in universal health care (the high tens of millions of working uninsured, which ultimately taxpayers pick up anyways for those who can't pay), is not tarnishing an image that the rest of the world already knew about.

Edited August 25, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Moore simplifies his messages to make general points - though IMO he was better when he wasn't as overtly political. He used to be concerned with corporate crime and how it affected individuals.

His argments on healthcare aren't anything new in that respect - though he was more focused on individual cases.

In any case - Moore is a film-maker not a travel agent. His goal was to make a documentary on an issue of concern to many people (not just in this country). He's not under any obligation to make it a certain way.

Besides - if people overseas use a movie as their sole means of judgement for what it is like to live in the US - what can you say? Its just very ignorant.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Number 6

[zqt3344 21]

Too bad this fat slob has not been placed on the Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Watch List for he needs it.

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/

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Too bad this fat slob has not been placed on the Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Watch List for he needs it.

the only thing mikey moore terrorized was the buffet line.

[alienlovechild 75]

I have. It's called Nazi Propaganda. Ever heard of Der Ewige Jude? I'd say that's a right wing documentary with wide-spread distribution. And it's still used today...in America among the Ku Klux Klan. Who is one of the best-known KKK men in politics?

I believe we were discussing this country and not Nazi Germany. I've seen The Eternal Jew before. If the movie is widely distributed, how movie theaters did it play in? What was the box office take? You teach mass media? There's no wide-spread distribution without some mass marketing, professor.

Moore's pointing out, for instance, the U.S. not joining the rest of the first world in universal health care (the high tens of millions of working uninsured, which ultimately taxpayers pick up anyways for those who can't pay), is not tarnishing an image that the rest of the world already knew about.

Why should anyone care about another country's health policy? Isn't that up to the people in that country? It doesn't bother me if a country has or doesn't have universal health care.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In Sicko - Moore did simplify the presentation of the healthcare systems in other countries in such a way as to suggest that the US system is inferior and that the socialized systems of France, Britain and Canada are without fault.

This would certainly be a problem if a person were using this movie as their sole source on information on a subject that's been in the public eye and debated back and forth for many years now. In fact, I very much doubt that anyone (outside of the very naiive) would use or cite this movie in such a way.

Clearly its not a clear cut picture in the way that its presented in that film - but one thing it certainly does do well is point out the difference in attitude in the ethos of socialized vs. private healthcare. In any of those other countries you simply wouldn't be faced with the choice of which finger to have sewn back on - complete with an itemised cost, or being denied life-saving treatment for insurance reasons. Its simply unthinkable.

[zqt3344 21]

Too bad this fat slob has not been placed on the Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Watch List for he needs it.

the only thing mikey moore terrorized was the buffet line.

NO $HIT! Good one Charles! HHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

[IAMX 3,055]

Too bad this fat slob has not been placed on the Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Watch List for he needs it.

the only thing mikey moore terrorized was the buffet line.

NO $HIT! Good one Charles! HHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Not sure if you realize this, but it was kind of a rebuttal to you in that Moore isn't a terrorist, aside of buffet lines, of course.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Moore probably is already on some list. That stuff didn't start happening when the DHS came on the scene - the FBI held files on a number for certain people for reasons that aren't exactly clear. Steve McQueen is one name that springs to mind - he was on some FBI watch list, though God knows what for.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Too bad this fat slob has not been placed on the Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Watch List for he needs it.

the only thing mikey moore terrorized was the buffet line.

NO $HIT! Good one Charles! HHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Not sure if you realize this, but it was kind of a rebuttal to you in that Moore isn't a terrorist, aside of buffet lines, of course.