Michael Moore Rewrites History of Obama Campaign on Afghanistan
By Jon Perr Tuesday Dec 01, 2009 9:00amPromoting his latest film earlier this year, Michael Moore ignored the achievements of the Progressive movement and the New Deal when he declared, "capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil." Now on the eve of President Obama's address to the nation on his Afghanistan strategy, Moore is rewriting the history of the campaign that put Obama in the Oval Office.
In an open letter to President Obama, Moore on Monday seems to have forgotten candidate Obama's aggressive stance towards Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan:
Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.
But at almost every turn in the 2008 campaign (for example, starting at about the 17:30 mark in the video above), it was Barack Obama who pledged to "finish the fight in Afghanistan."
In August 2007, as you'll recall, Senator Obama received a hellstorm of criticism for his statements regarding attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. As part of a broad - and forceful - foreign policy speech on August 1, Obama rightly took the Bush administration to task for the failure of its "no safe havens" doctrine in Pakistan. Regarding the Al Qaeda sanctuary safely nestled along the Afghan border, Obama declared:
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
And while Republican presidential candidate John McCain in February 2008 blasted Obama's advocacy of unilateral American attacks against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, by the beginning of last year the Bush administration itself was already carrying them out.
From almost the inception of his campaign, Obama argued that the diversion of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq meant that "the people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice." In a June speech, Obama highlighted McCain's denial of this inescapable point:
"We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan."
During a major national security address on July 15, 2008, candidate Obama restated his case (see video above starting around the 17:30 mark):
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Throughout the summer and fall of 2008, the Pentagon and U.S. commanders in the field made clear they agreed with both Barack Obama's assessment of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and his call for deploying additional resources there. In July, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and American commander there (and incoming CENTCOM chief) General David Petraeus acknowledged Al Qaeda was shifting its focus back to Afghanistan and Pakistan. By August, the Pentagon was backing Obama's call to send at least two more brigades to the region, reinforcements which as he rightly noted could only come from one place.
General David McKiernan, Stanley McChrystal's predecessor on the ground in Afghanistan, agreed with Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen that the situation along the Pakistan frontier is "precarious and urgent." As McKiernan himself made clear, the only "way" was to get the troops from Iraq:
Finding those particular troops to supplement the 101st, however, depends on conditions and troop levels in Iraq, adds McKiernan, who took over the NATO command in June. "That's really a zero-sum decision."
In early July 2008, Admiral Mullen admitted as much. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen told reporters that the United States could only deploy more forces there by first drawing down from Iraq:
"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."
As President Obama stands poised to escalate the war in Afghanistan while purportedly offering an exit strategy from it, Americans can and should debate whether his is the right course for U.S. national security interests. The list of contingencies which must go right for the U.S. to succeed - curbing corruption in the Karzai government, securing Pakistani cooperation and commitment in battling insurgents in its frontier regions and buying off Pashtun tribal warlords, just to name a few - is a very long one. But to claim, as Michael Moore now does, that candidate Barack Obama never told his supporters he would dramatically ratchet up the American effort there is just fantasy.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
Login or Register to post comments.
Whats with the formatting?
It happens from time to time. Usually clears up quickly.
It seems only to be happening on the home page.
Promoting his latest film earlier this year, Michael Moore ignored the achievements of the Progressive movement and the New Deal when he declared, "capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil."
Let me guess, you did not watch the movie. Right?
Thank you so much for this post and for setting the record straight on what the candidate Obama said and what the President Obama is doing. I just hope to hell whatever the plan is that it works and works relatively fast. Michael might want to double check some of his facts along with a lot of other people who seem to have not been paying attention or have short memories.
.
both?
... you do seem to have a problem with answering basic questions.
question.
is not considered an answer. I suspect you use different rules in Texasthought...
is one of the more obstreperous posters here. "Ignore user" was created for him.
You don't ignore ricky.
Things are nearly as fun without him.
Olbermann's 'Special Comment' last night?
Olbermann on Afghanistan: Get out now
In a Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann argues that in the face political and financial opportunism, not to mention outright lies about the war in Afghanistan, and the stark historical warning represented by Vietnam, President Obama should make the change he promised during his campaign and pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34209743/ns/msnbc...
If OBAMA watch this recent Documentary made by Canadians perhaps
He Re-thinks Aghanistan
CBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 1-5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkYlbpS-vVI
After all that "event" is why we are there in the first place!
Yup, it is refreshing to have someone set the record straight.
I know darn well what Obama said about Afghanistan - I didn't like it when he said it as I am totally against war and military occupation.
But to have so many people - not just MM - rewrite history is a travesty. To have such crud come from the left is nothing short of dumbfounding.
the fact that you think michael moore said that is pure fantasy. i don't agree with michael moore in his public / private hypocrisy but i think he is absolutely right in every aspect of this letter. he simply said obama is being yet another war president who campaigned on not being one and who is caving into hawkish influences rather than doing what's right. then again, bill clinton was a war criminal too.
who was not a war criminal?
Ford?
Jeopardy panel.
I recall, a few years back, someone calling ford a war criminal for allowing Indonesia to invade East Timor.
Quite the opposite. He set the standard we still try to attain.
Potent Potables for 2000 Alex.
I'm not surprised. I knew back then Obama was running on the corporate whore platform and that he would do the biding of his pimps.
Rude Pundit also has a bunch of Obama Afghanistan quotes before he won, so this is no surprise. I'm still dissappointed.
Having said that....(h/t Larry David)
IF he explains tonight that this is a limited, targeted campaign solely to go after the remaining 9/11 perpetrators still at large(that the Bushies let get away) I will feel slightly better about it. It's still a very dangerous gamble.
... now the left is divided, not that this is a new phenomenon for us on the left. My question is what is this 'job' that Obama wants to finsh? Can someone tell me? Is it kill as many innocent people as possible using these drones like we are doing now? What exactly is this job that he has to finish?
... frankly the left in this country is so tiny as to be almost irrelevant, much less divided. I think the problem comes from the fact that thinks have shifted to the right in this country, in such fashion, that moderate conservatives and centrist are now considered "the left."
... I am not talking about the 'main stream' left. I am talking about the Crooks and Lairs, the Daily Kos type of left. The left you are referring to are the ones that the mainstream media considers 'radicals'.
Yes, things have shifted to the right, but the real left is not really tiny, it is just that our voices are being drowned by the right, the extreme right and the 'moderate left'.
If anything I think the problem is with the aforementioned moderates and centrist pretending (or wanting) to be liberals, of which there are a few in the sites you mentioned.
...agree with you more. There are too many apologists on the left for Obama.
Your examples are hillarious!
There is a more visible contingent of lefties around here than you'd find on most site in the US (though the DK reference - priceless! They are Obama loving centrists over there) but this site and the others you mentioned are by no means leftie.
They may be mildly more progressive than the rest of the firmly right wing population that inhabits our country but that in no way makes them representative of the nearly extinct left.
And that is the problem with self identified US "lefties", the whole coutry has moved so far to the right that to Europe it more resembles the fascist countries of the 30's they learned to fear and despise than it does the bill of goods Americans are sold in school about their country. And the left has moved over right along with the rest, so much so that Americans now call themselves lefties when to the rest of the world they have just replaced the "conservatives" who have now moved on to just being bat shit crazy.
Case in point, when a real leftie speaks up around here they get smacked around for being defeatists and not supporting the cause even though the cause is clearly lost at this point. Hell, over at DK they just kick them then scrub their comments!
No, the left in the US is tiny, hard to find and vilified by those that have taken the mantle and run to the right with it.
...no disagreement from me. I think you are absolutely right. But occasionally, you wilkl find real leftie even on those sites. Point taken and agreed.
... when you have self professed "liberals" in this site making fun of Dennis Kucinich for being "too out there." When in Europe, Kucinich and his policies would be considered centrist or moderate liberal at best.... when that happens, you know we have gone waaaaay too deep down the rabbit hole.
we'll see more "progressive Dems" moving towards a candidate like Kucinich in 2012, especially after this experience with Obama.
Some of us DID vote for Kucinich in 2008.
And some of us ARE real leftie progressives!
I voted for Dennis as well, he's one of only a handful of sane politicians that the US has left.
The rest went off the reservation a long long time ago.
I had some heated arguments with liberal friends but I voted Kucinich in the primaries and Cynthia McKinney in the main election.
The only reason I maintain my Dem party affiliation is so that I can vote for Kucinich in the CA primary.
... to _____ ears. (fill in the blanks with whatever diety you want) But to be honest with you, I don't think that will happen any time soon. I think it will take, as hard as it may be to believe, an even more dyer situation than what we have now to turn this country to the left like other left leaning countries. Hell, we will be lucky to move it closer to where France and Germany are now in a few years.
... in comparison to the US.
I like the French, a lot.
Where else can you get the fishermen, the trash collectors, the lorry drivers, the train operators and just about everyone else in the country to go on strike in solidarity for the fish mongers?
They have some serious solidarity and community involvement.
Makes me wish I was born French.
progressive candidates are a clear threat to corporate interests, which are in full control of the situation.
Unless significant electoral reform happens, which it will not since those who have most to lose from it are the very ones tasked with implementing such reform. Any remotely liberal candidate will be derailed way before the convention.
I think candidatures like McGovern, the last liberal candidate for all intents and purposes in American history, have been clear exceptions rather than anything remotely close to the norm.
"progressive candidates are a clear threat to corporate interests,"
"frankly the left in this country is so tiny as to be almost irrelevant"
that would require me to take you off the ignore list. And really, your snark is just not that creative to justify the bother.
So once again, I bid thee farewell... Cheers.
Just curious....if ricky was on your ignore list, how come you're replying to him?
Methinks there's a love/hate thing going on here....... :)
a bromance? :P
are you suggesting
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:22 — miss_kitty
a bromance? :P
__________________________________________
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2012/bromi...
and not the title?
Nothing as exotic as a love/hate thing, more like really/boring thing.
It seems there are too many who are so afraid of the republicans that they refuse to even consider a "risky" candidate.
There are still so many who believe things would be totally different with McCain as president right now. You know, more war, corporate hand-outs, screwing the poor, human-rights abuses, abolishing abortion, denying gay raights and all that stuff.
at Dennis the K., let me opine that he would be as unelectable in national elections in Europe
as he is here for reasons that have to do with something other than his policies.
Do tell.
And make it good because I am in Europe right now.
Where's the dirt on Dennis?
Spill.
You got nothing but BS and innuendo.
I'd ignore you but then I might miss some funny little bit of idiocy that could make my day.
What makes him garner about 2% here would carry overseas in my opinion. It is that he is about as appetizing a personality as the fish in the Cuyahoga are as food.
... I guess I may be wrong about the real left as far as the numbers. I guess I was referring to policy. I am coming from policy side.
If you take the polls for xample, issue after issue, the Afghanistan war, health care, gay rights, aboirtion/a woman's right to choose issues, they show that the people are on the left side even though most times the poll questions are desigend to support the right. I suppose I am coming from that angle. But as far as political movelemnt, I am afraid you might be right. The real left might be too small.
I'm hoping it's what I said above. If he simply offers up more platitudes and b.s. rhetoric about a "global war on terrorism" without hard, specific details - especially when we will get out of there - so I want to hear a clear explanation of the mission and a clear statement about withdrawal on a date certain. Anything else and I will be very upset with our President
holding a Obama accountable does not mean the 'left' is divided... if we simply swallow whatever shit the so-called 'progressives' are shoveling our way, then we'll never see change (like we're really not seeing / getting now)
truly, there is no left in this country. honestly: obama was a corporate lawyer before he ran for senate and biden pushed through consumer bankruptcy 'reform' (i.e., elimination) at the behest of his banking owners in the years leading up to the financial meltdown... many many many economists saw the real estate bubble and predicted the middle class were going to get killed when the bubble popped and foresaw that 'reform' legislation was the banks' way to prevent homeowners from filing BK and ridding themselves of the odious debts they now find themselves anchored to...
if we really had a 'left' in this country, we'd have universal health care, employee free choice, stronger unions, better employment laws... we wouldn't have had the trillion dollar bank 'bailout' (which was truly the most massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top 1% in history)...
but we don't have a left in this country - we have a single-party government run by a political class beholden to the corporatists who fund them...
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. "- Barack Obama, October 27, 2007
unless you're thinking "he needs to send more troops in order to bring them all back..." right?
people people people: sending these troops have nothing at all to do with afghanistan... he's sending these troops in order to build up a force in order to "pincer" Iran - pincer one from the west in Iraq, pincer two from the east in Afghanistan... this is all about IRAN
Do you have a link to that quote?
link to quote
Which war was he speaking of in that quote, Iraq or Afghanistan?
.
The latest war to end all wars.
does it matter? bringing the troops home does not mean deploying more into a war zone - IMHO...
And I worried that my generation wouldn't have its own Vietnam.
You just noticed this war? It's been going on for the better part of a decade.
Oooo, but it looked so winnable early on!
1. Bomb Rocks and People
2. Kill bad guy
3. ?
4. Profit
in Merka goes without that.
Sadly, the OP is correct. This is the one campaign promise Obama has kept - which also just happens to be the one that most progressives hoped he wouldn't keep.
Obama also said he was going to get the troops out of Iraq, close Gitmo, and repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. All that could have been done by now, so don't give me any "It's still early" crap.
He lied to us about all that and more. Why should we trust him now?
If he was truly a bold, decisive leader, he'd admit Bush screwed up the hunt for Osama, now we're in a quagmire with no foreseeable end, and bring ALL the troops home.
Of course, he won't - Rahmie and his corporate overlords won't let him. So while maybe Michael Moore is wrong on this particular issue regarding what Obama said, Obama has been shown to be a liar on so many more issues.
2012? I'm voting Green. I'm sick of voting for the Dems, only to be kicked to the curb once they win.
I know Obama was 'tough' on Afghanistan, but I took it purely in the context of rooting out terrorism.
What are we doing there now? McChrystal admitted there was practically no al-queda there. Whats the goal? What's the mission? Are we there just cause Obama knows if he does the right thing the repubs will hammer him mercilessly for 'losing' the war, making America a 'loser'?
This doesn't surprise me. From the start, it's been amusing to see how the Progressives have worked to convince themselves that Obama is one of us, even though it's been quite clear that he isn't. He's a thousand times better than the previous WH occupant, but he's still not a progressive. I've been scratching my head and wondering why my fellow progressives feel this bizarre need to shoehorn him into our movement. For one thing, it's a self-defeating exercise, since instead of devoting energy to trying to get him to understand our side, the people who cling to this notion just assume he's going to do what we want, and then waste their energy wailing and gnashing teeth when he doesn't.
Obama was very open about continuing the war on Afghanistan, has been all the way through. Anyone who professes shock that he's making good on that promise either hasn't been paying attention, or has been willfully lying to himself. Either way, it's not Obama's fault some people just don't want to listen.
which you correctly pointed out he is not.
The issue to me seems to be this permanent shell game we have been engaged in for the better part of the past year: Mr. Obama can't be criticized for doing things he promised, except when he does not do what he promised... in which case it is perfectly justified since he is "adapting his policies to the changing situation." It reeks of wanting to have it both ways.
I find i very troubling the fact that people who campaigned hard for Mr. Obama, like Mr. Moore himself, can be thrown under the bus with such abandon the minute they utter anything remotely critical of Obama. Even when, like in this case, they are perfectly correct in their assessments. I got tired of the goose stepping by the Bush bots during the past 8 years, and I am not interested in seeing the experience repeated.
It's all center right or bat shit crazy now.
If someone gets a truly progressive boner for a minute and speaks up they are soundly chastised and told to sit the F down and shut the F up.
are some of the first to rush to the bus lot run over those "mouthy" liberals.
to be you who is telling everyone to pipe down and absorb your opinions. Complete with gratuitous insults. Don't let the pure hypocrisy of that slow you down though. Free speech is for everyone or, at least, everyone who doesn't violate the TOS.
{Knock it off. SM.}
I am baffled at how much liberals adored Obama during the election and am even more baffled by the rabid hatred for Obama by conservatives now. He's doing everything they ever hoped and dreamed a candidate would do. More war, worship the Capitalist gods, ignore international treaties on weapons, human rights and war, ignore the poor... heck, he may even sign a healthcare bill that nearly abolishes abortion.
He's a conservative's dream candidate and a liberal nightmare.
been a 'liberal' in the WH.
Protesting the war when Bush was waging it was cool. Now that Obama does it, we need to be behind him all the way right or wrong.
Is that it?
all the reasons yet. What is wrong with you?
Bush got the benefit of the doubt even when we knew his WMD bullshit was just that.
it does not mean we have to abide to it.
I don't need a politician to BS me about what has not been possible for the better part of human civilization: for a foreign power to win a war in Afghanistan. What sort of tap dancing can Mr. Obama perform that you think he can change that?
He'll inspire the Afghani people with Hope that his surge will Change the corrupt political dynamic of the country. Winning the hearts and minds one bomb at a time.
What sort of tap dancing can Mr. Obama perform that you think he can change that?
Careful - some Obama supporter with thin skin could call that remark racist.
But, yeah, I want to see just how he's going to spin this ecscalation. "No, no it's not like Vietnam - we have a PLAN."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kc4EwD5hoA&fe...
We have always been at war with EastAsia.
Next up, capitulation on healthcare and then the journey to the dark side will be complete.
in the Dark Ages.
Maybe he IS doing exactly what he said he would vis a vis Afghanistan. That still doesn't mean he's right. I'm not one who feels any kind of betrayal on this. It just appears he is continuing the policy of propping up a corrupt puppet central government. We'll see what this evening brings.
Also, I really don't believe in this "he betrayed the progressives" BS. I think it's way overblown. Moore was just holding his feet to the fire. Instead of criticizing him, we should be agreeing with him.
Obama during the election comparing himself to Reagan:
It is a fitting comparison because Obama really is a lot like Reagan. Yet another in a long list of reasons why I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama.
You're the one who has done the rewriting, by falsely claiming what Moore wrote in his letter. He doesn't talk about the campaign, he talks about where Obama is now and what consequences he'll face if he calls for a surge in Afghanistan. Yes, Obama campaigned on dealing with Afghanistan unlike Bush. Unfortunately, the White House went along with the rigged election and are "staying the course" - which I thought was supposed to be a bad thing when Bush wanted to do it. Glenn Greenwald has it right - we're starting to see more and more hypocrites on the left who bashed Bush on issues but refuse to see that Obama is just following Bush's lead on some of the worst ones. Maybe it's time for people to realize that it's the conservative in Obama that is governing his decisions, which is no different from what Bush and Cheney wanted.
..we are the Occupiers they don't want.
Mr. President, many of the young men and women you will speak to tonight want to know what I want to know: WHY the hell are you ramping up in Afghanistan? What is the mission? Can we drop a lot of ordinance, scorch the earth, destroy the poppies, get the bad guys? Will it be considered victory if we do? Who are the bad guys? The Taliban, obl & al-qaeda, other militias, the Afghan military who for eight years haven't done a thing? Just what is it that we are going to do and how will it help international relations, health care for our families and the economy?
I've been saying for years how w and the war crime family let, LET, obl go and now its general knowledge. How about dropping some ordinance on Pakistan? Why not? What have they done except provide a safe haven for our enemies?
You see, all there is, is questions. NO answers. That's what history has taught us about Afghanistan. We prosecuted the war wrong from day one because w needed to make wealthy people wealthier and there's no going back to fix it now. No answers, not from the President, the Pentagon, the Generals or anybody, just a quagmire!
"Obama intends to conclude the Afghanistan war and withdraw most U.S. troops within three years, according to senior administration officials."
I don't know if I should laugh or barf my guts out on this one.
I guess "conclude" is a little more open ended than "win".
This speech is going to be great. Full of euphemisms, half-truths, distortions and fantasy.
I wonder how many times he'll mention 911? We should have a contest.
(if true) is unacceptable.
Extreme Afghan Makeover.
Sounds like the new neighbors will be renovating, and then staying awhile ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
"...The Army is building $1.1 billion worth of military bases and other facilities in Afghanistan and is planning to start an additional $1.3 billion in projects this year, according to Col. Thomas E. O'Donovan, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Afghanistan District...."
Well, if they have Haliburton build their wonderful bases, said bases and "other facilities" will quickly fall apart.
I read Moore's entire letter, and as far as I can see, he never once stated in it directly that Obama ever promised anything different in his campaign. He simply tries to argue that sending more troops is the wrong course of action for a variety of reasons. I find the letter very late, and not terribly effective, but I think this response is off the mark.
What has the idea, if it's even accurate, of "Moore ignored the achievements of the Progressive movement and the New Deal" have to do with a statement that "capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil"? Are the Progressive movement and the New Deal now fundamental concepts of capitalism? All this time I've thought of them both as platforms of policy which were intended to advance some concept of fairness in the face of the inherent unfairness of unregulated capitalism.
And how could Moore seem "to have forgotten candidate Obama's aggressive stance towards Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan" when his letter is not based in any way on campaign rhetoric, but on an assessment of where we are now, and how others in similar positions have fared?
Anyone who paid attention during the campaign, which I'm sure Moore did, knows fully well the regrettably aggressive rhetoric used by Obama. That awareness should not disqualify anyone from assessing what we should do or should not do now, nor to appealing their views to our President. I won't accept those terms and I don't believe they should be forced on anyone else, Michael Moore included.
I detest these attempts to stifle open debate.
Agree in full, and my point exactly. Where in that letter does Moore ever say that Obama promised anything different? He simply tries to argue against sending in more troops.
Perhaps this piece should be re-titled "Jon Perr rewrites the history of a Michael Moore letter."
It not only reeks of trying to stifle open debate. But it is factually wrong.
To disagree is to foster debate.
I don't think there is much to debate on this. To most of the regulars here, Perr is wrong. And I hope and believe that there are many more out there who would agree.
is to attempt to stifle his ability to debate without prejudice.
I have no objection to expressing a point of view, but there are boundaries to FAIR debate; a straw man fallacy is one, and Mr. Perr has clearly crossed that line.
Not only do I agree with this particular assessment, but would go as far as to claim it required reading for anyone looking to comment on what Jon Perr had to say about Michael Moore.
There was no reason for Perr to write so abrasive a piece as this simply because Moore a) sees capitalism as an evil and destructive force in the world and b) is pleading with Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan instead of giving up entirely on those who elected him.
Simply because Obama made certain vague promises to satisfy fence-sitting conservatives does not mean we should give up and refure to hold him accountable for the decisions he is currently making.
It's simply perennial war.
"3 years"..."6 months"..."6 months"..."12 months"..."3 years".
It's like relaunching Coke over and over. Same sugar water, different label.
Americans - dumbest people on the planet.
Celebrate Victory
Yes. It is our three-year pre-anniversary of our victory conclusion in Afghanistan.
End the wars.
End the National Security State, dismantle the NSA, the CIA and the perpetual war apparatus.
End imperialism.
Refocus all resources towards a sustainable green economy which means a thorough move away from fossil fuels.
Best comment on the thread Alice. Kinda says it all.
Alice might just as well have said, "War is bad."
But that hardly gets us anywhere.
I propose to redirect fully $900 billion of the obscenely bloated yearly trillion dollar MICC budget towards PEACEFUL ends.
What would you propose?
Both propositions are equally likely.
First you said:
Which is clearly not true.
Then you said:
Which is very much less than what I said.
Because we have become a militarized, propagandized and thoroughly dumbed down society does not mean that I should not say what is true.
I am not going to be candidate for political office, but a number candidates for President do speak as I do. They are shut out by the duopoly and the Corporate media.
So far your discourse serves no purpose.
What would you propose?
But issuing unrealistic general directives such as "End imperialism" is hardly the stuff that great comments are made of (which was my original point). I think we could have a never-ending dialog on whose discourse serves less purpose with statements that general.
I do enjoy your links to articles that describe our current problems in detail so I'm not trying to stifle any of your comments but merely pointing out that they can't all be "the best".
The call to end imperialism is the basis of some presidential campaigns. Unfortunately not major ones.
Furthermore I prefaced the statement, all of which goes back to the National Security Act of 1947.
It was essentially a fascist coup d'etat. Henry Wallace spoke forcefully shortly after that in the campaign of 1948. He was about the last candidate to make such a general directive who might have been called major, although Eugene McCarthy shook things up briefly.
That today it is made in the face of such overwhelming opposition makes it all the more imperative that it be made again and again by the few of us who say such things.
Calling for the end of imperialism is an entirely a responsible and correct thing to do.
It is not unrealistic at all, because imperialism will end when we are bankrupt.
If people never hear the statement, how will they ever understand.
Other than that, your statements are not internally consistent so it is virtually impossible to carry on a dialogue.
talking about equal probabilities of outcomes, sounds a tad much like deflection....
It's not deflection - it's the crux of my point. Why waste any time on proposals that are so general and unrealistic? If it's just to express a sentiment that's fine, but such statements rarely lead to action of any sort.
... Benedict Arnold's proposal had the highest chance of success. So I assume a much different outcome would have ensued if the likes of yours were the prevalent attitude a couple of centuries ago in this country.
You were asked about your proposal, not for a similarly far fetched proposals in your own opinion. So indeed, you were deflecting.
best known traitor? Strawmen throwers should not play near flames. (LOL so hard my projections deflected my razors into my false dichotomies.)
a couple of hundred billion of that but then I'm what you'd call a "splitter".
Considering that there are many out there who believe that United States is justified whenever it decides to take military action, I'd argue that 'War is bad' (though this was not what was said in the initial post) is an excellent place to start.
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:22 — Blue Lensman
Alice might just as well have said, "War is bad."
_______________________________________________________
M'kay....
I'm sure all those pro-war hawks who've said Obama wasn't right for the war on terror will say this is a good decision, and then they'll support his other plans, 'cos caving to his opposition's wishes has worked really well for him so far, right?
Moore as far as I know has no inside information on why things are being done the way they are. He seems to be headed into that dangerous place where celebrities start to believe their own bs and think they are pure genius.
Typical attack the messenger comment.
Yes. War is too complicated to be understood by anyone except the politicians.
War is far too important to be left to the politicians! At least, that's what General Jack D. Ripper told me, and he seems on the level.
Right, because it is not possible to use available information to logically draw conclusions and see a pattern, and its 'dangerous' for anyone to think that they can offer their opinion to the president, especially in a public setting.
Your comment is borderline trolling.
Technically, you're the troll on this one because you disagree with the premise of the article. "ckerst" is merely agreeing with the article.
That said, keep trolling. C&L has been getting sloppy and hopefully commenters like you and curtilingus, Trantorian, Tyler Durden and others will help them get their act together.
Since when is disagreeing with the premise of an article trolling in and of itself? That is one strange (re: fascist) definition of the term.
And one I have been accused of many times. It's not the "textbook" definition of trolling, but is one I have seen often used on this site. If you disagree with the general consensus you are often labelled a troll. I've seen is done many times here to myself and others.
I did not label you a troll in a negative way. I meant it as a compliment.
I think Stupid Git meant that we are all trolls for disagreeing with Mr. Perr.
he is entering that dangerous place where one thinks for himself and dares criticise the president. Because there is nothing more unAmerican than independent thought and dissent, after all our presidents always know best and we have a government without a record of lying to its citizens...
LOL
"capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil."
Truer words have never been spoken.
As for the New Deal, i always remember these words:
"You have made yourself the trustee for those in every country who seek to mend the evils of our condition by reasoned experiment within the frame work of the existing social system. If you fail, rational change will be gravely prejudiced throughout the world, leaving orthodoxy and revolution to fight it out"
John Maynard Keynes to FDR in 1933
I'm still itching for the fight between orthodoxy and revolution, I'll be on the side of the latter with Michael Moore. It's becoming more obvious each day that Barack Obama will be on the side of orthodoxy.
Keynes was a conservative who feared the fall of capitalism in revolution which is why he attempted to paint Marxian theory as antiquated.
I am looking for an end to capitalism in a rational manner before the capitalists destroy the Earth. Destroy it they will, which will be the end of us all.
isn't antiquated Alice. It's just completely wrong. Then again More's Utopia wasn't much of a vision either.
his movies generally make a pile. I'm pretty sure he can afford to start his own revolution now. Capitalism is soooo evil!
this Moore-bashing piece is posted immediately after a piece of journalistic reporting which features Alan Grayson appropriately appealing for Obama to change his mind:
"No, people are suffering too much already, but what we need to do is change the President’s mind and if necessary to vote to end the war."
In light of all the encouraging comments I've read here in support of the right for anyone to openly appeal for a "change" that we can live with, I'm asking that John consider taking down this devisive character assassination.
.
... Of course the right wing can't be the only ones being self destructive. Gotta keep up with the
PalinsJones'..
"every man, woman and child in the United States will have more than $2,700 extracted from their hard work and labor and spent on (defense) programs and agencies next year," reports the Cato Institute. "By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."
The Obama administration requested $138.6 billion for overseas operations for fiscal 2010, $73 billion of which was earmarked to pay for Afghanistan. That figure already marked a 70 percent increase over fiscal 2008 funding for Afghan operations.
The White House estimates that sending 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan would add approximately $30 billion in new costs per year, or about $1 million per soldier or Marine.
I'm not defending Obama but that 70% increase may also be because Bush never put his war funding into the regular budget. He always hid it in emergency appropriations. But the sticker shock might motivate some in congress to further question the funding.
has a billion more people ....X100 thats ....well ... a whole lotta money.
"Promoting his latest film earlier this year, Michael Moore ignored the achievements of the Progressive movement and the New Deal when he declared, "capitalism is evil and you can't regulate evil." "
First: I've been trying to parse that sentence without success. Its like saying when Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death!" he was ignoring the achievements of the Magna Carta. What does 'Capitalism is bad' have to do with 'The New Deal was good'?
Second: When did Crooks & Liars decide to start agreeing with Dick Cheney and become proponents of the War in Afghanistan? And if I want the WorldNetDaily's take on Michael Moore, I know where their site is. C&L used to have better priorities than sycophantic support of the current administration and ad hoc attacks on leading progressives.
Moore devoted a significant portion of it to praise and reminisce about the New Deal. I think Mr. Perr took a shortcut with the facts on his rush to get the keys to the bus under which to run Moore.
We are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
No one on this site has advocated staying in Afghanistan and in fact, if you read my post from last night on Olbermann's Special Comment, I said directly that Obama should not feel obligated to stay with his campaign rhetoric (which was that he would bring the "good fight" to Afghanistan).
Jon is simply writing that Moore's framing ignores that Obama did say that he was committed to the war in Afghanistan.
You, of course, are free to disagree with Jon.
Moore's framing was more that Obama led the electorate to believe that he would be different.
While Jon has easily dug up quotes from General McKiernan and Admiral Mullen to show just how stupid we were for believing that, Moore's framing was not concerned with obscure quotations from campaign advisors, but on Obama's overall message - change.
Moore merely pointed out that it's the same old, same old....
Thanks for replying Nicole, I appreciate it.
But I don't get where Moore's framing is wrong. Nowhere does he accuse Pres. Obama of breaking campaign promises. Moore's framing is around whether or not Obama wants to be a "War President". A perfectly valid framing.
And where in Jon's post does it advocate withdrawing from Afghanistan? Sure, this site has advocated that in other posts, but this individual post seems very much for staying because...well, because Pres. Obama never promised we would leave. Which is the type of demogogary I'd expect for Bush supporters circa 2005.
Obama lied about everything else that he promised, why would we have expected him to keep this one?
So, all of you 'liberals' here, who are bashing M Moore, are you for escalating the war and the killing of more people?
WHY? What is the point? Why do you support this escalation? What is to be gained?
.
Escalations only count when it's your team sending the marching orders...
.
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:14 — ETHIOLIB
WHY? What is the point? Why do you support this escalation? What is to be gained?
______________________________________________________________
Beats walking up stairs.
That was so bad it was bad. Come on ysbaddaden, you can do better than that! :)
Although, it did make me smile in it's totally out of nowhere absurdism.
Login or Register to post comments.