« The Cure For Negative Economic Reporting | Main | Terrorist Financing From Iraq »

Moore BS, or it ain't over 'til the fat guy stops singing

Some time ago, some kind soul thought that my life was just incomplete as long as I lacked semi-regular e-mails from Michael Moore. So they signed me up for his mailing list, and since then my outlook on life has improved as if I'd discovered a new fabric softener or deodorant.

Today, I get another load of crap from the guy who should have stuck to making bogus "documentaries" and stayed the hell out of politics. It was just so delightful, I just had to share it (properly annotated, of course).

Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do

Sunday, November 26th, 2006


Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Mr. Moore here (along with the rest of those making the World War II comparison) betrays his utter ignorance of history here. The US involvement in World War II did, indeed last 1,347 days, counting from the attack on Pearl Harbor until the surrender of Japan -- but that was the actual war-fighting. The "major combat operations." Because we were fighting three modern, industrialized, militarized nations, we had to crush each of them utterly. Italy fell when its own people turned on their fascist masters. Germany had to be almost literally bombed back to the stone age, then invaded and nearly every inch conquered. And Japan was bracing for a similar fate when they noticed that two of their cities had put up "gone fission" signs, and we were promising to continue doing that to more cities.

A truer comparison would be from the date of the US invasion (March 20, 2003) to the fall of Baghdad and the collapse of the Baathist government (April 9) -- three weeks.

Now, of course, Mr. Moore is conflating the major combat parts with the occupation and rebuilding. Since he brought up World War II, let's take a look at that.

Germany remained under Allied control until 1949, when the Western powers ceded their districts to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviets created their puppet regime of the German Democratic Republic. This partitioning remained until 1990, when the German people finally took their fate back into their own hands -- and got away with it, because the Soviets were far too busy worrying about their own rapidly-dissolving totalitarian regime. That brings the total time of "war and occupation" to about 49 years, give or take a few months.

Unless, of course, you count "occupation" as "having US forces still present." In which case, we come up to the present day.

In Japan, the official occupation lasted until 1952 -- ten years and change after Pearl Harbor. And as in Germany, US forces are still present, so it can be argued that we are still stuck in the "quagmire" of World War II.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

This is the obligatory "we support the troops" bit. Of course we'd NEVER blame the poor, stupid grunts for the decisions made by their leadership.

But let's go back to Mr. Moore's touchstone, World War II. We actually did inflict "democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun" on Germany and Japan, and it seems to be holding up. And President Roosevelt never served a day in his life in uniform, yet he sent hundreds of thousands of Americans off to fight and die in a war that eventually cost millions of lives.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

I kind of lost a lot of my faith in "polls" and "surveys" a long time ago. We tried government policy by polling back in the 1990's, and it didn't work out too well then.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

Of course, none of the examples fit the Iraq model. All those examples are of the end of the British colonial empire. The United States drove them out by force. India appealed to the British conscience. Canada just outwaited the British. And South Africa's apartheid structure was a legacy of colonialism.

In Iraq, the government had no ties to foreign powers. It was an entirely native-born tyranny.

Also, none of the examples Moore cites were of a nation that threatened its neighbors, employed WMDs against its enemies both foreign and domestic, and routinely flouted the terms of its surrender in a prior war.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves.

Tell that to the Kurds and the southern Shiites. They rose up against Saddam, on our encouragement, after the first Gulf War. But in a stunningly cynical display of realpolitik, our government (mainly Jim Baker, I believe), we hung them out to dry and allowed Saddam to slaughter them wholesale.

And then tell it to the Germans and the Japanese.

Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

I thought Moore had gotten past his odious comparison of the Iraqi terrorists to our Founding Fathers, but I guess he is still stuck on stupid here and thinks that Patrick Henry and Tom Paine would be proud to be compare to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr.

During the American Revolution, the biggest strike against a purely civilian target was, to the best of my recollection, the Boston Tea Party -- an economic strike against a private business. In Iraq, civilians are often the target of choice by those who Moore so vilely compares to the original Minutemen.

So, where were all these insurgents during Saddam's regime? A great deal of them were part of it. Even more weren't even in Iraq at the time. And some -- the younger ones -- were still children.

And it must be remembered that Saddam DID NOT TOLERATE dissent. Kindly note that in his recent trial, he was charged -- and convicted -- of ordering mass killings in the village of Dujail. The offense? Someone had tried to assassinate him near there.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn't much you can do 'til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

OK, folks, the war's over and we lost. Michael Moore, a college dropout who never served a day in the military, says so. And John McCain, a man who spent years being tortured as a prisoner of war, is "bonkers."

I recall McCain at the 2004 Republican National Convention, when he singled out Michael Moore for a slam from the podium (and a round of boos from the audience). Could Moore still be mad about his little moment in the limelight?

Apparently Mr. Moore thinks that once the United States leaves, everything will be just hunky-dory. Those people currently blowing up and shooting and beheading civilians by the scores will just up and quit, quite possibly being "greeted with flowers as liberators."

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

Funny how Moore fast-forwards from "the bad guys won" to "we overthrew the bad guys." What happened in the meantime? Well, a little thing called the Taliban happened -- the Islamist thugs who brutally oppressed their own people and gave a home to an innocuous little group called Al Qaeda. You might have heard of them -- they're the ones who killed 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia back in September of 2001. Yeah, that's an example we should be looking to emulate.

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

My, someone's feeling his oats. "Do what I say, or I'll put pictures of you up on my web site?"
What makes Michael Moore think that he holds such sway over the Democratic Party?

Hmm... maybe his place of honor next to Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Or perhaps it was the number of Democratic leaders who attended the premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- and praised it. Like it or not, the Democrats decided to embrace him -- and now they have to live with his sweaty arms all over them.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

I think we've seen this before. Oh, yeah, Viet Nam, especially the first and third points. The second point is the one lesson the anti-war movement learned from that conflict -- as emotionally gratifying it is to spit on the troops and call them baby-killers, it's a bad PR move long-term.

Of course, Moore neglects to mention that those engaging in rebuilding Iraq right now are among the favored targets of his "Minutemen." He doesn't explain just how our rebuilding will happen without our getting butchered -- that's one of the main jobs of our forces in Iraq right now, and if they come home and wait for the slaughtering to subside, we're going to have a very, very long wait.

And in the meantime, how many more will be killed?

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

Yeah, some of us did lose our minds. Michael Moore among them, who is the most prominent proponent of the "Bush did it!" theory. Others of us woke up to the real threats.

"Our pathetic education system and lazy media?" Way to go, Mike. You just pissed all over two of the Democrats' biggest groups of cheerleaders -- teachers and the press.

"WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years?" Yeah, we backed him when he took on Iran -- he was the "lesser of two evils," and he seemed to provide a check on Iranian expansion. As far as funding and arming him -- from 1973 to 1990, the United States supplied Saddam with a grand total of 0.5% of his imported arms -- all between 1983 and 1989. The three leading nations were the Soviet Union, France, and China -- and as I recall, Russia, China, and France were three leading members of the Security Council that opposed the US-led invasion.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

Funny, I don't recall that last election being a referendum on anything. In its most visible race, anti-war Ned Lamont managed to do do the unthinkable -- lose as a Democrat in Connecticut -- and war champion Joe Lieberman retained his seat.

And as far as guilt... sorry, that's the purview of the hypersensitive, blame-America-first, whiny gits. I feel a sense of responsibility, but it's not the sort that makes me want to run back home and apologize to the world in the hopes that they'll eventually like us again.

Because I don't recall things the way that Michael Moore and his ilk do. I recall a vast outpouring of sympathies for the United States after 9/11, but I also recall a lot of people cheering and rejoicing, and a lot of people saying that "we should look at what provoked it" and a healthy dose of fear -- of how the United States would respond to that savage attack.

It affirmed one of my core beliefs: that the United States is only truly loved and accepted when we're on our knees -- either reeling from a surprise attack, or begging forgiveness and offering bribes for acceptance.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.

OK, a little bit of grammatical snark: I have no problems with this. But I don't think that there are a lot of Democrats in Iraq now anyway.


Michael Moore

Thanks for your advice, Mike. As a student of international affairs and scholar of matters military and political scientist, you're one hell of a propagandist.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Moore BS, or it ain't over 'til the fat guy stops singing:

» Doug Ross @ Journal linked with 2006 Terrorcrat All-Star Cards: Collect 'em all!

» Joust The Facts linked with Here's Another Question

» MOOREWATCH linked with Beat to the punch

» Weekend Pundit linked with Thoughts On A Sunday

» Joust The Facts linked with What Is It That Historians ...

» pblakeney.com linked with Michael Moore Declares The Iraq War Lost

Comments (60)

The bottom line here, the U... (Below threshold)

The bottom line here, the USA is being defeated in Iraq etc. NOT by the terrorists. The USA is and/or has been defeated by itself

Hence, the USA* beat the USA in Iraq. So in that sense, the USA wins when we cut and run.

(*USA includes Michael Moore, media, Democrats, etc. who ostensibly are a part of the USA.)

This appears to be the only foreign where the USA can win and lose at the same time -- by fighting itself.

(Sort of gives "fighting it over there instead of over here" a new meaning.)

Who is Michael Moore to dem... (Below threshold)

Who is Michael Moore to demand anything? This coming from a guy who thought 9/11 was some revenge plot for people who didn't vote for Bush in 2000.

Or, in other words, the civ... (Below threshold)

Or, in other words, the civil war within the United States between the Dems/Michael Moore's/MSM/self-hating Americans, on one side, and the pro-American/defend America types, on the other side, is being fought on foreign soil in Iraq.

And, if anyone questions this, just ask, which side here wants which side there to win, really, honestly.

Thanks for reminding everyo... (Below threshold)

Thanks for reminding everyone about the real timelines in WWII (and its denouement, the Cold War) and the fact that then the US had to destroy the enemy in a manner that we have not employed in Iraq.

The philosophy, if you can ... (Below threshold)

The philosophy, if you can call it that, that undergirds this drivel is that America's enemies can do no wrong, and America can do no right.

If your "logic" proceeds from the idea that there is some ill-defined, nefarious plot emanating from the White House at all times, then you come up with this stuff.

And, no historical perspective is required, obviously.

I agree with JT on this one... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

I agree with JT on this one. I've spent some time in Iraq as a contractor since the invasion, up to earlier this year. Withdrawing now would be a mistake. There is a chance at a shambling, reasonably-decent state in Iraq. The bad guys are very murderous and can't be allowed to win.

That said, the situation is very grim now and has been since the Samarra mosque bombing in March. I know many Iraqis who have left Iraq since then. The daily life of people in Baghdad is full of horror. There is some truth in the assertion that our occupation has excited some of the insurgency.

The cynicism with which the war has been waged by the Bush Administration makes me angry - especially the way the troops have been abused with lengthy, repeated tours, and the generally half-assed way things were done in planning, staffing and supporting. Especially not securing the huge ammo depots for months after the invasion, and not doing something about Al-Sadr in 2003-04. Rumsfeld and his bosses will have a lot to answer to history for.

On the issue of the USA's f... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

On the issue of the USA's funding Saddam, Moore is right on that. The USA provided almost $5 billion in government-guaranteed loans to Iraq through the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation from 1983 to 1990. Iraq defaulted on more than $2 billion of this when they invaded Kuwait.

The diversion of this money to weapons purchases, some through the Banco Nazionale di Lavoro (BNL) and managed through front companies such as Matrix Churchill, controlled by Iraq's Military Industrialization Ministry, caused the "Iraq-gate" scandal in the USA, and the Matrix Churchill scandal in the UK.

Here is a brief abstract of some of the details

o'5-are you some kind of st... (Below threshold)

o'5-are you some kind of store house for knowledge? Gosh, maybe we should just turn the world over to you. Mighty deep BS there. Don't get to full of yourself and explode.

As Jay Tea points out Micha... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

As Jay Tea points out Michael Moore has a rich and fertile imagination, but I don't think his fantasies have had quite the enormous consequences and dissonance from reality that the administrations' has: for example Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolowitz pre-war prediction that "Behind the notion that an American intervention will make of Iraq 'the first Arab democracy,' lies a project of great ambition. It envisions a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq -- secular, middle-class, urbanized, rich with oil -- that will replace the autocracy of Saudi Arabia"..and so forth See How a War of Unbound Fantasies Happened- Iraq :The war of Imagination. The history of the sins and omissions of the invasion, may be ancient history but Bush/Cheney continue to alarm us to the new domino effect of a caliphate from Spain yes Spain to Indonesia (raising the stakes even higher).

Well, by Moore's logic, the... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Well, by Moore's logic, the only reasonable and just thing to do to right this wrong and illegal war is take Saddam out of prison and put him back in power; after all that will restore the peaceful existence every Iraqi knew before liberation.

I wonder if he's for that.

Ya, Michael Moore's politic... (Below threshold)

Ya, Michael Moore's political analysis and advice is about as useful as Ann Coulter's.

The faster we get away from those types, the better off we are. They're just trying to sell books and t-shirts.

I'd go for that, Peter, und... (Below threshold)

I'd go for that, Peter, under one caveat:

We hang him first.


"OK, folks, the war's over ... (Below threshold)

"OK, folks, the war's over and we lost. Michael Moore, a college dropout who never served a day in the military, says so."

Well Jay, I don't know anything about your stats and education - but I know you have never served.

Say what you want about Moore - but his predictions have been far more accurate than yours.

Super smart non college dropout Jay Tea on Iraq:
"I don't believe they have the manpower, the resources, the munitions to keep up these attacks for very long."

It's okay though - all of you neo-cons were dead. wrong.

jp2: OK Bubba, we're wrong ... (Below threshold)

jp2: OK Bubba, we're wrong - now set us right. What do you propose to do about it except sit behind your keyboard and b*tch about it.

Put an idea out there! You spend a whole lot of time whining and point out our failings but not one word as to the right thing to do. You and the rest of the Democrats now in power get to do what you haven't done in 12 years - tell us what your plans are. Do us all a favor and show how wrong we are by telling us what we need to do. Go ahead, put your head in the noose. Step out on that limb. We want to quote you for a change.

We'll wait.

I was aiming for a little i... (Below threshold)

I was aiming for a little irony there, jp2: I am just as qualified as Michael Moore -- on paper -- to discuss military matters. The difference is, I have conducted rather extensive "independent studies" on matters historical and military, so in a one-one-one debate with him, I could probably take him.

And I'd still like to hear from you (or Lee, the original troll I posed it to) YOUR solution. No fair going back and re-writing history, either; your solution has to take the current situation as is.

Or is all you can do to whine and complain and critique?


See? Even SShiell agrees wi... (Below threshold)

See? Even SShiell agrees with me. Or, I with him.


Wow, it's absolutely mind-b... (Below threshold)

Wow, it's absolutely mind-boggling what some people got from this breakdown of the sophomoric rantings of an imbecile named Michael Moore.

A thanks for the reminder of the WWII timeline?

Michael Moore's "fantasies" wouldn't have "enormous consequences"?

And then the "neo-con" bomb drops? Ow!

OK, folks, the war's ove... (Below threshold)

OK, folks, the war's over and we lost. Michael Moore, a college dropout who never served a day in the military, says so.

Well, so does Bill Frist. And he's a psychic doctor, so that should count for something.

I'm not sure comparing the ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I'm not sure comparing the number of days we were fighting WWII to the number of days we are in Iraq is relevant.

But if you want to compare WWII to OIF, can anyone tell me how many Americans were killed during those 1347 days in WWII? How many were killed in Iraq in 1347 days?

spurwing plover:

MARTIN SCORSEE,OLIVER STONE,MICHEAL MOORE,ED WOOD Jr, Hollywoods worse all time directors

I concur with Jay and the ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I concur with Jay and the hawks, Democrats haven't really tried to make a strong case for an alternative to continuing the war, except for the vogue phrase 'redeploynent' or but this is partly because the administration would almost never accept recommendations such as the following: but let me try.. World War 2, which Jay describes as the highpoint of American political heroism also brought Stalin to Yalta to carve up Europe and send Soviet soldiers on the Western Front back to Moscow to face summary execution well as condemn many civilians and countries in Eastern Europe to the Soviet bloc.. To solve or more realistically surround the problem of Iraq, likewise would probably involve the same sort of 'big power' face saving, or shopping of the lesser players, and the lowering of our sights from such lofty goals as 'democracy on the march' to the elimination of the notion of permanent American bases in Iraq.. The US will probably have to bring in Damascus, Ankara ,Tehran and other capitals that have an interest in a stable (or instable) Iraq...perhaps the UN too, withdraw US troops from Baghdad, perhaps keeping alone the prospect of its air power) all measures anathema to the Bush administration..Hey, no one said Yalta was attractive either...

"I have conducted rather ex... (Below threshold)

"I have conducted rather extensive "independent studies" on matters historical and military"


Again, and I emphasize the again, Michael Moore has far more accurately predicted the path this war has taken than you have JT. So the "debate" you propose is already over, with you being the loser.

"What do you propose to do about it except sit behind your keyboard and b*tch about it."

For one, I propose strenghting the military just out of general principle. That means all war supporters enlist, even bloggers. I do think people being connected to the wars they want is an important step to never making these kinds of mistakes again. Take your lumps.

That being said - there is no good solution that me or any set of councils could come up with it. It is as MM and Dean have said all along - a quagmire. The country is now broken at the core.

However, if I was on the council I would do the following:

-End the presence of troops in the unfriendly parts of the Arabian peninsula as soon as possible. This is a reason for the extra special inflamed hatred of America. This is one of the main reasons bin Laden was able to round up the mass amount of funds and people to fuel his versions of terrorism. We are not welcome and do more harm than good.

-Diplomacy. I like that Cheney is visiting the house of Sa'ud right now, although he is completely hamstrung. We have to bring every single pertinant player in the world to the table and drum up support for a stable Iraq. This is impossible with the current administration. They have blown it.

-As far as ditching goes - and it feels damn awful to say - it's necessary. Phased withdrawl over the next Friedman Unit.

We will fight you ... (Below threshold)
We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans

Michael Moore

I'm not on the mailing list but I would like to reply:

My letter to "fat bastard"

Yo Mike, Wuzz up,
You were right. Americans are pretty stupid. Hell, there are still moonbats out there quoting your movie Fahrenheit 9-11. I guess they missed all those web sites that spanked your facts pretty bad.

Any hoot, as a "republican" I'm just going to step out of your way and not say anything while you demand your "mandate".

Hell man, you deserved it. You knew how to play to the stupid people and manipulate them.

So I give you two tears tops to make your point to Nancy and Harry and if they brush off your mandate, it's time to cut them off so you can get some real progressives in office.

I'll just sit back and watch from over here. Have at it man.

Word Up,

Jay, this post is a thing o... (Below threshold)

Jay, this post is a thing of beauty.

Whenever I hear anything co... (Below threshold)

Whenever I hear anything coming from Michael Moore's clap-trap, I always think about last his Oscar-winning performance (which he should have won but was robbed). No, I'm not talking about Farenheit 9/11, I'm talking about Team America: World Police. If you haven't seen it yet, go rent it and you'll agree, the best part of the movie was when he blows himself up!

Ergo, whether it comes from Michael Moore's pie-hole or from a terrorist, it's all the same: Two people who desperately want/need/pray that the US fails in Iraq. He might think he's patriotic, but as has been pointed out before, what's so patriotic about defeat? Maybe some of you liberal trolls can enlighten me about that.

JP2: It is as MM and Dean h... (Below threshold)

JP2: It is as MM and Dean have said all along - a quagmire. The country is now broken at the core.

Yes, over and over again, thanks to BDS.. The Dem's concern for the "Troops" was overshadowed by their hatred for Bush. Scandalous bunch of finger pointing whining.. nevermind..Oh.. and YES I served, so what!

Jay Tea, a very well writte... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea, a very well written rebuttal. I enjoyed the comments also. Well, most of them. Keep up the good work.


I look for Mike Moore to be... (Below threshold)

I look for Mike Moore to be very hard on the Democrats. After all, they are the ones who humiliated him on national TV by making him sit next to Jimmy Carter. Sure, he's disgusting but is he really that bad?

jp2 still watiing on your "... (Below threshold)

jp2 still watiing on your "plan". Don't give us the one we have been hearing for years which no one has been able to decipher from the moonbats on the left. You are not from there are you?

o'5-are you some kind of... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

o'5-are you some kind of store house for knowledge?

Why yes, I am.

Yes, over and over again... (Below threshold)

Yes, over and over again, thanks to BDS

The Pentagon has BDS? Someone should let them know!

Michael Moore will have cre... (Below threshold)

Michael Moore will have credibility in a discussion about world politics when Richard Simmons is an expert on football.

When you get right down to ... (Below threshold)

When you get right down to it, the only real "Quagmire" in our world is Liberals versus Conservatives in this country. And since most of the gun permits are on the Conservative side, I know where I am laying my bets!

Michael who?Did he... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

Michael who?

Did he say something important?

I didn't think so. Nothing to see here, move along.

I must confess, I didn't re... (Below threshold)

I must confess, I didn't read the whole article here, so if this has already been pointed out, my apologies.

If Moore wants to compare WWII to Iraq, he should point out that we lost 407,300 soldiers during WWII, which was .32% of the population. In Iraq, we've lost almost 3,000 soldiers, or .001% of the population.

If you want to compare apples and oranges, let's do it, but not only when it helps you, Mike.

Ha Ha Ha!Michael M... (Below threshold)

Ha Ha Ha!

Michael Moore: You can put him in the dustbin of history.

Right along with Howard Dean and the hippies who perfectly predicted the Iraq War back in 2002 and early 2003.

Why would you listen to them when we can just listen to Kristol, Perle, wolfowitz, Cheney, Jay Tea and all the rest who cheered us into the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of this country?

BTW, I hear Mr. Moore may be a bit overweight as well.

Iraq can't be compared to W... (Below threshold)
John S:

Iraq can't be compared to WWII, unless Michael wants us to start dropping hydrogen bombs in Iraq. That would pacify the population in about 1 millisecond.

"overweight"--as from being... (Below threshold)

"overweight"--as from being full of bull "manure".

It's only a disaster if we ... (Below threshold)

It's only a disaster if we let it be, or wish it to be, like those on the left who always wish us ill.

Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore,... (Below threshold)

Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Harry Reid, John Kerry, The Dixie Chicks, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson.

There. I don't have to make an intelligent argument about my position on a given post. I'll just put these people's names in my post and act like using there names is ACTUALLY saying something. It doesn't matter that I'm a complete moron for assuming that what I hear on Fox News about these people has anything to do with reality.

I'll just be a dumb neocon and think that everyone in the world MUST hate Michael Moore because I hate Michael Moore - even though I know NOTHING about Michael Moore except my own narrow minded prejudices.

Gee, I'm such a dumb angry neocon. I think I just crapped in my pants with anger....oh, that's right. My opinion is no longer in the mainstream. Wait, I don't want to admit that to myself. Arrgghh.

"When you get right down to... (Below threshold)

"When you get right down to it, the only real "Quagmire" in our world is Liberals versus Conservatives in this country. And since most of the gun permits are on the Conservative side, I know where I am laying my bets!"

Posted by: SShiell at November 26, 2006 07:36 PM

I wonder if Hallmark will make quality cards for shoot a liberal day? hahaha

THE big question I have is HOW the HELL can anybody even OPEN an e-mail or anything from that human waste product Mickey Mooron??? If I saw his name on an e-mail, I couldn't hit delete fast enough!! I guess in the name of "debate" huh Jay?

The media/et al are playing... (Below threshold)

The media/et al are playing their usual numbers game. While it was 1,347 days from 7 December 1941 until 15 August 1945, when the Japanese announced their unconditional surrender, fighting continued. The official signing of Japan's surrender occurred 18 days later, and fighting continued even after that. There were still Japanese troops hiding (and even doing some fighting at times) into the 1970s and beyond.

Also, 1944 was a leap year, so that means there was an extra day in 1944 so American involvement in World War II lasted 1,348 days. Or were they counting the days from when the U.S. delcared war on Japan (8 December 1941), which would put us back to 1,347 days if we use the 15 August end date.

I have been reading about World War II since my early teens, and researching, writing, and publishing books and journals on World War II history for almost 40 years. I have been irked by this constant comparison to WWII (they tried the Viet Nam angle for a while but were getting no where with that), and this treatise on Wizbang is pretty close to my own feelings on this topic.

Actually, it turns out my m... (Below threshold)

Actually, it turns out my math was a little bit off.

Here's the day counts I come up with: 7 to 31 December 1941 = 25 days

1942 and 1943 = 365 days each

1944 = 366 days (leap year)

1 January to 14 August 1945 = 223 days

For a total of 1,344 days for the period 7 December 1941 through 14 August 1945.

Or 1,345 days for the period 7 December 1941 through 15 August 1945.

I also did some additional checking and it was 14 August that Japan agreed to their unconditional surrender, 15 August when the Emperor announced to the Japanese people on the radio, and the occupation began on 28 August.

So how did they come up with 1,347 days? That would make it 17 August 1945. I can't find anything that happened on that date that would be considered the date when Japan surrendered. Did I miss something? Is my math off-base? Or are the liberals trying to pull their usual crap by just outright lying to make their propaganda fit? My guess is they wanted this comparison to coincide as closely to Thanksgiving as possible to have that "extra" impact.

Eternal vigilance is the pr... (Below threshold)

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

We still have troops in Japan.

We still have troops in South Korea.

We still have troops in Germany (I'm one of them).

I've been to Iraq. The only way to lose it to leave. By staying, we prove that we are not a "paper tiger". By staying, we prove to the Kurds and other people that want stability that we will not hang them out to dry.

I prefer the "Go Big" course of action. I belive would be the quickest way to turn Iraq into a stable democracy. The most likely course of action is the "Go Long" strategy. As long as we are there and fighting, the bad guys can't claim victory. But we do need to turn away from policing the country into a strike force that focuses of dismantling the terror network that is developing there.

At least that strategy keeps Iraq as the front-line in the war on fascist Islamists as opposed to Main Street, USA.

Oh, Mr. Crickmore, it wasn't Pres. Bush and VPres Cheney that started talking about a Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia. Osama bin Laden referred to it in Oct 2001. And there was recently a rally in the Gaza Strip that asked for more: a worldwide caliphate.

The Pres and VP are only telling us what our enemies are saying.

"Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore... (Below threshold)

"Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Harry Reid, John Kerry, The Dixie Chicks, Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson."

Whenever one of these people speaks into a microphone, he or she unknowingly makes a more persuasive argument for being a conservative.

Oh, you forgot Howard Dean and Cindy Sheehan - the Beavis and Butthead of the left.

The simple fact is - Michae... (Below threshold)

The simple fact is - Michael Moore is right. Hate him if you want. He's right - not because it's his opinion alone but the opinion of anyone who's been watching this inept administration play "war."

The useless fool in the White House mismanaged this war from day one - forget about the fact that he lied to us about the reason. His design for winning was non-existant. He was too lazy to actually form a post-Iraq plan. Because of his laziness, over 2,800 Americans are dead and countless Iraqi civilians. When architects and engineers are lazy in designing a building and that building collapses and kills everyone in it, do they deserve to be loathed? Sure they do.

So does this dickhead we call the President. He lost this war for you before it even started and no amount of badmouthing Michael Moore will change that.

But then again, Michael Moore is an easy target for people who don't want to face the reality that their leader has made a fool of them.

I am actually thrilled to s... (Below threshold)

I am actually thrilled to see that Moore is taking his case directly AT the new Dem majority. It will be so amusing to observe how carefully they listen to him. He was their useful idiot for a good while -- now maybe he'll learn (the hard way) that he's an idiot, but no longer useful.

I don't care which side of ... (Below threshold)

I don't care which side of this argument you are on, this use of statistics in this manner is ridiculous. You want another comparison? It would take another 519.5 years before the U.S. fatality count in Iraq would equal the WWII count. (More here.)

There can are many valid points on both sides of the Iraq discussion. This useless statistic is not among them.

hansel2, I might believe yo... (Below threshold)

hansel2, I might believe you if the loathing hadn't been going on from before we even started in Iraq. WAY before.

You're presenting it as cause (bad management) and effect (loathing) except that it didn't happen in that order at all.

So either you're stupid, or you're lying, or you're letting youself be lied to, probably by people like Moore. You lived through that time, use your own brain.

The declarations of "losing this war" have been going on from the moment after we rolled into Baghdad because... what? It wasn't *over*? I don't know what fantasy land people live in... the howls of anger at being "misled" or "lied too" prove the old addage that "you can't cheat an honest man"... I never really believed that before but in this case, the only way that people could claim to be *deceived* is if they parked their brains at the door and heard what they wanted to hear.

Someone mentioned a "plan" of getting all the nations in the middle east at a table for negotiation, talks, and convincing them that a stable Iraq is in their best interests... it's not Bush's fault this isn't happening. The *reason* this isn't happening is because it is NOT in their best interests to have a stable Iraq.

Sitting at a table isn't going to convince anyone that their best interests are what they are not. All it does is make us feel good, make us feel like progress is being made, and it gives a little bit of business to the ritzy hotels where the delegates get to stay.

Wanting to destabilize Iraq is absolutely in the interests of the countries who are trying to do that. They aren't stupid. They can figure out their own interests without our help.

The only thing that changes those conclusions is to change the equation... to make changes in our policy to provide carrots or sticks to force a change in their policy evaluations. (Knowing that we will *not* leave is one way to do that. Knowing that we *will* escalate if provokes by countries outside Iraq is one way to do that. Giving assurances that we will take our marbles and go home is a sure way to *encourage* efforts toward destabilization since a stable Iraq that has any resemblance of a free economy and equal protection under the law (probably one of the harder things to manage... equal legal treatment between ethnic and religious groups) is a direct and persitant threat to the domestic politics of those nations.

They aren't stupid. They know what a threat a good result in Iraq is to them.

A nice meeting and all sitting down together does not change that truth.

And lastly...

"It affirmed one of my core beliefs: that the United States is only truly loved and accepted when we're on our knees -- either reeling from a surprise attack, or begging forgiveness and offering bribes for acceptance."

...or pretty much doing what else can be done on our knees.

The declarations of "los... (Below threshold)

The declarations of "losing this war" have been going on from the moment after we rolled into Baghdad because... what? It wasn't *over*? I don't know what fantasy land people live in... the howls of anger at being "misled" or "lied too" prove the old addage that "you can't cheat an honest man"... I never really believed that before but in this case, the only way that people could claim to be *deceived* is if they parked their brains at the door and heard what they wanted to hear.

It's true, many had great issues with the Bush administration going into Iraq long before it happened, but that wasn't necessarily a case of poo-pooing an effort in its infancy - moreover, anyone who was paying attention to what this administration said, and how it said it, on a number of early issues (tax cut benefits, faith-based initiatives, etc.) could see them lying right out of the gate. Given that - and a healthy dose of history in remembering Nixon among others - many people were justifiably skeptical about the intentions of this group and the extent to which they were willing to manipulate truths.

Now, regarding the aftermath of the war, there's no one out there who can claim that letting looting take place, being ridiculously slow on reinstating thing such as electricity and water, and disbanding every element of an existing police force were smart moves. In fact, they've long since been criticized, and not just by the left.

My problem with all this is based on a reality where I know when I'm being screwed with - it doesn't need to be explained to me. And these folks were screwing us from the get-go. My loathing of them stems from their laziness in planning - a laziness that shows complete disregard for kids who are putting their lives on the line. If it were me, I would be working day and night, getting every brain I could together, listening to a variety of solutions and plans - not sitting on my ass or sweeping brush, telling the world "I know better."

The lives of one of our soldiers is worth that effort - and an open mind - one that can admit mistakes and regroup when necessary - is far more valuable in finding solutions than a politically motivated, stubborn, idiologically driven mind.

I don't understand why Moor... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

I don't understand why Moore gets all this anger. In the end, he just a polemicist. He's made a few valid points, others utterly false, like portraying Iraq as a paradise.

There's a lot more to by angry about in incompetence in the conduct of the Iraq war - things like not sending enough soldiers to even guard the huge ammo dumps which were looted by the insurgents for months after the invasion.

There's a lot more to be angry about in that than in Michael Moore, even if you are in favor of the war. Especially if you are in favor of the war.

The historical record being formed is pretty damning, just some of the titles of books written by insiders or journalists who spent a long time in Iraq:

Losing Iraq, by David Phillips

Squandered Victory, by Larry Diamond

Fiasco, Thomas Ricks

State of Denial, Bob Woodard

Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Revolt on the Tigris: The Al-Sadr Revolt and the Occupation of Iraq, Mark Etherington

The Assassin's Gate, George Packer

Blood Money: Wasting Billions, Lost Lives and Corporate Greed in Iraq, T. Miller

How America Lost Iraq, Aaron Glantz

Cobra II, Lt. Gen Trainor and Michael Gordon

Observer 5,I agree... (Below threshold)

Observer 5,

I agree with you completely. Moore is a distraction for these folks. He's a rallying cry. Being angry at him is a form of strength since they'll find none from their great useless leader.

"If it were me, I would be ... (Below threshold)

"If it were me, I would be working day and night, getting every brain I could together, listening to a variety of solutions and plans - not sitting on my ass or sweeping brush, telling the world "I know better.""

Why isn't it you?

I'm serious here. What is it about the situation that lets absolutely everyone off the hook for contributing, to getting every brain together, and figuring out ways to support the effort?

Because you didn't care for "faith-based" programs and disagree about the benefits of tax cuts?

What does that have to do with anything at all?

It must be nice to have no responsibilities to formulate solutions or work for success. It must be nice to have no call on your creativity other than to find things to criticize and condemn about decisions made in Iraq. And then, when it all falls down, the cost in human suffering is going to be sooooo worth the self-satisfied "I told you so?"

That is something I find abhorent.

Gee, Synova, you don't read... (Below threshold)

Gee, Synova, you don't read very well. Nor are you very well informed.

Rather than going into an entire post on the lies about the tax cuts (the administration went on This Week and Meet The Press that Sunday after proposing it to counter criticism that it ONLY benefited the very rich. As it turned out, it DID overwhelmingly benefit them to the detriment of everyone else. Are you one of the top 1 percent, Synova? If so, I can understand your ignorance at what I'm talking about).

As far as the faith based initiatives are concerned, it's not an issue as to whether I cared for them or not, it's how they were used as another means of abuse - and leverage for more republican corruption.

And furthermore, idiot, I never suggested I would want the job of President. All I suggested was that the current moron in office do his job better - and he should have. Is this my responsibility to state the obvious? No. The administration - those in power today - should have followed through with something other than shallow speeches and mindless, idiologically-driven foreign policy.

And, yes, I do criticize and condemn decisions made in Iraq, not to say "I told you so" (please find any form of glee about this in my post, please) but out of respect for those who served there and did so without the full support and protection of this administration (except when it's politically expedient), which has looked upon our troops as little game pieces and cannon fodder.

What I find more abhorent are people like you who wave your little flag in the air, stick your head in the sand and act like the Hitler youth when someone makes a criticism of your dear leader. He deserves to be criticized. That is our duty. Without criticism of our government, we may as well be living in North Korea.

Get a clue.

Nice rebuttles. How do you... (Below threshold)

Nice rebuttles. How do you determine the length of a war??? From when the 1st American dies by the hands of the enemy, until the last. The war in Iraq has outlasted WWII, and has gone on for far too long with a 3rd world country. The war has no end in sight, and there is no plan to do so. Saddam did not kill our civilians in NY, and Osama did. Bush is a liar, Cheney is a crook. Its that simple. Go after Osama. Screw Iraq.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE ISLAM... (Below threshold)


This is proof that in the L... (Below threshold)

This is proof that in the Land of Oz (better known as "The Far Left"), Michael Moore is a true Flying Monkey. What an idiot.

Michael Moore was right.</p... (Below threshold)

Michael Moore was right.

The wise and learned men and women of Congress voted in their overwhelming majority to send troops to Iraq specifically to kill, rape and murder as many innocent Iraqis as get in their way of securing and plundering Iraq,s oil assets.

Notwithstanding a few indictments for rape and murder in the Haditha Massacre and the Abu Ghraib show trials, the duty to secure Iraq's oil goes on unabated.

Even the The Iraq Study Group (ISG), also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission,that was charged with assessing the situation in Iraq and the US-led Iraq War and making policy recommendations specifically called for the privatization of Iraqi oil assets - a bow by Baker, the oil man from Texas to his capitalist supporters and Bush family oil connections.

Michael Moore is right.

Bush and the repugs are the real terrorists.

uhmmm the USA are a empire?... (Below threshold)

uhmmm the USA are a empire? but with many contradictions...

Basically, the Michael Moor... (Below threshold)

Basically, the Michael Moore line on the Iraq War is "The Iraqis are too cowardly and lazy to be worth dying for". Got to love the compassionate Left. Am I missing anything?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy