Here are two articles, both of which are written by people who are more liberal than conserative, and a book review about the low - life Lying Traitor Michael Moore!
---------------------------
The first is by a former mayor of New York
Ed Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation.
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, June 28, 2004
It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger.
I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan "My country right or wrong." Yet, I do believe, if it is wrong, that when seeking to make it right, none of us should endanger the country, military personnel or our fellow citizens.
Disagreeing with America's foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.
Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.
Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States' foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views.
On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11," crosses the line regularly.
While the line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, it is determined by those Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.
David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line.
Brooks writes:
"Before a delighted Cambridge (England) crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: 'You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.'
In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: 'It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton …We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.. Don't be like us,'
He told a crowd in Berlin. 'You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.'
In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, 'Should such an ignorant people lead the world?'
In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped the citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq:
'The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.'
Of course, he venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq:
'The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents ´or `terrorists ´or `The Enemy. ´No, they are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow —and they will win. ´Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere."
Undoubtedly, too long a quote, still there is no substitute for the original.
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom.
A portion of my commentary at that time follows: "One of the panelists was Michael Moore, the writer and director of the award- winning documentary "Roger & Me."
During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of "I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror."
I was aghast and responded, "I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror."
I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this, and other comments he made during the program, convinced me the producers had found a lair of ding bats when looking to fill the studio with an audience.
Moore later called President Bush a "dummy," denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.
Again, I couldn't contain myself and said, "That's what you radicals on the left always do. You don't debate issues, you denigrate your opponents.
You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence."
In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire.
We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization.
They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and to terrorize all of us into surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy.
How should we respond?
With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib.
We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. We ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.
As I am a movie critic, so I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The movie is a well- done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics. It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully.
The most significant offense this movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.
Newsday reported some of Moore's misstatements as follows:
"At the start of 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' the filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, 'under every scenario Gore won the election.'
"What Moore doesn't show is a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the
opposite!
Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election …
Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House 'approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis' who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States.
Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.
Only the bin Ladens were questioned!
The commission who was investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers:
'Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or, who the FBI later concluded, had any involvement in those attacks'"
It is clear to me from the tenor of the film's off- screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.
Did Moore support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction?
Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica?
Should we now be going into the Sudan & saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery?
Weren't we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction which was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?
Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had tortured and kiled many hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable?
Moore thinks not. I think, yes.
The movie's diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.
------------------------------------
SECOND ARTICLE
------------------------------------
Before your reading this article, consider who wrote it.
Jan Golab is now, and has been, a loyal Democrat for 30 years.
FrontPageMagazine.com
March 12, 2003
Taken from "Hollywood Honors A Stupid White Man"
"As an L.A. author and journalist, it is really unavoidable that most of my industry "friends" or "contacts" are Bush-bashing lefties.
Since 9-11, I have found it necessary to develop a new set of friends.
(Cops mostly, whom I frequently write about).
Many of my old "Hollywood" friends are so consumed by hate they are no longer decent company.
I have some insight into their disorder, as I was a devout Nixon- hater in the 60's, a McGovern Campaign worker in 1972 and a loyal Democrat for 30 years."
----------------------
The Loony Left impugns its own patriotism
By Jan Golab
Saturday, July 03, 2004 -
I first heard "patriot" used derisively when I was a Vietnam War protester in the 1960s. "Patriot" and "flag-waver" were terms used to denigrate those we perceived as knee-jerk supporters of an immoral war.
We felt we were the true patriots. We hated Nixon, because Tricky Dick portrayed us as Anti- American. How dare he impugn our patriotism?
As it turned out, Nixon did not need to smear anybody. When Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam, I knew immediately the anti-war movement should condemn her.
By her giving aid, comfort and hope to the enemy, she had crossed a clear line between dissent and treason. So did many of my fellow dissidents who disrupted the Democratic Convention in 1968.
I was shocked to hear Tom Hayden and others declare support for a communist victory in Vietnam. By failing to stand up to the radical left, the anti-war movement allowed itself to be defined by it.
Thirty-two years later, it feels like deja vu all over again.
Today's anti-war crowd becomes indignant when they are called unpatriotic.
Whose fault is it they get tarred with that brush?
Too many among them have adopted the rhetoric of the lunatic left -- America is "the real enemy" -- and coronated Michael Moore as their hero.
Whole lies, half-truths, ignored facts, faulty logic, false presumptions, snide innuendo, unflattering handpicked film footage, all deliberately packaged to denigrate the president and the war effort, do not amount to an act of patriotism.
(Yes, I saw the film.)
It also violates the basic American value of truth and fairness.
No newspaper or magazine today would publish such a shameful hatchet job about anyone.
(I know, as I have been a magazine journalist for 30 years.)
Saddam Hussein, one of the greatest tyrants of our time (Two million dead, and counting -- unmentioned in Moore's film) does not need to produce propaganda any- more, as he's outsourced the job to the American left.
Indeed, Hezbollah has offered to help promote "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the Middle East.
Most recently, Moore has compared the insurgents who are cutting off American heads in Iraq to the Minutemen in the American Revolution -- the real patriots.
"Their numbers will grow & they will win," he says.
How's that for encouraging the enemy?
One of my college roommates in 1969 had a dirt-bag friend who crashed on our couch once for a few days. I told him I wanted the slimeball out of the house.
"He's cool, man!" My roommate exclaimed. "He smokes dope, he likes the Beatles, he hates Nixon -- he's a bro', man."
I told him: "Charlie Manson smokes dope, listens to the Beatles and hates Nixon, still, he's sure not my 'bro', man."
When your only criterion for "brotherhood" is a shared hatred, you will embrace slime.
Nixon did not need to run against McGovern.
He ran against Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, The Chicago 7, The Black Panthers, the bomb-throwing Weather Underground, the SLA -- and Charles Manson.
He ran against the Anti- American lunatic Left the Democrats should have thrown out of their house.
Today's anti-war activists should do the same with slimeball Moore, instead they heap him with praise and awards. Moore's wacky conspiracy theories are as rooted in reality as was Charles Manson's belief he was starting a Revolution.
Here is what John Kerry needs to say if he hopes to win in November:
-----
"My fellow Americans, you know that I am critical of President Bush. Still, I am not running for president because I share in some irrational and pathological hatred for the man, I am running because I believe I will be a better president.
So I will not embrace the propagandist Michael Moore simply because he hates President Bush and wants him defeated.
While his film makes some interesting points, it is neither a fair nor or honest presentation of the facts. It is, in fact, deliberately unfair.
It promotes conspiracy theories that are paranoid and don't make any sense.
I believe President Bush acted hastily in Iraq, that he failed to deploy better diplomacy or gather a wider coalition. Still to accuse him of sending our troops to die solely to enrich oil interests is both unfounded and unconscionable.
It is a loathsome and unsupported charge, far worse than claims made by Clinton- haters about the death of Vince Foster.
I refuse to embrace this man and thereby politicize the war in such a way that my rhetoric becomes ready- made propaganda for the enemy, to be used as a tool for the defeat of our troops and their great, noble effort."
----
Will Kerry have the courage to make that speech?
Not likely.
So whose fault will it be if he gets tarred by the same brush that tars Michael Moore?
I keep a picture on my bulletin board taken during one of the war protests at Cal. State University, Northridge, this year. From the picture alone, you couldn't tell if it was taken in 1972 or 2004.
A dozen angry students are shouting. One of them carries a sign that reads:
"Imperialism needs Racism & War. Fight the real enemy."
Perhaps many of the students in the picture realize that the war in Iraq is not imperialistic or racist and that America is not the real enemy.
Will they confront the sign carrier and give her a history lesson? Will any- one in the anti-war left brace her with the truth?
No, they won't.
Yet those same students bristle if anyone accuses them of being unpatriotic.
So whose fault is it if people get that impression?
I keep the picture because it reminds me of what went wrong in the '60s (due to the lunatic left).
Osama bin Laden probably keeps the same photo on a bulletin board in his cave to inspire him and encourage his followers.
Many of the people who are against the war and our president are indeed
patriotic.
Still, the horrible truth is that many of them are not.
Today might be a good day to reflect on which group one belongs to.
During this momentous time of the inescapable great divide, two very different camps will be celebrating today.
One will be rooting for our victory in Iraq, the historic liberation of 25 million Iraqis and the establishment of a free nation in the Middle East.
The other camp will be rooting for defeat, hyping our failures, chortling over "Fahrenheit 9/11," bloviating their conspiracies and their hate.
I'll be watching fireworks with the flag-wavers. The patriots.
-------
Jan Golab is a San Fernando Valley resident and author of "The Dark Side of the Force: A True Story of Corruption and Murder in the LAPD."
--------------------------------------
A BOOK ABOUT MICHAEL MOORE
"Michael Moore is A Big Fat Stupid While Man" is a GREAT book is available from Amazon.com
As one reviewer said:
Watching Michael Moore in action -- passing off manipulating facts in Bowling for Columbine, spinning statistics in Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country?, shamelessly grandstanding at the Academy Awards, and epitomizing the hypocrisy he's made a king's fortune railing against -- has spurred authors David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke to take action into their own hands.
In "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" Hardy and Clarke dish it back hard to the fervent prophet of the far left, turning a careful eye on Moore's use of camera tricks and publicity ploys to present his own version of the truth.
Postwar documentarians gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary, and Moore initiated a third genre, the crockumentary.
How, they ask, does Moore pull off a proletarian, "man-of-the-people" image so at odds with his lifestyle as a fabulously wealthy Manhattanite?
And how large of an impact do his incendiary, ill- founded polemics have on the growing community that follows him with near- religious devotion?
It is Loaded with well- researched, solidly
reasoned arguments, and laced with irreverent wit,
Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man fires back at one of the left's biggest targets -- politically and literally
---------------------------
The first is by a former mayor of New York
Ed Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation.
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, June 28, 2004
It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger.
I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan "My country right or wrong." Yet, I do believe, if it is wrong, that when seeking to make it right, none of us should endanger the country, military personnel or our fellow citizens.
Disagreeing with America's foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.
Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.
Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States' foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views.
On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11," crosses the line regularly.
While the line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, it is determined by those Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.
David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line.
Brooks writes:
"Before a delighted Cambridge (England) crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: 'You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.'
In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: 'It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton …We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.. Don't be like us,'
He told a crowd in Berlin. 'You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.'
In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, 'Should such an ignorant people lead the world?'
In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped the citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq:
'The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.'
Of course, he venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq:
'The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents ´or `terrorists ´or `The Enemy. ´No, they are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow —and they will win. ´Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere."
Undoubtedly, too long a quote, still there is no substitute for the original.
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom.
A portion of my commentary at that time follows: "One of the panelists was Michael Moore, the writer and director of the award- winning documentary "Roger & Me."
During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of "I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror."
I was aghast and responded, "I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror."
I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this, and other comments he made during the program, convinced me the producers had found a lair of ding bats when looking to fill the studio with an audience.
Moore later called President Bush a "dummy," denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.
Again, I couldn't contain myself and said, "That's what you radicals on the left always do. You don't debate issues, you denigrate your opponents.
You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence."
In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire.
We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization.
They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and to terrorize all of us into surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy.
How should we respond?
With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib.
We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. We ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.
As I am a movie critic, so I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The movie is a well- done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics. It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully.
The most significant offense this movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.
Newsday reported some of Moore's misstatements as follows:
"At the start of 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' the filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, 'under every scenario Gore won the election.'
"What Moore doesn't show is a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the
opposite!
Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election …
Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House 'approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis' who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States.
Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.
Only the bin Ladens were questioned!
The commission who was investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers:
'Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or, who the FBI later concluded, had any involvement in those attacks'"
It is clear to me from the tenor of the film's off- screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.
Did Moore support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction?
Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica?
Should we now be going into the Sudan & saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery?
Weren't we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction which was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?
Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had tortured and kiled many hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable?
Moore thinks not. I think, yes.
The movie's diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.
------------------------------------
SECOND ARTICLE
------------------------------------
Before your reading this article, consider who wrote it.
Jan Golab is now, and has been, a loyal Democrat for 30 years.
FrontPageMagazine.com
March 12, 2003
Taken from "Hollywood Honors A Stupid White Man"
"As an L.A. author and journalist, it is really unavoidable that most of my industry "friends" or "contacts" are Bush-bashing lefties.
Since 9-11, I have found it necessary to develop a new set of friends.
(Cops mostly, whom I frequently write about).
Many of my old "Hollywood" friends are so consumed by hate they are no longer decent company.
I have some insight into their disorder, as I was a devout Nixon- hater in the 60's, a McGovern Campaign worker in 1972 and a loyal Democrat for 30 years."
----------------------
The Loony Left impugns its own patriotism
By Jan Golab
Saturday, July 03, 2004 -
I first heard "patriot" used derisively when I was a Vietnam War protester in the 1960s. "Patriot" and "flag-waver" were terms used to denigrate those we perceived as knee-jerk supporters of an immoral war.
We felt we were the true patriots. We hated Nixon, because Tricky Dick portrayed us as Anti- American. How dare he impugn our patriotism?
As it turned out, Nixon did not need to smear anybody. When Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam, I knew immediately the anti-war movement should condemn her.
By her giving aid, comfort and hope to the enemy, she had crossed a clear line between dissent and treason. So did many of my fellow dissidents who disrupted the Democratic Convention in 1968.
I was shocked to hear Tom Hayden and others declare support for a communist victory in Vietnam. By failing to stand up to the radical left, the anti-war movement allowed itself to be defined by it.
Thirty-two years later, it feels like deja vu all over again.
Today's anti-war crowd becomes indignant when they are called unpatriotic.
Whose fault is it they get tarred with that brush?
Too many among them have adopted the rhetoric of the lunatic left -- America is "the real enemy" -- and coronated Michael Moore as their hero.
Whole lies, half-truths, ignored facts, faulty logic, false presumptions, snide innuendo, unflattering handpicked film footage, all deliberately packaged to denigrate the president and the war effort, do not amount to an act of patriotism.
(Yes, I saw the film.)
It also violates the basic American value of truth and fairness.
No newspaper or magazine today would publish such a shameful hatchet job about anyone.
(I know, as I have been a magazine journalist for 30 years.)
Saddam Hussein, one of the greatest tyrants of our time (Two million dead, and counting -- unmentioned in Moore's film) does not need to produce propaganda any- more, as he's outsourced the job to the American left.
Indeed, Hezbollah has offered to help promote "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the Middle East.
Most recently, Moore has compared the insurgents who are cutting off American heads in Iraq to the Minutemen in the American Revolution -- the real patriots.
"Their numbers will grow & they will win," he says.
How's that for encouraging the enemy?
One of my college roommates in 1969 had a dirt-bag friend who crashed on our couch once for a few days. I told him I wanted the slimeball out of the house.
"He's cool, man!" My roommate exclaimed. "He smokes dope, he likes the Beatles, he hates Nixon -- he's a bro', man."
I told him: "Charlie Manson smokes dope, listens to the Beatles and hates Nixon, still, he's sure not my 'bro', man."
When your only criterion for "brotherhood" is a shared hatred, you will embrace slime.
Nixon did not need to run against McGovern.
He ran against Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, The Chicago 7, The Black Panthers, the bomb-throwing Weather Underground, the SLA -- and Charles Manson.
He ran against the Anti- American lunatic Left the Democrats should have thrown out of their house.
Today's anti-war activists should do the same with slimeball Moore, instead they heap him with praise and awards. Moore's wacky conspiracy theories are as rooted in reality as was Charles Manson's belief he was starting a Revolution.
Here is what John Kerry needs to say if he hopes to win in November:
-----
"My fellow Americans, you know that I am critical of President Bush. Still, I am not running for president because I share in some irrational and pathological hatred for the man, I am running because I believe I will be a better president.
So I will not embrace the propagandist Michael Moore simply because he hates President Bush and wants him defeated.
While his film makes some interesting points, it is neither a fair nor or honest presentation of the facts. It is, in fact, deliberately unfair.
It promotes conspiracy theories that are paranoid and don't make any sense.
I believe President Bush acted hastily in Iraq, that he failed to deploy better diplomacy or gather a wider coalition. Still to accuse him of sending our troops to die solely to enrich oil interests is both unfounded and unconscionable.
It is a loathsome and unsupported charge, far worse than claims made by Clinton- haters about the death of Vince Foster.
I refuse to embrace this man and thereby politicize the war in such a way that my rhetoric becomes ready- made propaganda for the enemy, to be used as a tool for the defeat of our troops and their great, noble effort."
----
Will Kerry have the courage to make that speech?
Not likely.
So whose fault will it be if he gets tarred by the same brush that tars Michael Moore?
I keep a picture on my bulletin board taken during one of the war protests at Cal. State University, Northridge, this year. From the picture alone, you couldn't tell if it was taken in 1972 or 2004.
A dozen angry students are shouting. One of them carries a sign that reads:
"Imperialism needs Racism & War. Fight the real enemy."
Perhaps many of the students in the picture realize that the war in Iraq is not imperialistic or racist and that America is not the real enemy.
Will they confront the sign carrier and give her a history lesson? Will any- one in the anti-war left brace her with the truth?
No, they won't.
Yet those same students bristle if anyone accuses them of being unpatriotic.
So whose fault is it if people get that impression?
I keep the picture because it reminds me of what went wrong in the '60s (due to the lunatic left).
Osama bin Laden probably keeps the same photo on a bulletin board in his cave to inspire him and encourage his followers.
Many of the people who are against the war and our president are indeed
patriotic.
Still, the horrible truth is that many of them are not.
Today might be a good day to reflect on which group one belongs to.
During this momentous time of the inescapable great divide, two very different camps will be celebrating today.
One will be rooting for our victory in Iraq, the historic liberation of 25 million Iraqis and the establishment of a free nation in the Middle East.
The other camp will be rooting for defeat, hyping our failures, chortling over "Fahrenheit 9/11," bloviating their conspiracies and their hate.
I'll be watching fireworks with the flag-wavers. The patriots.
-------
Jan Golab is a San Fernando Valley resident and author of "The Dark Side of the Force: A True Story of Corruption and Murder in the LAPD."
--------------------------------------
A BOOK ABOUT MICHAEL MOORE
"Michael Moore is A Big Fat Stupid While Man" is a GREAT book is available from Amazon.com
As one reviewer said:
Watching Michael Moore in action -- passing off manipulating facts in Bowling for Columbine, spinning statistics in Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country?, shamelessly grandstanding at the Academy Awards, and epitomizing the hypocrisy he's made a king's fortune railing against -- has spurred authors David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke to take action into their own hands.
In "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" Hardy and Clarke dish it back hard to the fervent prophet of the far left, turning a careful eye on Moore's use of camera tricks and publicity ploys to present his own version of the truth.
Postwar documentarians gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary, and Moore initiated a third genre, the crockumentary.
How, they ask, does Moore pull off a proletarian, "man-of-the-people" image so at odds with his lifestyle as a fabulously wealthy Manhattanite?
And how large of an impact do his incendiary, ill- founded polemics have on the growing community that follows him with near- religious devotion?
It is Loaded with well- researched, solidly
reasoned arguments, and laced with irreverent wit,
Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man fires back at one of the left's biggest targets -- politically and literally
posted by:
|
