Micheal Moore’s face unfortunatley interrupted my otherwise pleasant breakfast. In a story first reported in the NY Times, and subsequently repeated in papers and media across the country, Micheal Moore is being censored by Disney. Disney, obviously one of the ‘conservative-leaning’ media outlets, apparently fears retribution from some crazed Bush supporters (apparently the state government of Florida) over an otherwise un-biased documentary from the august filmaker. Cries of censorship, like racism, are very serious indeed, and should not be made lightly. (Of course, it’s irrelevant to note that a private company can not actually ‘censor’ anything, but that’s some word semantics that is unimportant in all but a Clinton desposition). An interesting take from Brent Bozell, indicating that the calls for censorship is mearly a publicity stunt: (Brent Bozell : Michael Moore, smear specialist: (5/7/2004)
It was awarded the status of top news, the front page of The New York Times. Disney was telling its Miramax subsidiary that it could not distribute radical, Bush-loathing Michael Moore’s new "mockumentary," titled "Fahrenheit 9-11." This report, like virtually all the news accounts surrounding Moore’s upcoming film, seem to glide right around Moore’s very obvious hatred of conservatives and his very checkered history of cinematic fact-mangling.
The first act of fact-mangling on this film may be this story of Disney censorship. In paragraph six of the Times story, we were given a Disney spokesman declaring they "advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax."
Stop right there. May of 2003? This was not news to Michael Moore. This was not a story for page one … or page 30. It’s simply not "news," period. How to make it news? It appears the scoop was that Moore flack Ari Emanuel claimed he had a conversation with Disney chairman Michael Eisner, who said he feared all the Bush-bashing might endanger the company’s tax breaks in Florida, since the state is led by Gov. Jeb Bush.
Big news, right? Except Disney denies Eisner said this. Gov. Bush’s office proclaimed the conspiracy theory "ludicrous." And Moore has a history of nutty accusations. So why on earth is the Times tooting Moore’s horn?
The timing and theme of this story reek of Cheap Promotionalism. Why does this publicity debut match the eve of the film’s debut at the Cannes Film Festival, where the European pseudo-sophisticates will no doubt laud all the butchered Bush-bashing? The title of Moore’s film invites immediate comparison to "Fahrenheit 451," the 1953 Ray Bradbury science-fiction tale of firemen who don’t fight fires but start fires burning books. The endlessly self-impressed Moore is no doubt suggesting that courageous leftist men of ideas are being censored by the ignorant and malignant post-9-11 trauma-exploiting Dubya Dynasty. Moore needs this movie to be censored somehow, or else his tale of American oppression is empty. Some concocted conspiracy of censorship is now part of its marketing plan.
Is this Moore mudbath really in danger of not hitting theaters? Think again. In 1995, Miramax prepared to distribute Larry Clark’s unrated, unpretty teen sex film "Kids," but Disney would not release an unrated film. So the Miramax brass released it through a separate company, Shining Excalibur Films. There’s nothing stopping them from doing it again, and they will.
The other obvious fact-mangling involves the allegation that somehow, the Bush Dynasty secretly loves the Saudi Dynasty, which spawned the 9-11 terrorists. Moore laid his conspiracy theory out on HBO to Bob Costas a year ago. In Moore’s fever swamp, the Bush team knows that Osama bin Laden is hiding out in Saudi Arabia, and they’re hiding him so they can exploit the terror trauma. "He’s back living with his sponsors, his benefactors … I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is, and I don’t think we’re going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon." Cue the "Twilight Zone" music. We’re off to Cuckoo-land.
The film reportedly contains an interview with author Craig Unger, who has a new book out on the supposedly ironclad relationship between the "House of Bush" and the House of Saud. But Unger’s history of anti-Bush bunk goes back to the first Bush presidency, when he wrote a long "investigative" piece for Esquire magazine claiming that only an idiot couldn’t see the "October Surprise" conspiracy.
Remember that fairy tale, about how the treasonous Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 nefariously plotted to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran so that Ronald Reagan could be elected president? Even the liberal Columbia Journalism Review blasted Unger’s politicized sloppiness, suggesting they would give his work a C-minus for slim evidence. But that only makes him a perfect foil for Michael Moore, the master of fictional "nonfiction" documentaries.
Politically, the worst thing about this is that the media elite can’t seem to call Michael Moore even a "liberal," let alone a radical nutcase. (Here’s a guy fired from Mother Jones magazine for being too far left! In addition to being personally unbearable, he refused to run an article that criticized the Sandinista communists then oppressing Nicaragua.) But reporters have actually allowed Moore to claim that his upcoming film, designed for a fall release, is not partisan. Moore is so full of beans that he even claimed, "This is not an anti-Bush diatribe."
If you buy that, buy a ticket to the film. And remember: Bush is hiding Osama. Pass it on.
Micheal Moore is welcome to come up with all of the ‘black helecopter’ theories he wants. If he can arrange financing, then he is welcome to commit them to film. The media is welcome to crown him a king among filmakers. Without having seen the movie, I can’t imaging what he has constructed. But to make his next job easier, I will publish here some other interesting topical conpiracy theories, that are certainly good candidates to reduce to film in order to generate interest in the anti-USA crowd. (Can’t wait for the sequel in four years!) More from Steven Stalinsky : A Vast Conspiracy : Nothing funny about this top-ten list. (5/6/2004):
Abd Al-Munim Said, head of the Al-Ahram Research Center in Egypt, once said: "We thought that by the end of the 20th century, the Arab mind would be open enough not to explain everything with a ‘conspiracy theory’…the biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that they keep us not only from the truth but also from confronting our faults and problems…This way of thinking relates any given problem to external elements, and thus does not [lead] to a rational policy to confront the problem."
Since 9/11/01, conspiracy theories against the U.S., the Jews, and the Zionists have been rampant in the Arab world. These notions are spread not only by marginal personalities and media outlets, but, more important, by prominent members of mainstream governments and media.
Some of last year’s most far-fetched conspiracy theories in the Arab world include: U.S. soldiers cannibalized Iraqi civilians; the U.S. was responsible for the car bomb that killed Iraqi Shia leader Muhammad Bakir Al-Hakim; the Jews were behind the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia; the U.S. was behind the SARS virus; and the Iraq war was launched to coincide with the Jewish holiday Purim. The following highlight the top ten Arab conspiracy theories in recent months:
10. Pakistani Jamaatud-Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed was quoted in the Islamic Republic News Agency on November 13, 2003, stating that al Qaeda was not responsible for the Riyadh bombing that month. Rather, "It is a Jewish and American conspiracy against the mujahadeen and al Qaeda."
9. According to an editorial in the November 20 Yemen Times, the Istanbul bombings during Ramadan this past November could not have been committed by Muslims, as "the international Zionist establishment was keen on instigating this crime. This is strongly supported by the fact that no Muslim in his right mind could ever condone such crimes."
8. The Islamic Republic News Agency reported on February 28 that the U.S. captured Osama bin Laden in a tribal region of Pakistan. It claimed that Donald Rumsfeld’s recent trip to Pakistan was related to the capture. The report said that the U.S. will announce the capture shortly before the November presidential elections.
7. Professor Galal Amin, a professor at the American University of Cairo, writing in the April 1 edition of Egypt’s Al-Ahram Weekly, explained: "There is still doubt that the September [11] attacks were the outcome of Arab and Islamic terror…. Many writers…suspect that the attacks were carried out by Americans."
6. Writing in Kuwait’s Al-Watan on March 14, columnist Adnan Zayid Al-Kazimi identified the real culprit in the Madrid bombings: "I claim with certainty that the ones who attributed all evil to the Arabs and the Muslims are the Zionists, those who are closest to carry out such an operation like the other operations [that they carried out]."
5. Said Al-Subki, columnist for the Saudi daily Al-Watan, also blamed the Madrid bombings on the Jews in its March 19 edition. He criticized Arab intelligence services for being "incapable of discovering the hidden Zionist fingers planning many terror operations in order to entangle the Arabs and Muslims."
4. Deputy editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhouriyya wrote an article on March 18 that accused the Jews of perpetrating every terrorist attack throughout the world. Regarding the Madrid bombings that took place March 11, Abd Al-Wahhab Adas claimed, in reference to the explosives and cassettes of the Koran found at the site, "It is obvious that the Jews are the ones who placed these things, in order to prove to the entire world that the Arabs and Muslims are behind the bombings." Adas added about the Jews: "It is they who are behind the events of September 11."
3. In an interview with Al-Arabiyya TV, Lebanese Druze leader and parliamentarian Walid Jumblatt stated on March 21 that, as part of a "born-again Christian" scheme that included 9/11, the CIA controls Osama bin Laden.
2. According to the Iranian Mehr News Agency, Hossein Sheikholeslam, the former Iranian ambassador to Syria, stated that the series of bombings that hit Damascus in the last week of April were "a bid to force Iraq’s neighbors to submit to their Iraq policy, the U.S. and the Zionist regimes orchestrated such terrorist attacks." He noted, "This is not the first time that the U.S. and Israel have employed al Qaeda elements to help them reinforce their terrorist objectives."
1. After the bombing in Yunbu, Saudi Arabia, on May 1, Crown Prince Abdullah stated: "Zionism is behind terrorist actions in the kingdom. I can say that I am 95 percent sure of that."
Sad stuff, obviously a perfect fit for Micheal Moore.
Sometimes people have a tendancy to lose sight of the point. Maybe it’s time to remind ourselves about our enemy.
[Translation provided by Reuters] : Excerpts from ‘Bin Laden’ tape : 4/15/2004
This is a message to our neighbours north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.
What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you, so that you know security is a necessity for all and we do not accept that you monopolise it for yourselves, and knowledgeable nations will not accept that their leaders risk their security.
Be aware that if you describe us and our actions as terrorism, then you should describe yourselves and your actions that way as well.
Our actions come in response to your actions of destroying and killing our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. It is enough to witness the event that shocked the world, the killing of the elderly, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, God have mercy on him, and we pledge to God to take revenge on America, God willing.
Under what grace are your victims innocent and ours dust, and under which doctrine is your blood blood and our blood water? Reciprocation is just, and he who starts is more unjust.
As for your leaders, and those who adopt their strategy, who insist on ignoring the real problem of the occupation of all of Palestine and who exaggerate in lying and denying our right to defend ourselves and to resist, they have no self-respect and belittle the faith and minds of people.
Their fallacy increases the shedding of your blood instead of stemming it. A review of the deaths in our land and your land reveal an important truth which is that there is injustice done to both us and you by your leaders who send your sons, despite your objections, to our land to kill and be killed.
It is in the interest of both parties not to give a chance to those who shed the blood of nations for their limited personal interest and obedience to the gang of the White House.
This war earns millions of dollars for big companies, whether those who manufacture weapons or those involved in reconstruction, such as Halliburton and its sisters and daughters.
And it becomes very clear who benefits from igniting the fires of this war and bloodshed: it is the traders of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind a curtain.
President [George W] Bush and leaders in his sphere, big media institutions, and the United Nations, which entrenches the relationship between the veto masters and the General Assembly slaves, are all instruments in deceiving and abusing people.
All of them are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous and difficult member, and we insist, God willing, on continuing to fight them.
Based on this, and to deprive war traders of opportunities, and in response to the positive reactions reflected in recent events and public polls showing that most European people want a truce, I urge the faithful, especially scholars, clerics and traders, to establish a permanent committee to build awareness
among Europeans of the justice of our causes, foremost Palestine, and make use of the vast media resources.
I offer a truce to them [Europe] with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including [participating] in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world.
This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. And the announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land, and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.
Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its [war’s] sons, and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it. Stop shedding our blood to save your own, and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands.
You know matters will escalate the more you delay, and then do not blame us, but blame yourselves. Rational people do not risk their security, money and sons to appease the White House liar.
The killing of Russians came after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the killing of Europeans came after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The killing of Americans on the day of New York came after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian peninsula, and their killing in Somalia came after they invaded it in an operation to "restore hope", so we returned them without hope, thank God.
Whether it’s from Bin Laden or just one of his deputies, you can read read this message and doubt that we are at war. Despite the fact that it contains more Democrat ‘Talking Points’ than logic, it should cause everyone to understand that his is not a battle that can be ignored. It will not just go away.
I can only offer a few words of George W. Bush that seem appropriate in response: "Over the last several decades, we’ve seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live in denial or seek to appease them. For the first time, the civilized world has provided a concerted response to the ideology of terror–a series of powerful, effective blows."
It’s interesting that we haven’t heard much from the 9/11 Commission over the last couple of days. We’ll get back to that, but first, I thought you might want the treat of reading and entry on this week’s list of Top Ten Conservative Idiots from Democratic Underground: [Author Unattributed] : The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 154) (5/3/2004):
4. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
Lord have mercy. The 9/11 Commission had to put up with the comedic stylings of dynamic duo Dubya and Crashcart last week, and while it would be interesting to know what the two most important people in the country had to say about the world’s worst terrorist attack, sorry - we’ll never know. Bush and Cheney were so adamant about giving their fullest cooperation to the Commission that they insisted a) on appearing together, holding hands, b) that there would be no recording made of the session, and c) that there would be no transcript made of the session either. A single commissioner was allowed to take notes - although I’m just guessing here, but he probably had to memorize them and swallow the notepaper afterwards. Bush was in good spirits after his meeting, telling reporters that, "I’m glad I did it. I’m glad I took the time… I enjoyed it." Well whoop-de-do! George enjoyed his meeting with the 9/11 Commission! What, did he sit in the corner playing Hungry Hungry Hippos while the adults talked about boring grown-up stuff? Our Great Leader also let a fairly obvious truth slip out, telling reporters that, "If we had something to hide, we would not have met with [them] in the first place." Hmmm. Well since he’s spent the last couple of years desperately trying to prevent the 9/11 Commission from coming into existence and even more desperately trying to avoid appearing in front of it, not to mention attempting to thwart their progress at every turn by withholding documents and witnesses, and bowing only when the political pressure became too great, it does kinda make you wonder.
I know that the Democratic Underground site is rife with ’satire’, so we can’t take anything too seriously. (Of course, it is interesting that it seems that only Republicans are the targets of all of this ’satire’… I guess they are just more serious or something!). Anyway, DU needs to know one thing. They didn’t quite get all of the quote from the President. As reported by Reuters (Bush, Cheney Answer 9/11 Questions for Over 3 Hours):
He dismissed criticism from Democrats that he wanted to appear together with Cheney so they would not contradict each other.
"Look, if we had something to hide we wouldn’t have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions. As I say, I came away good about the session because I wanted them to know how I set strategy, how we run the White House, how we deal with threats," Bush said.
…
Both Republican and Democratic members came away impressed. Democrat Timothy Roemer told CNN the panel asked "very tough questions, very respectful questions" and received "very direct and cooperative answers from the president and vice president."
A Republican commissioner, former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, said 95 percent of the questions were directed at Bush and that there were no adversarial moments.
Bush "was cool, he was passionate, he answered every question, he was knowledgeable and he was very much in charge," he said by telephone.
Thompson said he believed it was helpful to have Bush and Cheney together, and that occasionally Bush would ask Cheney to comment if he had a different view, "but that was rare."
Anyway, the cameras were not rolling and the commissioners could ask what they wanted. But the reason that we didn’t hear much in the media was that there was no ’smoking gun’ with which to bash Bush. He answered the questions. Without something to leak, there’s no ‘news’ in this story. So DU, and others like it, go back to complaining about Bush and Cheney appearing together and other nonsense. My guess is that they were not as concerned when Clinton appeared before the Commission, but did not do it alone.
Worse yet (and proving what the sharks gave up circling when no blood was apparent) - two Democratic members actually left the meeting early. This has to be about the strangest turn yet. No news here - right? The NY Post had a good editorial on the topic:New York Post Op/Ed : National Disgrace, Cont (4/30/2004):
We never thought former Sen. Bob Kerrey was taking seriously his responsibilities to the national 9/11 commission. But his insulting mid-meeting abandonment of President Bush’s sitdown with the body yesterday was beyond the beyond.
Kerrey and fellow Democrat Lee Hamilton bugged out early from the three-hour sitdown - each pleading "a prior engagement" - while Bush and Vice President Cheney sat calmly and answered the commission’s questions.
Almost as insulting as the walkout was commission Chairman Tom Kean’s decision to let it happen. Obviously, Hamilton, Kerrey and Kean don’t consider the panel’s probe to be all that important.
Imagine the furor had the White House declined to participate (or even sought to end the meeting early - say, to tend to the war).
Of course, the worst message sent yesterday was not so much that the panel had been politicized and lacked seriousness; that’s been clear for months.
No, it was that civility - and simple respect for the highest offices in the land - are dead and buried in Washington.
Beyond that, the 9/11 panel’s record so far has been abysmal.
* First came the quashing of Bush’s selection of a truly serious candidate, Henry Kissinger, to head the probe.
* Then panelists - including Kean himself - felt free to divulge conclusions, preferably on national TV, even before hearings had been completed.
* Members like Kerrey and Richard Ben-Veniste then politicized the hearings to rake Bush aides - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in particular - over the coals.
* Even as commissioner Jamie Gorelick - the Clinton aide whose policy memo erected a wall between intelligence agents, hindering efforts to uncover the 9/11 plot - refused to recuse herself.
And now this.
In good times, such contempt for the presidency - indeed, for the American political system, and the people it represents - would be despicable.
In the context of a mission as important as the 9/11 panel’s - and with a war on, no less - the members’ behavior is downright inexcusable.
Resignations are in order.
You know it’s going to be one of those days when Cynthia Tucker is due to write her latest opinion piece for the AJC. She usually enjoys taking the latest talking points position, updating the language, and throwing it out. There were no ’smiley faces’ at the end of her latest effort, so I can only assume that she actually means it: Cynthia Tucker : For Kerry, war dwarfs politics (5/3/2004):
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
– John Kerry, veteran, 1971
John Kerry’s campaign has suffered from a curious redefinition of patriotism and heroism — a revisionism that glorifies armchair warriors while denigrating combat veterans. His combat medals haven’t quieted the Bush campaign machine, which sends its minions out to denounce Kerry as unpatriotic and anti-military.
It is an odd thing, but it did not start here. Two years ago, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) defeated Max Cleland — a Vietnam veteran whose service left him a triple amputee — partly by challenging his patriotism. Chambliss doesn’t want to own up to that now, but many remember his attack ads that featured photos of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and questioned Cleland’s "courage." (Chambliss, by the way, avoided service in Vietnam because of what he says was a bad knee.)
This was not a smear reserved for Democrats. In the 2000 GOP presidential primary, the Bush machine did not hesitate before turning John McCain’s record as a prisoner of war against him. Recognizing in McCain a military résumé with which they could not compete, Bush strategists started a whisper campaign, insisting that McCain’s years in the custody of the North Vietnamese had left him "mentally unstable" and unfit for the presidency.
So it comes as no great surprise that the latest Bush tactic is to denounce Kerry for his activism against the Vietnam War. In a display of gall that can only be described as astounding, campaign strategist Karen Hughes, interviewed recently on CNN, insisted that reporters ought to prod more deeply into Kerry’s activities during the Vietnam War.
Indeed, they should (as they should further explore the activities of President Bush during that same war). What they will find in Kerry’s past is a young man who had the courage to say what so many were thinking and some, such as former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, only belatedly admitted — the war in Vietnam was folly, unwinnable, a quagmire.
Kerry was, as he now acknowledges, angry about the official lies, the ludicrous military strategies, the lives lost. His rhetoric, as he concedes, was over the top. But his crusade to end the war — based on his observations as a naval officer who had come under fire after volunteering for hazardous duty — was the very definition of patriotism.
That honorable definition may be returning to vogue as the war in Iraq grows increasingly unpopular. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, nearly half the country now questions the wisdom of the war. And nearly half — 46 percent — believe U.S. troops should come home as soon as possible.
Kerry doesn’t agree. Like Bush, he believes the United States must stay the course. Both men have suggested more troops may be sent to Iraq to quell the insurrection and create the stability needed to allow the Iraqis to elect a government. They may be right in their refusal to leave.
But, in public at least, Bush seems almost obscenely serene about his decision to send young Americans to die by the hundreds in Iraq. Never mind that he avoided combat in the relative safety of a National Guard “champagne unit” that sheltered other sons of the wealthy and well-connected.
His vice-president, Dick Cheney, is similarly self-righteous, though he had “other priorities” during the Vietnam era. Perhaps it is mere coincidence that his wife, Lynne Cheney, gave birth to their first child exactly nine months and two days after the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting childless married men.
Kerry, by contrast, has seen the waste of war up close. After the combat death of his close friend, Dick Pershing, in 1968, he wrote a letter to the girlfriend who would become his first wife, Judy: “If I do nothing else in my life I will never stop trying to bring to people the conviction of how wasteful and asinine is a human expenditure of this kind.”
He knows what it means to send other people’s children off to die.
You know, it’s very interesting that Republicans do so much attacking of people’s patriotism. In fact, it’s so amazing that they actually manage to do it without actually saying so… it’s lucky that we are alerted to the fact by the ‘victims’, such as Kerry himself. But nevertheless, let’s give the ’smear machine’ crowd their due here.
- First, his combat medals haven’t quieted anyone, because Kerry keeps bringing them up. Didn’t he throw them away in protest for the Viet Nam war? Or was it the ribbons? Or someone else’s medals. It’s all so silly. No matter what is said, he did serve in the Navy and did perform his duty for the four months he was in the conflict. Upon returning home, he was actively involved in campaigning against the war. That’s his right (the whole free speech thing does work!). It doesn’t mean that everyone has to like it. And now he admits that he was so filled with a desire to see the war end that he might have embellished a bit during his Congressional testimony about war attrocities. But service for the country, no matter how valiant, does not serve as an automatic pass forever. Does he support the military? He says he supports the military but opposes the war. He just showa his support differently than most, by regularly attempting to cut back and defund all things military while in the Senate.
- I know in Cynthia’s clouded memory, there must have been a dirty trick that caused Max Cleland to lose to Saxby Chambliss. The advertisements did not try to cast doubt on Cleland’s courage under fire in Viet Nam, but rather his courage to stand up for what is right. With nothing short of national security at stake, Cleland stayed tight with the national Democratic agenda and helped to hold back the Homeland Defense legislation until it was assured that the airport screeners would be organized into a Federal Employee Union, in order to provide a new Democratic support base. Chambliss called Cleland to task for that, pointing out that partisan politics plays into the hands of our enemies, including OBL. Voters were fed up too, and sent him packing. Neatly, this is somehow only remembered as an assult on patriotism by Democrats today.
- I don’t think anyone cares really what Kerry did with his medals or ribbons. But when he was presented with his obvious contradiction (don’t say ‘lies’) by Charlie Gibson on ABC, Kerry panicked and jumped back to the only obvious tact, blame someone else. So he jumped back to the ridiculous "Bush is AWOL" junk that supposedly he didn’t endorse. (Where is that Democratic smear machine again? … just checking). Acting as most four-year-olds would, he lashed out at Bush accusing him of everything, short short of having ’smelly feet’. I know that service was not supposed to be a litmus test ever since Bill (I’ll spend some time in England because it’s getting drafty over here) Clinton was running against war-hero Bob Dole. But Bush served in the National Guard. And I think that there are plenty of people who sacrifice with service in the National Guard units across the country who should be upset about how their service is being mocked with each comment.
- This is not about attacking Kerry’s patriotism. Perhaps he keeps bringing it up because he is worried about it. But this sniping at everyone else (attacking their patriotism???) does nothing but make every accuser look ignorant.
I know that Cynthia wants to beat the anti-war drum loud enough to try to make it sound like music. But Bush is not sending boys to die like it’s some video game.
Kerry served in Viet Nam, and this has changed his life. Let us hope he would also have the conviction to do the right things if he were President and we were attacked like 9/11. Could he send the troops to Afganistan? Could he send them to Iraq? Or is he, as Cynthia suggests, so affected by the visions of Viet Nam that he would avoid armed conflict that would mean even a single American life? Isn’t this exactly the view of terrorists who hope to turn public opinion by killing innocent people, like in Spain? Is 200 dead too high a price to secure freedom? 500? 700?
We are at war. We were at war for a while, but we just didn’t know it fully as a nation until 9/11. We can choose to fight with our military. Or we can choose to surrender now. But the fight will not just disappear, because we don’t want to face it.
