http://www.perryonpolitics.com/archives/001930.html
Worth going to the page for all the comment hoohah, not much of which will surprise but it's interesting seeing who at least tries to parse the post and who rehashes what they already think. But as for the main post itself, from a serving Army member in Iraq, I shall quote it all. The amount of weird doublespeak throughout is seemingly apparent to me...but I'm interested in your thoughts first and foremost. But suffice to say that the first few paragraphs alone make me severely doubt he empathizes with his fellow soldiers at all, and I don't even think he realizes it.
--
Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing is around. The impact is devastating.
Here we are, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore's film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed. Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has.
There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's.
There are others who joined for reasons of money and other benefits, and never gave full thought to the issues. For them, seeing this film has jolted them grievously because they never even knew where some of these countries were that we have been serving in. Imagine the impact this film has on them.
And there are those who are hurting from being away from family and loved ones. They are burnt out, already hurting inside from 15 months of duty out here, and now to be hit w/ this film.. it is devastating.
Lastly, there are those like me, who want to explode in anger and rage at this abuse of the First Amendment and the way Moore has twisted reality so harshly.
Specialist Janecek, who is feeling depressed because a close family member is nearing the end of her life, just saw the film today. I saw him in the DFAC. He is devastated. "I feel shitty, ashamed, like this was all a lie." Not only is he looking at going straight to a funeral when he returns home, but now whatever pride he felt for serving here has been crushed by Moore's film. Specialist Everett earlier after seeing the film: "You'll be mad at shit for ever having come here."
And there are others. Mostly the comments are absolute shock at the close connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. "Bush looks really really REALLY corrupt in this film. I just don't know what to think anymore," is a common comment to hear. Some of these soldiers are darn right ashamed tonight to be American soldiers, to have been apart of this whole mission in Iraq, and are angry over all that Moore has presented in his film.
We know this is all based on Moore's lies and deceptions. But we, I'm afraid, are a minority. Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore's work.
What these good yet impressionable soldiers don't realize is that twisting reality and manipulating the truth is something lawyers do every day in court for their clients. OJ Simpson, so clearly guilty in the ghastly murders, was able to get off because his lawyer team completely confused the issue. Now today, in typical fashion, Moore is doing the very same thing in this film. This is, frankly, the nature of political debate in a democracy -- especially when extremism is allowed to go unchecked.
Lt. Bischoff is so angry he could explode. He knows Moore's work is based on lies and distortions, but as he says, "the damage is done." Clearly, this is the type of thing we expect from angry leftists like Moore. What we didn't expect was the full impact this film is now having and how it has been embraced and supported by so many Hollywood elites. Lt. Bischoff says Moore's film is a work of deception, lies and distortions that when seen by those unfamiliar w/ the issues involved, has the effect of attacking the American peoples' resolve and focus in this war.
From what I've heard from the soldiers, the things that have them most shocked and upset them are the connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. The impression is that Bush is part of a conspiracy that supported the September 11th terrorist attacks. They speak of how Moore makes a convincing case all the way from the 2000 election to now that Bush and Cheney are all about making money. That the September 11th attacks were merely calculated by them as to how they would earn them more money. They speak of the Saudi who was a fellow soldier w/ Bush in the National Guard, and how Moore makes it all look like Bush is more beholden to Saudi interests than US interests.
Moore's commentary and striking video stunts, such as confronting politicians w/ enlistment papers for their kids, of course hurts and affects these soldiers out here badly. These are the ones who have sacrificed much to serve. Moore's stunt is powerful.
I sometimes want to be mad at my fellow soldiers for being susceptible to Moore's distortions, but I can't really blame them. These are good Americans, who have volunteered to serve our country. Nothing says they all have to be experts in Middle Eastern issues and history and politics to serve. That would be silly. ...But this is, of course, the vulnerability that Moore has exploited.
I wonder how damaging and shocking a Moore project would have been in the 1940s making such a video of Franklin Roosevelt. All the corruption and decadence in that administration would have fed such a project well. Or how damaging and shocking would such a Moore project have been to Lincoln, who wavered and shifted often in finding the right mediums and balances in pursuing the great causes of the Civil War. ...Need I even suggest the impact such would have had on Kennedy or Johnson and all their hypocrisies?
Moore is hurting us, hurting America, and today I can tell you he is hurting your soldiers. I don't know what to ask, except that good people out there find ways to organize information so that we can better counter Moore's impact. Is there anyone in Hollywood who is willing to stand up and make a similar film to counter Moore's? I know good people w/ integrity in the film industry don't want to be seen as pushing a political agenda in movies. But this is EXACTLY what Moore and the radical leftists in Hollywood have done. Is there no way to put together a response to them?
I hope more people will arm themselves w/ the facts and the realities of the situation out here and in the world at large. Our political arena is taking a big hit from this film by Moore, and it should tell us all something when terrorist groups like Hezbollah are distributing it around to their own people.
I think it is sad and unfortunate that at this last hour of a long and difficult deployment, so many soldiers are being made to feel ashamed and "shitty" for having ever served in this whole mission. Moore has abused the First Amendment. This is his right, and we soldiers have defended that right, but we who know better should NOT just sit back and let such enemies w/in our own country get by w/ such assaults unanswered.
---
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:32 (twenty-one years ago)
(and I'm not sure why it deserves its own thread but who cares.)
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:43 (twenty-one years ago)
Not thatI'm a Michael Moore Fan but still.
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:47 (twenty-one years ago)
Of course they've been lied to about what they're doing. And if they end up believing that the whole thing is some conspiracy between Bush and bin Laden, they won't be any nearer the truth. But at least they'll be thinking someone didn't tell them the whole story.
We haven't heard the last of Fahrenheit 9/11. I think that movie is going to reverberate through unexpected pockets of the culture in ways that won't be appreciated for a while.
― spittle (spittle), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― increasingly technologically illiterate (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 05:00 (twenty-one years ago)
It's ALL over BitTorrent right now. Moore himself has said that he's not adverse to folks making copies of any of his movies available for free on the net and that's fanned a lot of the distribution.
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 05:24 (twenty-one years ago)
What do righties think the motivation behind so-called angry leftists who distort the truth? Self-hatred in the form of hatred of one's own country? Selfish desire to get the populace on their side in order to gain power for themselves? Or do they not even get as far as trying to understand the psychology of the Left?
― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 06:44 (twenty-one years ago)
― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 06:47 (twenty-one years ago)
This from a person who's in the 1st Armored Division.
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:22 (twenty-one years ago)
This is the bit that's depressing.
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:24 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:28 (twenty-one years ago)
Why does it matter? The article's certainly biased, but the sentiment expressed in it isn't -- that a film like Moore's can be incredibly damaging to the psyche of the grunts depicted. And namecalling (even passively 'it's far too easy...') just averages the level of discourse, so let's try not to be too condescendatory in our rebuttles, ehh?
― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:40 (twenty-one years ago)
― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― briania (briania), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)
I see this argument but it's a very strange one to me. The implication is that somehow said troops haven't once had any discussion with anyone -- friends, family, fellow troops, etc. -- about the whole thing, that this is entirely some unexpected bolt out of the blue. That a number of them are affected this way is certainly likely enough, but Roche in his article ultimately draws a line between two groups -- angry people like him who apparently 'knew' what was coming and were already predisposed to hate the film and everyone else who supposedly didn't know and therefore swallowed everything whole. I don't buy that.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)
OTM. It's somewhat difficult to decipher, and he's certainly not above a certain type of down-the-nose cynicism. I wonder if, at least in small part, he mightn't have hated MM's film as much as he said and this whole response is a weird anxiety-of-influence thing?
― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/RochePage.html
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:33 (twenty-one years ago)
― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:39 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:40 (twenty-one years ago)
― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- Filmmaker Michael Moore is bringing his blockbuster documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to President Bush's adopted hometown -- and has invited the film's star to attend.
When it appeared that no movie theater in the president's home county would show the anti-Bush documentary, Moore promised a copy to the Crawford Peace House, a facility for seminars, meetings, or workshops dedicated to peace.
― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)
As a veteran who served during the Gulf War, I can certainly understand SPC Roche's exasperation with low morale, but his source of blame is misguided. If anything, Michael Moore's film has given voice to many of the frustrations soldiers are feeling right now. I was personally devastated by the testimonials of soldiers on the field in the film, because I could immediately empathize with these young men and women, having been there myself. Any soldier can smell bad leadership from a mile away, and that can be more deflating than any film out of Hollywood.
Posted by: John Livaudais at July 27, 2004 12:34 PM
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)
Don't you think it's useful to know the rationale behind someone's thoughts/beliefs/actions?
― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)
Yes, but I think they're worn fairly pinned to the sleeve of the article... it's toeing the party line. And if you look above I've retracted a bit of that statement already.
Additionally, I can't tell if you're asking that question sincerely or disingenuously so it's difficult to gauge how much time I should spend responding.
― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:04 (twenty-one years ago)
Yeah, it's almost as if he's begging for the film to be debunked, so that he can feel secure in his beliefs once more.
― Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.ak13.com/article.php?id=236&PHPSESSID=d05e6fd4bf0e06905acfe530faa7e74c
― Jimmybommy JimmyK'KANG (Nick Southall), Friday, 27 August 2004 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)