Friday, April 16, 2004


I wanted to make a record of this, in some place where I can find it quickly, for the next time someone tells me Michael Moore is not anti-American, just anti-Bush, and that he's a good liberal on the old noble tradition of that school.

This was published on his Web site Wednesday, April 14, 2004. It's titled "Heads Up ... from Michael Moore." It's addressed to "Friends," and it's a rambling diatribe about Bush's press conference. It begins like this:

I have never seen a head so far up a Presidential ass (pardon my Falluja) than the one I saw last night at the "news conference" given by George W. Bush. He's still talking about finding "weapons of mass destruction" -- this time on Saddam's "turkey farm."

Ungrammatical in the first sentence ("so far ... than"), flat-out wrong in the second (it was Ghadhafi, not Saddam who had mustard gas hidden on a turkey farm). But what did you expect?

Well, "plenty," probably, if you're like some of the people sitting around me now. In the media office where I work, Moore is a sort of demi-god (full divinity is reserved only for Chomsky). His book is always prominently displayed on soneone's desk, and his face is always beaming as someone's screen saver. He's even been suggested to me as a "cure" for my bad thinking.

This is the part that address what Moore sees as "the Iraq sinkhole" and what he'd like to see happen there.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

Coincidentally, I was having this conversation last night, over beers, with a war opponent who also happens to have a son in the 4ID, just back from Iraq. If you block out about 90 percent of the view of the thing, you can actually see parallels between insurgents in Iraq -- or anywhere -- and American colonial revolutionaries. The weaker side in an uneven struggle will tend to break the rules of war. It intimidates civilians and fights with guerilla tactics. All wars, on the level of the soldiers, are grim survival struggles.

But take just one step back and the difference becomes obvious. The revolutionaries of 1776 had made a statement of what they were fighting for. It is in the Declaration of Independence, especially in Jefferson's preamble. They were fighting for Enlightenment values: freedom, liberty, opportunity.

The Islamist insurgents in Iraq know what they are fighting for, too. They, too, have declared their cause. They want to turn the clock back to the 14th century. They want to enslave and mutilate women, murder Westerners, and exterminate the Jews. They want to impose a Dark Ages fundamentalist theology on half the world and keep the other half in fear and poverty.

... There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

Michael Moore does not want better lives for the people of Iraq. He doesn't want international cooperation or a stronger United Nations. He does not want to bring the boys home.

He wants them to die. He wants your sons and brothers and mother ... to die. He seeks collective retribution against America. At least with bin Laden you get a certain eloquence, and sometimes some Arabic poetry, with your death sentence. With Moore, all you get are potty jokes.

Is it unreasonable to assume, given this clear statement from Moore, that he is giving money to the "Minutemen" in Iraq? Or that he is giving money to organizations that find a way to put the powder in their muskets? Is it possible for any honest American to put money in his pockets in that case?

Rush Limbaugh may be a big fat idiot (I don't pay any attention to him, so I don't know). But I think I'd rather be on the side of a big fat idiot than a murderous moron.