Michael Moore's letter to George W. Bush

[schwarzchildradius]

"How does that work? Didn't he win the popular vote?"

NO, in fact he was a few hundred thousand votes deficient.
True, most of Moore's letter is opinionated. Moore shows a lot of restraint, really, compared to his 'conservative' counterparts, who say things that are truly asinine, such as environmentalists do more damage than the terrorists of nine-eleven (Limbaugh).

 

[Artman]

Quote by schwarzchildradius...
NO, in fact he was a few hundred thousand votes deficient.

Thanks. I couldn't remember.

Quote by schwarzchildradius...
Moore shows a lot of restraint, really, compared to his 'conservative' counterparts, who say things that are truly asinine, such as environmentalists do more damage than the terrorists of nine-eleven (Limbaugh).

True. Limbaugh is a jerk too.

I'm not really politically aligned, I just think the letter is weak.

 

[grady]

This guy is just a liberal trying to spread FUD. Most of his argument is based on the idea that he speaks for everyone in the country. "Don't you know everyone thinks like this Mr. Bush". So sad, he should grow up and open his eyes.

 

[hybrid]

Originally posted by Artman
Does he know nothing about history? Hussien has been compared, and justifiably so, to Hitler. If you let a dictator grow in power he will not just go away or leave you alone.

How do you even begin to compare Hussien to Hitler. I have heard this quite a bit recently and am getting tired of it. Hitler and Hussien are incomparable, here's why:

1)Adolf Hitler had one of the most powerfull war machines in the history of the world. Hussien has a few loyal units and a lot of defectors.

2)Adolf Hitler was able to ADVANCE on multiple fronts for years. Hussein could not even DEFEND ONE front for a period of months.

3)Hitler's people followed him because they BELIEVED IN HIM and his cause. Husseins followers follow because they are terrified.

Hussein is not the next hitler, and anybody who says otherwise is...well...to use your words "knows nothing about history!"

peace

 

[hybrid]

First off, Moore's letter is weak. He could have written far more elegantly and with far better arguments. And as for his comments when he won the oscar, well, PATHETIC!

Now let's get this straight, I saw and really enjoyed his movie. It brought to light a plethora of issues which I felt had been in the dark far too long. However, there is a time and place for everything and the Oscars is neither the time or place for his anti-bush speech.

Second, I am not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian nor do I have any political orientation. I vote on issues which I feel are important and definitely not my pocketbook! I am non-partisan and plan to remain that way. From this point of view I feel that this war is not just at this moment. I believe we should take care of the problems in our own country before we go around and fix everybody elses.

As for Bush's approval ratings...well, they say that the majority of American's are for this war. But do you know how they got this? You may be surprised. It was not with a poll, rather it was by observing demonstrators. Thats right! The Bush admin. said "ok, since only 25% of americans are protesting, that means that 75% are for this war!" Thats the truth it came from a white house press conference. Ill try to find the actual article to back this up because I know there will be many people here who do not believe me.

peace

 

[climbhi]

Originally posted by hybrid
Ill try to find the actual article to back this up because I know there will be many people here who do not believe me.

I'm one of 'em! Seriously I don't think any whitehouse administration would ever try and pass of such logic, and I'm pretty sure that even if there is a quote to that nature it has been distorted out of context to try and slander the Bush administration. This logic is absurd, I mean during the clinton years you didn't see anyone outside protesting for tax cuts but I bet that an official poll woulda shown at least 95% of americans woulda wanted them...

 

[Artman]

Hitler was followed at first because he promised to lift Germany out of the depression it entered following the first world war. Later, after he gained power, he was followed because of fear. Not because the country agreed with his policies. Even his own military leaders plotted to kill him.

Hitler was a mass murderer of his own citizens for his own twisted religious and racial reasons, so is Hussien.

Here is a site that lists ten other reasons

http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol63/89/OpEd2/8921198/8921198.html

 

[FZ+]

Hitler was followed at first because he promised to lift Germany out of the depression it entered following the first world war. Later, after he gained power, he was followed because of fear. Not because the country agreed with his policies. Even his own military leaders plotted to kill him.

Hmm...

Disagree.

Fear covered only a very small percentage of Germany's citizens - those were the hardliners, the communists, the jews etc. The propaganda ministry worked hard to prevent knowledge of what was going on, the reverse of what would have been done to promote general fear. Read up on the "resettlement to the East myth".
The attempted assassination of Hitler came near the end of the second world war, when germany was losing. The motivation of the assassin was not to remove the fear, but to put them in a position where they can sue for peace, and preserve German sovreigntry. They thought that surrender to the west would prevent the destruction by the Russians.
The primary tool was indoctrination. Children were sent to the HJ. Adults were enlisted in various Nazi led groups, and even a nazified religion. Foreign policy worked well as long as the germans were winning.

The correct comparision is not Saddam with Hitler, but Saddam with Stalin. Stalin was in fact what Saddam modeled himself on.

 

[FZ+]

Hell, for the full 10 item list...

1. Like Stalin, Saddam intended to carve out a superpower position for Iraq.
2. Like Stalin, Saddam engaged in a Arabfication movement for Kurdish minority groups to get into line.
3. Like Stalin, Saddam engaged in a vast sweeping modernisation movement.
4. Like Stalin, Saddam has been aided by being placed as the lesser of two evils against another enemy, Iran.
5. Saddam's policy has evolved to be mostly defensive. Building fortress Iraq. He holds his possession of power as paramount.
6. Saddam was mostly isolationist in terms of economic policy.
7. Saddam was not precisely genocidal but was ruthless in dealing with rebellion.
8. Saddam saw unconventional weapons as means to an end, tactical systems rather than strategic ones.
9. Saddam used the idea of "making examples of enemies" as of prime importance.
10. Saddam positioned himself as a hero of the arab people, in a secular system.

... and in the vein of the pointless original...

11. Saddam has a mustache and facial structure exactly like Stalin.
12. Saddam follows Stalin's dress code.
13. Saddam is non-religious.
14. Saddam has an alliance with Russia, which he does not betray.

 

[Artman]

Thank you FZ+, I have also heard him compared to Stalin. This makes him no less frightening.

Your description of Germany during the time of Hitler supports my main point, which was that the people did not support Hitler because they agreed with his policies. I will change my point from fear to the majority following out of ignorance.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Artman
Thank you FZ+, I have also heard him compared to Stalin. This makes him no less frightening.

Your description of Germany during the time of Hitler supports my main point, which was that the people did not support Hitler because they agreed with his policies. I will change my point from fear to the majority following out of ignorance.

Don't forget MONEY.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Artman
Thank you FZ+, I have also heard him compared to Stalin. This makes him no less frightening.

Your description of Germany during the time of Hitler supports my main point, which was that the people did not support Hitler because they agreed with his policies. I will change my point from fear to the majority following out of ignorance.

But it gets rid of the tiresome Bush = Churchill comparisons, and knocks out the dire Rhineland/Paris jokes. And prevents the knee-jerk quips at the UN.

Well, it was a combination of the two. What the government told them, they agreed with. What they wouldn't agree with, you weren't told. Anti-Semitism and stuff were prevalent in Germany and indeed in the US way before the Nazis. (Some historical evidence on how the US and Britain refused to act when various nazi leaders were negotiating as a bargaining chip many thousands of condemned Jewish conc camp inmates. Not because they do not deal with the enemy, but because they couldn't handle the immigration... I forgot where I saw it.)

 

[Soveraign]

Good lord.

There are so many factual errors in his letter it's silly. Regardless of whether you feel liberating Iraq is a good or bad thing, I can't see why anyone would prop up Mr. Moore.

"There is virtually no one in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war."

Well no freaking duh. Nobody likes war. I believe this falls into the "straw man" category of arguing your side by putting up an easily defeatable (and incorrect) version of your opposition's view.

"The majority of Americans – the ones who never elected you – are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction."

He should read the constitution. Should take about an hour if he reads really slow. Heck, just skip to the part about the electoral system. If he wants it to be purely popular vote then there is even a way to get that done! (via amendment)

"The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them."

He must live in a fantasy world. Poll after poll showed support before the war. And as far as the rest of the world? Well, I surely wouldn't want all those other countries deciding my country's national security issues.

"The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope!"

Popes in the past also said the Earth was flat.

"Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits."

Since when did having a son or daughter in the military become a prereq. for making national security decisions? There is no substance here.

"Finally, we love France."

This paragraph just gets buddy-buddy with those who agree with him. Nothing here of substance to the topic at hand. He give some historical evidence (oho! evidence when it looks to be in his favor!) on how we owe France. Of course more recent history paints a very different picture of how France handles their foreign affairs *today* (more than just this recent spout).

"Well, cheer up - ..."

Oh look, a funny! This works great in high school when you are trying to win the favor of your peers, but please, do you have anything to say here?

"Kill Iraqis – they got our oil!"

Does he actually believe this? I mean really. Do folks here believe this?