My response to Dave Winer's post about Michael Moore's new movie has generated a lot (for me) comments. I appreciate the comments whether you're in agreement with me or not. I'd like to address them for a moment with this post. Dave Winer, in his response to my post, asks:
Who was it who said that "I disagree with everything he says but I'll fight to the death for his right to say it."
The answer, at least according to a letter printed in this article, is Rush Limbaugh (though he was probably quoting someone else). I feel the same way about Rush, but if he were to make a movie, I'd at least see it before speaking out against it. ;) And, I'd also like to point out that I am NOT making the claim (and I said this before) that Fahrenheit 9/11 is unbiased journalism. I don't think even Mr. Moore himself is that audacious. So with that, let me jump in.
Did I Miss the Point?
Randy says I miss the point because one of the senators has a nephew on the way to Afghanistan. However, for the record, the reason we went to Afghanistan is NOT the same reason we went to Iraq. Even the administration (when they try to get their story straight) will admit to that somewhat. Secondly, Moore does mention in the movie that one congress person has a son or relative in Iraq. I wish he had interviewed that person, but the fact that he didn't interview this one person out of the 433 (active) members of the House and 100 senators does not make the scene pointless.
Who Said Germany Attacked The US?
Several commenters questioned my grasp of history. Kris asks "Germany attacked the UNited States in WW2?. Anon.penet.fi says, "We were attacked by Germany prior to entering world war II? Really?... *snip* Seems like your grasp of history is pretty selective...". Why is everyone talking about Germany? I never said Germany. I'm referring to a little event called Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 in which the Japanese attacked the United States on U.S. soil. Though we supported the war effort prior to this event, we didn't enter the war until this event.
Is It Primarily The Poor In The Military
Kris says, "'primarily of the poorer sections of society' ... spoken like a true college graduate. What about the pro football player Pat Tillman?".
Are you implying that the army is primarily made up of NFL football players? No offense intended, but I assume you're not a statitician nor a demographer. My college education taught me not to look at anecdotal evidence as fact. I didn't claim everyone in the military is poor. My dad was in the military, he didn't come from that poor a family. However, the military attracts many more people from the less affluent than the more affluent. The rich don't need the GI bill to send their kid to college.
What About Putin?
Richard points out that Putin warned the U.S. about possible Iraqi terror attacks. That's actually an interesting point, but it's too early to say much about it, since that just came out recently and I don't know enough about it as it relates to timing and specificity. Richard's point leads into a whole 'nother discussion about the doctrine of preemption etc, of which I think is a mistake.
Whatever his goals, Michael Moore succeeding in generating a lot of discussion, even from those who haven't seen the movie. I agree that asking congress people to send their kids to Iraq is a ridiculous proposition, especially since you can't compell another person to join. It's a personal decision. But I still contend that Moore makes a good point with that stunt. Basically, its the point of the movie:
They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?
Like I said, I appreciate the comments.