An Open Letter from Michael Moore to George "I'm a War President!" Bush

[Chewbacca]

Time magazine has four key questions about Bush's guard service in the most recent issue:

How Well Did He Serve?
Bush said he reported for duty in Alabama, but even with the new documents, the evidence is thin. TIME looks at four key questions



edit-I think the issue has relevance with regards to credibility. How does the actual truth determined by evidence stack-up against statements made concerning it? The gap between the two gives one pause for consideration and is far more substantial than some juicy and so-far baseless infidelity rumor.

[ 02-18-2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Mouse]

Why should Michael Moore (who I can take or leave) have to question/expose all sides equally to have credibility? He's a "liberal" and undermining centre-right groups and interests is what he has specialised in and does best.

It's a bit like criticising a consultant dermatologist because he does not dedicate equal time to performing open heart surgery.

[ 02-18-2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: NOBODY should ask Clinton about Monica. Nobody should ask Kerry about that woman. NOBODY SHOULD CARE! It should NOT matter! No. We shouldn't care what people do in the bedroom. This extends from Monicagate to gay marriage. I realize that some people say, "By becoming a politician, these men put their private lives on public display." I'm saying it shouldn't be that way. Unless a 'transgression' has something to do with their leadership, or makes them a hypocrite, the public shouldn't care about the sex lives of public figures.

Why shouldn't the allegations against Clinton and Kerry matter? Both are married men (at least I think Kerry is married). That means that both mean presumably took vows to "forsake all other women". Clinton admitted to breaking those vows and Kerry is accused of doing the same (although the allegations against Kerry seem far less substantive). So that does make Clinton a hypocrite and could possibly make Kerry one also.

But if you say that current (or recent) allegations of sexual misconduct shouldn't matter, then I submit that an alleged discrepency in George Bush's service record from 3 decades ago also shouldn't matter. The National Guard gave him an Honorable Discharge. Technically, that should close the book on any allegations of him being AWOL.

However, all of that is really a moot point. MY point is that Michael Moore should subject liberals to the same microscopic inspection and satirical wit that he has used on the conservatives...but you ain't gonna see it happen.

Until Moore DOES treat BOTH sides of the political fence equally, he will not earn my respect.

One final note on Bush's supposed AWOL incident - I found documents back in the summer of 2002 that supported his claim that he was not AWOL when this issue first came up. I've searched the Archives, however, and cannot find the thread now. But I did find Sign-In and Payroll sheets that verified his location during the time in question. I assume it is the same documents he released to the press last week, but these documents were accessible on the web nearly 2 years ago, so it isn't like they were just created to quiet the current controversy. [/QUOTE]I said sexual behavior. Bush's AWOL issue is important because it makes him a damn hypocrite, sending other peoples' children off to die when he himself. It's also important when he prances around on a deck in a flight suit claiming to be a War President.
Now, if Clinton had claimed to be the Family Values President, hell, I'd be the first to point to his indescretions.
But he didn't.

[Oblivion437]

I find Moore amusing. I especially find amusing how people wholeheartedly believed in Bowling for Columbine and Stupid White Men without contesting it for so much as a second. I am especially amused by how so obviously fictitious a work could win an Oscar, and then how Moore has the nerve to use this undeserved award receivership as a spot to spout his views, for which he was booed off the stage. You would never see Martin Scorsese or Stanley Kubrick or even another leftist like Warren Beatty turning the spot into a platform for spouting political views. What's more, Moore always shows up 3 years too late. I was reading about Bush's draft record long before it was a national or even Texas-wide issue, back in the mid-90's. He even went so far as to say what was already on everyone's mind in such a fashion as to precipitate a deserved smack across the face and a kick in the tuckus for being so redundant. Really, no man turned me off to the idealisms of the left more than he.

[ 02-18-2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I said sexual behavior. Bush's AWOL issue is important because it makes him a damn hypocrite, sending other peoples' children off to die when he himself. It's also important when he prances around on a deck in a flight suit claiming to be a War President. Now, if Clinton had claimed to be the Family Values President, hell, I'd be the first to point to his indescretions. But he didn't.

This is the key point here. Bush is a hypocrite and thats what Moore is picking up on. Clinton was not a hypocrite in sleeping with Lewinski to my mind - maybe he shouldn't have done it but I don't think he was a hypocrite for doing it. Clinton was not like the 90s Conservatives over here who ran on family values agendas and then got caught sleeping around, Mellor for example. David Mellor was unfaithful like Clinton, but for me its a completely different issue as Mellor was at the time making a lot of fuss about family values and single parent families.

Also theres the relative importance issue. The war is more important than sexual practices, and thats why Moore focuses on it. And before anyone asks yes, I know that means the Conservatives over here can't be criticised too strongly for their infidelities, but I'm happy with that. I can find a hell of a lot more to criticise the Major government for without recourse to that.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Mouse: Why should Michael Moore (who I can take or leave) have to question/expose all sides equally to have credibility? He's a "liberal" and undermining centre-right groups and interests is what he has specialised in and does best. It's a bit like criticising a consultant dermatologist because he does not dedicate equal time to performing open heart surgery.

I disagree, Mouse. A more accurate comparison would be to say that Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh will gain my respect when they BLAST the right-conservatives with the same unadulterated zeal with which they attack the left.

Of the three, I find O'Reilly amusing sometimes, but the very first time I saw him (or actually his publicist) on TV, I thought the guy was a total jerk with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. I'm sure most liberals would agree with that assessment. I consider Moore and Limbaugh both to be completely intolerable.

I also don't want to seem like I'm dragging Clinton out of the closet and throwing him back at the liberals as a counter to the attack Moore made on President Bush. It's just that Clinton is the ONLY recent example we have by which to judge the actions of a Democratic liberal President.

I do find it laughable, though, that a man who has admitted to committing perjury in a grand jury investigation is not considered a hypocrite. Bush may be evasive and secretive, but Clinton would (and DID) sit in his chair, look the American public in the eye, and lie through his teeth.

[Night Stalker]

And don't forget the Lewinski thing didn't come up until Clinton was in two or three sexual harrasment cases. It's not like he lied to some reporter about allegations of a scandal. He sought to obstruct justice in a civil suit against him. If he was lying to the National Inquirer, I could care less, that wasn't the case though. To be fair to him, I don't think the suit should have gone to court until he was out of office.

As for Mr Moore, can't stand him. He purposely distorts facts, fabricate tales and is an overall general snob in his crusade to "bring the light of truth" in *cough*documentries*cough* and promulgate his political agenda.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: Why should Michael Moore (who I can take or leave) have to question/expose all sides equally to have credibility? He's a "liberal" and undermining centre-right groups and interests is what he has specialised in and does best. It's a bit like criticising a consultant dermatologist because he does not dedicate equal time to performing open heart surgery.

I disagree, Mouse. A more accurate comparison would be to say that Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh will gain my respect when they BLAST the right-conservatives with the same unadulterated zeal with which they attack the left.

Of the three, I find O'Reilly amusing sometimes, but the very first time I saw him (or actually his publicist) on TV, I thought the guy was a total jerk with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. I'm sure most liberals would agree with that assessment. I consider Moore and Limbaugh both to be completely intolerable.

I also don't want to seem like I'm dragging Clinton out of the closet and throwing him back at the liberals as a counter to the attack Moore made on President Bush. It's just that Clinton is the ONLY recent example we have by which to judge the actions of a Democratic liberal President.

I do find it laughable, though, that a man who has admitted to committing perjury in a grand jury investigation is not considered a hypocrite. Bush may be evasive and secretive, but Clinton would (and DID) sit in his chair, look the American public in the eye, and lie through his teeth. [/QUOTE]Bush may or may not have done the same thing. Time will tell, I suppose...
::sighs::

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: As for Mr Moore, can't stand him. He purposely distorts facts, fabricate tales and is an overall general snob in his crusade to "bring the light of truth" in *cough*documentries*cough* and promulgate his political agenda.

Thank you, Night Stalker. You summed up my feelings for Michael Moore far better than I could myself. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Bush may or may not have done the same thing. Time will tell, I suppose... ::sighs::

I agree completely. I don't foresee President Bush being brought before a grand jury investigation, so I doubt he will actually commit perjury...but time will indeed tell whether or not he has lied to the American public over and over again.

Of course, there is also the very small chance that he has acted on the best information he had and that he also acted on information that has not yet been made public. So it may be as long as 25-30 years before these top secret documents become declassified and we learn if Bush actually knew something the American public didn't and based his actions on that knowledge as well as the intelligence information he received.

It's also possible any documents that are eventually released may prove beyond any doubt that he is nothing but a big, fat liar.

As you said, time will tell what George W. Bush's Presidential legacy will be.