Broken Clocks
Jim summed up Mikey’s screed nicely in the previous post. There is, however, one small section I want to focus on.
Let’s assume that’s true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn’t “misled,” and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren’t “misled” either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet… we knew we were being lied to!
We’ve all heard the expression that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Michael Moore opposes war. All war. Especially when it could in any way conceivably benefit America. He opposed Afghanistan. He opposed Kosovo, going so far as to make the asinine assertion that it inspired the Columbine killers. He opposed the first Gulf War. He opposed the Cold War. He just opposes ALL WAR.
Now, let’s look at what he wrote. By his own admission he had no inside information. He wasn’t briefed by the CIA. He isn’t an expert on national security. He’d never gone on a weapons tour of Iraq. Yet somehow, mysteriously, he just KNEW he was being lied to. My question is, how did he know?
Imagine, for a second, if I wrote the following. “I didn’t graduate from Harvard medical school. I hadn’t been Chief of Thoracic Surgery at John’s Hopkins for the past ten years. I hadn’t done over 600 heart transplants. But I KNEW that my child didn’t need surgery.” Sounds pretty ignorant, doesn’t it? Even if it turned out that, in the end, the surgery was indeed unnecessary, so what? The doctor was basing his opinion on his education and years of experience, and the parent is basing it on a gut feeling. When it comes to making critical decisions, which do you think is a more prudent course of action? President Bush makes a lot of his decisions based on “gut feeling” and we can all see how well those turned out, can’t we?
So, back to Mikey. Somehow, through some mystical, magical process he just “knew” that this war was bad. I imagine he “knew” this in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian “knows” that fags are going to burn in hell, or that a suicide bomber “knows” that there will be 72 virgins waiting for him in Paradise.
Here we have a guy who just opposes all war, period. Eventually he opposes a war which, guess what, turns out to be a disaster. Then, completely disregarding all the other wars he’s opposed in the past and been wrong about, he hails himself as possessing some kind of mysterious power of prognostication, wherein he “knew” that something was up with this war. This despite the fact that, by his own admission, the very people who had access to all the information and data disagreed with him. But somehow he “knew.”
So, which is more likely. Did he “know” something, or did the broken clock just happen to be right this time?
Comments
he also knew John Kerry was going to win the election!
oh wait
"He just opposes ALL WAR.”
Well, unless it was a socialist lead war / revolution.... But they have that covered… since ‘the system’ and or capitalism causes all war, by fighting war to overthrow it, they are fighting against war… and/or for peace. :)
“Eventually he opposes a war which, guess what, turns out to be a disaster.”
It was going ok until his pals and fellow fighters for peace, the minutemen, aka the resistence, blew up the golden domed mosque… full of innocent people…
Whenever I am faced with one of these peace-loving moonbats who say they “oppose all wars” and that “all wars are wrong/illegal/immoral” I ask them what their feelings are on the American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII and the Korean War.
It’s fun watching how fast they can back pedal!
Posted by yngcelt on 01/03/2008 at 03:44 PM (Link to this comment | ) “Whenever I am faced with one of these peace-loving moonbats who say they “oppose all wars” and that “all wars are wrong/illegal/immoral” I ask them what their feelings are on the American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI, WWII and the Korean War. It’s fun watching how fast they can back pedal!”
That’s downright sane compared to my moonbats. They’d be against them. Some were even trashing the American revolution over the last few years saying it was pointless… Cunkistan got independence without a war…
The real nuts, they don’t squirm unless you ask about the Cuba revolution, or lat am leftwing ‘liberation’ wars, or ho ho ho chi min’s war.... Even Mikey refused to answer Hitchens when he pressed him on whether he was an actual pacifist or not (because he’s not, he supports violence… from his chosen anti western / pro socialist side)… the less nuttier nuts don’t squirm on these, they’re against these too…
Not defending Mikey here, cos I don’t think he actually has an ideology outside of shit stirring moonbattery - but there were lots of us saying that the war was a bad idea and giving reasons that we thought it was a bad idea.
We were saying that we shouldn’t invade unless we had conclusive proof and that the evidence that was presented didn’t convince us of a credible threat. We were saying that violence in the middle east would galvanise support for the extremists, and that take the focus off Afghanistan. We were saying that ‘preemptive strikes’ were a dangerous precident to set. We were saying that the plans we were hearing for the invasion vastly oversimplified the situation, and would not work… check the archives its all there…
Yes there were a lot of arguments that fell squarely on the anti-bush mantra, but definately in the UK the marches I went on were mainly populated by people who knew what they were talking about…
ilovecress, those are all fine arguments.
And I think we’ll give some credit to those who made those arguments before the war.
But a lot of people made a lot of other lame arguments. Haliburton, war for oil, neomarxist crap… For them, nothing.
Not to get too far OT here, but ilovecress, what kind of evidence would have convinced you of a credible threat?
Posted by bismarck on 01/04/2008 at 09:38 AM (Link to this comment | ) “Not to get too far OT here, but ilovecress, what kind of evidence would have convinced you of a credible threat?”
Probably a big mushroom cloud. :)
Even the term preemption is a bit of spin… the guy had years and years and warning after warning to get in line. To consider it a preemptive attack seems odd. If anything it was an attack to back up our years of demands / threats that were flaunted and ignored…
He knew Bush embarrassed him by beating Gore, and then beating Kerry the second time around, even after Moore’s Mighty World-Changing Film to End All Films showed us all the insidious evil of Presidential Impostor Bush’s plan to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Apparently, if you don’t play by Moore’s rules, like allowing yourself to be graced by his presence in a hard-hitting interview, you are a bad person and any decision you make is therefore wrong.
I find myself constantly amazed at the fat man’s arrogance and stupidity. He’s the whiny kid in gym class who whines “IT’S NOT FAIR” over and over like a ambulance siren.
The more he lingers in the public eye, the more he bothers me.
What really pisses me off are all these Democrats who claim to have never believed that Saddam had WMDs or who keep accusing the Bush administration of “lying” about WMDs to go to war. They all ignore or deny the fact that they were saying that Saddam was a credible threat and had WMDS and the capacity to create more way back when Clinton was still in office.
Yeah, even old fomer President Clinton is trying to pull that one these days (it’s a recent thing)… even though he was backing Bush’s line about WMD well into after the war starting....
Ahh, the old jedi mind tricks....
RSS (Subscribe)
Lee, you hit the nail on the head this time.