Moore's film and its effect on morale

[crawjo]

I've been trying to steer clear of political discussions recently, but I read this and thought it was interesting on many levels, so I pass it along. On the one hand, I don't know quite what to make of what this soldier is saying about the effect F 9/11 is having on the morale of the troops. I don't think Moore's film is an "abuse of the First Amendment." But if Moore's film, which I still have not seen, is making these soldiers think that Bush is more beholden to Saudi interests and that this is why they are there, then it is a terrible piece of deception, because it makes absolutely no sense to argue that Bush launched a war in Iraq because of his relationship with the Saudis.

Perhaps those of you who have seen the film can read this and comment.

A Soldier Responds to Moore
Army Specialist Joe Roche writes about Michael Moore's "documentary" and the impact it is having on the troops:

Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing is around. The impact is devastating.

Here we are, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore's film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed. Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has.

There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's.

There are others who joined for reasons of money and other benefits, and never gave full thought to the issues. For them, seeing this film has jolted them grievously because they never even knew where some of these countries were that we have been serving in. Imagine the impact this film has on them.

And there are those who are hurting from being away from family and loved ones. They are burnt out, already hurting inside from 15 months of duty out here, and now to be hit w/ this film.. it is devastating.

Lastly, there are those like me, who want to explode in anger and rage at this abuse of the First Amendment and the way Moore has twisted reality so harshly.

Specialist Janecek, who is feeling depressed because a close family member is nearing the end of her life, just saw the film today. I saw him in the DFAC. He is devastated. "I feel shitty, ashamed, like this was all a lie." Not only is he looking at going straight to a funeral when he returns home, but now whatever pride he felt for serving here has been crushed by Moore's film. Specialist Everett earlier after seeing the film: "You'll be mad at shit for ever having come here."

And there are others. Mostly the comments are absolute shock at the close connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. "Bush looks really really REALLY corrupt in this film. I just don't know what to think anymore," is a common comment to hear. Some of these soldiers are darn right ashamed tonight to be American soldiers, to have been apart of this whole mission in Iraq, and are angry over all that Moore has presented in his film.

We know this is all based on Moore's lies and deceptions. But we, I'm afraid, are a minority. Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore's work.

What these good yet impressionable soldiers don't realize is that twisting reality and manipulating the truth is something lawyers do every day in court for their clients. OJ Simpson, so clearly guilty in the ghastly murders, was able to get off because his lawyer team completely confused the issue. Now today, in typical fashion, Moore is doing the very same thing in this film. This is, frankly, the nature of political debate in a democracy -- especially when extremism is allowed to go unchecked.

Lt. Bischoff is so angry he could explode. He knows Moore's work is based on lies and distortions, but as he says, "the damage is done." Clearly, this is the type of thing we expect from angry leftists like Moore. What we didn't expect was the full impact this film is now having and how it has been embraced and supported by so many Hollywood elites. Lt. Bischoff says Moore's film is a work of deception, lies and distortions that when seen by those unfamiliar w/ the issues involved, has the effect of attacking the American peoples' resolve and focus in this war.

From what I've heard from the soldiers, the things that have them most shocked and upset them are the connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. The impression is that Bush is part of a conspiracy that supported the September 11th terrorist attacks. They speak of how Moore makes a convincing case all the way from the 2000 election to now that Bush and Cheney are all about making money. That the September 11th attacks were merely calculated by them as to how they would earn them more money. They speak of the Saudi who was a fellow soldier w/ Bush in the National Guard, and how Moore makes it all look like Bush is more beholden to Saudi interests than US interests.

Moore's commentary and striking video stunts, such as confronting politicians w/ enlistment papers for their kids, of course hurts and affects these soldiers out here badly. These are the ones who have sacrificed much to serve. Moore's stunt is powerful.

I sometimes want to be mad at my fellow soldiers for being susceptible to Moore's distortions, but I can't really blame them. These are good Americans, who have volunteered to serve our country. Nothing says they all have to be experts in Middle Eastern issues and history and politics to serve. That would be silly. ...But this is, of course, the vulnerability that Moore has exploited.

I wonder how damaging and shocking a Moore project would have been in the 1940s making such a video of Franklin Roosevelt. All the corruption and decadence in that administration would have fed such a project well. Or how damaging and shocking would such a Moore project have been to Lincoln, who wavered and shifted often in finding the right mediums and balances in pursuing the great causes of the Civil War. ...Need I even suggest the impact such would have had on Kennedy or Johnson and all their hypocrisies?

Moore is hurting us, hurting America, and today I can tell you he is hurting your soldiers. I don't know what to ask, except that good people out there find ways to organize information so that we can better counter Moore's impact. Is there anyone in Hollywood who is willing to stand up and make a similar film to counter Moore's? I know good people w/ integrity in the film industry don't want to be seen as pushing a political agenda in movies. But this is EXACTLY what Moore and the radical leftists in Hollywood have done. Is there no way to put together a response to them?

I hope more people will arm themselves w/ the facts and the realities of the situation out here and in the world at large. Our political arena is taking a big hit from this film by Moore, and it should tell us all something when terrorist groups like Hezbollah are distributing it around to their own people.

I think it is sad and unfortunate that at this last hour of a long and difficult deployment, so many soldiers are being made to feel ashamed and "shitty" for having ever served in this whole mission. Moore has abused the First Amendment. This is his right, and we soldiers have defended that right, but we who know better should NOT just sit back and let such enemies w/in our own country get by w/ such assaults unanswered.

More on the counter punch to Moore's propaganda can be found here, here, here, here,and here for starters.

Other comments from a soldier in Iraq can be read here.

I leave you with a quote from the man himself:

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? - Michael Moore

Moore's movie has now made over $ 100 million, maybe he can now afford to buy some class.

Originally Posted by crawjo from unidentified source

There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's.

Moore's film may "hurt" them, but Bush's frivolous war is already killing or maiming for life thousands of them. Crawjo, this may be the most ridiculous piece you have posted, so far. Where do you find such crap? You have not given a source.

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by crawjo

We know this is all based on Moore's lies and deceptions. But we, I'm afraid, are a minority. Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore's work.

.

This paragraph seems to spell out it's genesis as a bit of right wing propaganda .." your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore's work."

MOORE'S work ?

DUBBya sent the soldiers over there ..for his own purposes and reasons, inasmuch as there are no WMDs,and Saddam, asshole that he may be ..did NOT cause 9/11!

this unattributed POS is of a same stripe as the so called "letter" thats been making the rounds on the internet purportedly from some of Kerrys Nam "crewmates " dimviewing his service and character ..

[patricia]

I think that it's pretty well agreed, by both the Republicans and the Democrats that the war on Iraq was ill-conceived. The morphing of the reasons, ranging from "imminent threat", to "regime change" to "humanitarian concerns", for this expensive, both in terms of funding and lives lost far outweigh any justifiable reasons for it. Ousting Saddam Hussein's regime could, arguably have been accomplished without sacrificing thousands of lives on both sides of the conflict. In short, it's a mess.

That is not to say that I doubt the noble work of the average military man or woman who finds themselves enmeshed in this debacle. However, the same mindset that prevailed, silencing the opposition to this mistake, namely the accusation of anti-patriotism, has at last started to dissapate and the soldiers in Iraq find themselves in a war with an uncertain purpose.
Those Iraqis who resist occupation by a foreign power are blanket-designated as "insurgents" and "the enemy" when, I am quite certain many of them are simply resisting the occupation of their country.

It's unfortunate that Moore's film has a demoralizing effect on the troops in Iraq, but, as the article says, most are not much more than teenagers, unsophistocated in political matters. That adds to the confusion that they surely must feel. While we may sympathize with them, the fact remains that this war was predicated on a lie, no matter who told it, whether it was the CIA or the administration, or a combination. The troops are unfortunately the ones who are paying, sometimes with their lives, for a war which never should have been launched.

Now, there they are, stuck in an impossible situation, no matter who is elected in November. Because of the lies, the war was started by the Bush Administration and whoever is President after the election has to clean up the mess caused by it.

There would be a certain poetic justice if this administration was made to do just that, assuming that they can, but the economy and the ongoing running of the country has been put on the back burner, in favour of funding this obscenity.

Nobody thinks that the troops are at fault. They are doing their jobs, risking their lives in the process. This is the shame of the last four years, but it is not their shame. It is the shame of the present administration and of those who would have opposed this action, had they known the facts, instead of the lies that were foisted upon them. To say that everyone supported the administration in their rush to war does not take into account that the intelligence was cherry-picked to support the imminent threat requirement for launching a war. With the intelligence that was presented, they felt they had no choice, which is the real tragedy.

[moneyp]

Darn, and the morale was so great to begin with.

[Dr Dave]

Oh, yeah: Soldiers saw a movie and now they're ashamed. Is it possible that many of them were not feeling too good about where they were and what they were doing in the first place? Is it possible that Michael Moore's movie is simply a catalyst for what is already there?

[Uli]

That stuff is so ridiculous I have a hard time to believe that soldiers wrote it.

[moneyp]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Oh, yeah: Soldiers saw a movie and now they're ashamed. Is it possible that many of them were not feeling too good about where they were and what they were doing in the first place? Is it possible that Michael Moore's movie is simply a catalyst for what is already there?

I wonder what Specialist Roche had to say about Iraqis purposefully leaving dead children on the sides of roads where soldiers would travel through. I mean, screw Moore's movie, that's just dirty pool.

[Ron Thorne]

Apparently, Army Specialist Joe Roche has more time on his hands than some serving in Iraq. Seems that he's also a correspondent for a conservative blog, Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog.



Spc. Joe Roche of the 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division, on a Humvee. Joe's duties typically include driving his platoon's lead Humvee

Joe, please understand that the vast majority of Americans are supportive of our troops who are deployed in Iraq. We just find the reason for you being there and the way in which things have been handled suck.

Joe's writings have been aired on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, among other places.

[crawjo]

Sullivan first linked to it. Here's the site. If you scroll down to the comments section, you will see that many people have had the same reaction that you have had. The main reason I posted it was because I wondered about whether people were drawing the wrong conclusions from Moore's film regarding the Saudis and Iraq.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Apparently, Army Specialist Joe Roche has more time on his hands than some serving in Iraq. Seems that he's also a correspondent for a conservative blog, Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog.



Spc. Joe Roche of the 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division, on a Humvee. Joe's duties typically include driving his platoon's lead Humvee

Joe, please understand that the vast majority of Americans are supportive of our troops who are deployed in Iraq. We just find the reason for you being there and the way in which things have been handled suck.

Joe's writings have been aired on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, among other places.

Given the fact that Michael Moore has likened Zarqawi to Paul Revere, I'm not sure if Mr. Moore is supportive of the troops in Iraq. But it's hard to know what Moore actually thinks, since most of his statements fail to rise above a high school level of foreign policy.

[frankiepop]

There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's.

is this statement the epitome of arrogance, superiority, elitism & fing ignorance...?

Originally Posted by crawjo from an as yet unidentified source

Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore's work.

And far too many are coming back dead or injured because of Bush's work.

Give us a break, crawjo, this piece is a combination of ignorance, deceit, and desperation.

From Roche's photo album....you gotta love the Goebbels factor.


Iraqi children at the back of Joe Roche's Humvee. According to Joe, the children are saying "Thank
you America," "Bush good" and "I love you."

Originally Posted by crawjo

Given the fact that Michael Moore has likened Zarqawi to Paul Revere, I'm not sure if Mr. Moore is supportive of the troops in Iraq. But it's hard to know what Moore actually thinks, since most of his statements fail to rise above a high school level of foreign policy.

Crawjo, you have hit rock bottom with this nonsense, and some of your own comments don't even come up to high school level. I can't believe that you are serious, or that naïve.

[bluenoter]

Crawjo, before you post more threads or messages about Moore's movie--and state your own conclusions, such as "I don't think Moore's film is an 'abuse of the First Amendment,' but . . . "--it might be a good idea for you to see the movie. Don'tcha think?

[john williams]

If US soldiers feel any shame it has nothing to do with Moore!

[Jazzooo]

"The main reason I posted it was because I wondered about whether people were drawing the wrong conclusions from Moore's film regarding the Saudis and Iraq."

Um, yeah. I was kind of hoping you were posting it to prove that you could recognize commissioned, edited and perfectly timed spin from a pro trying to sound like a 'real guy' instead. I mean, it is really obvious to anyone who has written ad copy before. I mean no disrespect, Crawjo, but maybe you should try a little harder to stay out of political discussions if you're not even going to make an attempt to read between the lines of stuff like this. Just because it backs your own feelings about Moore does not make it a good piece of writing. You have to have higher standards than that--we all do.

It is not a realistic account of anything. This is a piece that has been ENGINEERED to provoke a specific anti-liberal emotional response.

That said, I'm not sure I'd show this movie to soldiers on the front. But that really wasn't Moore's decision, was it?

[pollo loco]

Crawjo: Whining doesn't get at anything! I'm not going to see the Moore film. However, I'm not going to vote for Bush. He's an embarrassment and a danger to all of us. (Perhaps those who received the tax cuts don't realize it yet!)
PL

[Ron Thorne]

Doug, your last two paragraphs pretty much sum up my feelings on this one.

What JBW said, too.

[frankiepop]

Crawjo, you have hit rock bottom with this nonsense

oh yeah...?

just when you think crawjo has hit rock bottom..
.another trap door opens up










and fooom!
...
down...

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

I haven't seen the film either, but if people think Moore is lying in the film, they should counter his arguments. Criticising anything because it "damages morale" is just stupid. Showing troops films of drowning puppies could damage morale.

[Rob C]

I don't throw words like "hero" around loosely, but by posting this important message, Crawjo has shown himself to be a great American hero.

In the words of another great American hero, Mr. Ari Fleischer: "all Americans . . . need to watch what they say, watch what they do".

Thank you, Crawjo. Thank you.

[Root Doctor]

"It makes absolutely no sense to argue that Bush launched a war in Iraq because of his relationship with the Saudis."

The Saudis viewed Saddam as their greatest threat. Why does it make no sense that Bush's relationship with the royal family might have something to do with our decision to go into Iraq? I don't think that it did, but it is hardly a nonsensical point to raise.

From Elsa Walsh's "The Prince," New Yorker, 3/23/03:

Bush also wanted it known that he was serious about Iraq. He asked Bandar what had happened with the Clinton Administration, and Bandar described how, in October of 1994, King Fahd had told Clinton that neither country could afford to have Saddam Hussein remain in power, from a military, political, or economic point of view. Fahd, Bandar said, suggested that Saudi Arabia and the United States spend as much on covert operations to get Saddam as they had in Afghanistan to oust the Soviets--about a billion dollars each. The Saudis, in fact, were willing to spend more. Fahd told Clinton that he had rounded up support for the plan from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and even Iran. They shook hands on it, Bandar told Bush, but nothing came of it. "For six years, we've been given the runaround,"he said. "Therefore everybody here"--in Saudi Arabia--"adjusted to cover their rear ends."

Bandar told Bush that he and Turki bin Faisal, who was then the intelligence chief, had regularly called the National Security Council staff or the C.I.A. director, John Deutch, to ask about progress. Deutch, he said, had at one point suggested that perhaps the two sides should contribute twenty million dollars each--such a small sum that it began to raise questions in Bandar's mind about America's seriousness. When Tenet replaced Deutch and Berger took over as national-security adviser, Bandar continued to press both men on the covert plan. Eventually, Bandar told Bush, "we became convinced the Americans had no intention to remove Saddam and they were happy with the status quo."A spokesman for the Clinton White House said, "It is true that we were working with the Saudis. It is not true that we were not taking this seriously. It did not succeed."The spokesman, who asked Clinton a series of questions that I had submitted to him, said that he could not answer any questions about the agreement between Fahd and Clinton: "This is just one piece I'm not going to get into in any great detail because it's very classified kind of stuff."

Bush asked Bandar to tell him what Saddam was like. Bandar was certain that Saddam would not forgive or forget his defeat in the Gulf War, and that any talk of compromise or containment was futile. It was his personal opinion, not his government's, but he believed that either Saddam would kill all those associated with the Gulf War or they would have to kill him. But, most important, Saddam knew that the only way to stay alive was to stay in power. Bush wondered how he stayed in power after killing so many people; he said he couldn't understand "how those dumb son-in-laws"went back--referring to Saddam's in-laws, who several years ago returned from Jordan, after being promised safe passage, and were executed. Bandar replied that Saddam stayed in power because he was ruthless, and he also told Bush that even though many European and Arab countries were saying publicly that they opposed a military effort to topple Saddam, they were saying something else in private. After the meeting, the White House released a photograph of Bush sitting in a chair and Bandar perched on the arm of another, towering over him. The two men seem to be talking intimately and intensely, like two old friends. In Saudi Arabia, at least, the photograph carried great symbolic value.

In the months since the meeting in Crawford, Bandar's chief focus has been on what appears to be an almost certain war with Iraq. At the end of January, Bandar and Saud met with Colin Powell on an airport runway in Zurich to report on meetings with Pervez Musharaff, and on what some Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, were doing to encourage Saddam to go into exile. (The Saudis, a source told me last week, were using other means to win support for the United States: they were about to freeze a pending eight-hundred-million-dollar contract to buy tanks from the French.) In his travels, Bandar, who has always prided himself on his realism, delivered a similar message: War was coming. Nothing could be done to stop it. Their national interests coincided with those of the United States. "It's a very simple equation"if you live in the region, Bandar told me. "If you cannot stop it, then it is almost an abdication of responsibility for you not to say, 'O.K., I don't want the war, but the war is going to happen. What is it that I can do to maximize my national interest? What is it that I need to do to have the day after more positive than now?' "

[jesus marion joseph]

I would have to agree that it's not Moore's fault if many of the troops are uninformed and uneducated about the world and the nature of politicians in general, or the underpinnings of the war in which they find themselves embroiled. Accordingly, Roche's letter comes off as a propoganda piece, which is sort of ironic, given his characterization of Moore's film.

OTOH, I saw a clip of Moore last week in which he said that the Bush administration "detests our troops". That's nearly a verbatim quote. *That* is (IMHO) irresponsible propoganda.

I still haven't seen the film, but it has nothing to do with detesting Moore or his body of work. I simply don't pay movie theater prices to see movies unless there is a compelling reason to see it on a large screen (i.e. special effects or the like). I generally wait to see movies until they're available on Netflix, as I intend to do with Fahrenheit 9/11. In other words, I'm a cheap prick.

[sonic1]

My brother was over there (in both iraq and afganistan, as well as saudi). He was already feeling shitty. He has not yet seen the film. He feels shitty because of all that has happened over there. He feels shitty because we dropped the ball in afganistan and on the real war on terror. To be in Iraq is a cruel joke to those trying to defend this country. And to find out why only seconds the notions many soldiers were already having.

And to act like these soldiers are just helpless to the media is a joke. While I think to be a soldier you have to allow some brainwashing to occur, the armed forces sure make sure plenty of their own propaganda goes around. In fact, if this article is not just an outright fabrication, it goes to show how powerfully truthful the film really is, that it can seep past the filters of the military and still have an impact! This idiot who wrote this article seems to miss the point that the film is having such an impact on some of Bush's most staunch supporters. Maybe crawjo, the evidence against Bush is just overwhelming. Not just as presented by moore, but by the 9/11 commission, and by all the press regarding his administration. Maybe the soldiers are just tired of trying to defend an indefensible president! I am glad I am not a republican now. To have to defend your man now would be too much work for me. It makes looking back on Clinton's transgressions with almost nostalgia. No matter what you say about Clinton, our standing in the world was the best it had been (minus the radical islamists who just always hate us). Our economy was thriving, the deficit non-existant, and no major wars to fight. Somehow in all the years the republicans have ruled, before and after clinton, the economy has sucked ass, and the deficit huge-and the government uncontrollably large (despite repubs saying they are against big government). Let us not forget we had a budget surplus just 4 years ago. We were arguing what to do with all that money.

Bush has been incredibly good at making me realize Clinton was not so bad. In fact, he was really a good president. What I find funny though, is that somehow the repubs claim they made the 8 years of Clintons time so successful-that somehow the influence of the 12 years of republican rule finally took hold and rewarded americans during clintons administration. But magically disappeared during the new Bush administration, of course...all the fault of Clinton.

Give me a break.

Bush has dug his own grave. Moore didn't make stuff up. He reported. He focussed on Bush's shadiness, yes, but it is all bush's own shadiness. That movie just asks a lot of good questions that have yet to be answered by anyone. Those questions will probably stay unanswered. But that can't stop people from not re-electing that idiot in the oval office.

Jared

[cookie]

I've been thinking about this thread. I guess I have a hard time with the guy's portrayal of soldiers as ignorant rubes. That may be true for some, and certainly, many join the military because they do not have the money or grades or disposition for college. But I don't think that makes them stupid. I think that they are probably aware of the film's controversial nature---through camp talk if nothing else---and that they are capable of drawing their own conclusions. I think that perhaps the author is exaggerating; making it sound like these "kids" just accept anything they see in a movie as being gospel. I just don't believe that. I know many, many people who never went to college (some of whom opted for the military; others of whom opted for jobs), but who are informed, intelligent, and often articulate citizens. The idea that only the college-educated are capable of worthy opinions and arguments is patently offensive to me. These soldiers are not neccessarily dumb, though I think some people like to cling to that stereotype. I just think the article relies on and plays into that stereotype.

I really respect those who serve in the military. Though I'm unhappy with how they've been used, there is no denying that their service alone is honorable. I don't think one needs to support the Bush administration to "support our troops" (not that anyone here has implied such, but people here are generally more tolerant than in other enclaves).

Anyway, I'll stop ranting now.

Interesting article, Crawjo.

[sonic1]

Interesting also that a republican would talk so bad about the soldiers, and degrade their intelligence. They usually accuse liberals of that.

Jared