Sigh...where do they all come from?

[tjwash]

Lately I hear so much about Michael Moore's prodigious talents as an investigative journalist, film-maker and all-around force for good that I can only wonder what occupied him so thoroughly in the years prior to the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.

What led Moore to neglect the victims of what were perhaps the worst human rights abuses of the late 20th century? Surely he could have applied his genius to the making of a movie aimed at relieving the sufferings of Saddam's victims. Where was Michael Moore when the Iraqi people really needed him?

San Diego Union letter to the editor.

I am actually thinking of mailing this in as a response:

Michael Moore has been famous, since his film "Roger and Me" was released in 1989. His documentaries, are meant to expose the unfairness of, among other things, political special interest groups and faceless corporations such as GM and Nike. His subject matter ranges from their abject hypocrisy, to their anti-union divisiveness, and to their utter greed which manifests itself as exploitation of third world labor, the latter of which is responsible for thousands of domestic jobs being outsourced from the United States.

He has, in the interim, been concentrating on the suffering of the American people, something that this current administration, and past Republican administrations, don't seem to care one little bit about. The "Iraqi People" don't need Michael Moore to fight their battles for them. They have been a culture for thousands of years. This is something that the arrogant individuals of the barely two hundred and thirty year old United States of America, could probably take a lesson from. I for one applaud Michael Moore for having the courage to speak out, and in the process reminding everyone, that there are problems in the United States that we need to address.

[Spazito]

1. I would ask him...

What led Bush 1 and Reagan to neglect the victims of what were perhaps the worst human rights abuses of the late 20th century while they continued to prop up the monster that was committing those abuses? Surely they could have applied their Presidential powers to pressure their friend, Saddam, into stopping the abuses. Where were Bush 1 and Reagan when the Iraqi people really needed them?

[Fleshdancer]

2. the ever so popular "but he did bad stuff too" defense

Moore didn't have to tell his audience that Saddam was a bad, horrible man. We know that already. This point doesn't need to be brought up every time we start to discuss our own actions and human rights abuses. This tactic of changing the subject by pointing at the other guy is really getting on my nerves.

I like your response by the way, I hope they publish it.

[tjwash]

6. They have published me before...

...we will see.

[tnlefty]

3. Whatever rotteness Hussein perpetrated he didn't do as a policy of

the US government, using my tax dollars, and in my name. Except when Rummy et al helped him out. This part of the rwing Bushit* makes me so Cheneyin' mad!

[Joy Anne]

5. your letter

Do send it in. It's very good.

[VolcanoJen]

4. Hey, if all they've got is a "Kill the Messenger" argument...

... then I'd say we won.

You'll never here one of these conservitards refute any of the information about those in control of our government. They only want to talk about Moore.. because they don't have anything else.

They're not hitting this film nearly as hard as I would have expected. :D

[SeattleDem]

7. worst abuses of the late 20th century?

can this writer say Khmer Rouge? How about Rwanda?

sure, Saddam was awful but he is not alone in his evil and he's not the most genocidal ruler of recent times.

[funnymanpants]

8. typical right wing argument answered in this way:

Americans should be very concerned about the atrocities committed by their own government. As American citizens, we can influence our own government. Hence, it is apporpriate to protest a war based on a lie, and to demand the US be held accountable for the tortue committed in Iraq, and apparently approved at the highest levels.

It is cowardly, senselss and hypocritical to protest the human violations of another country while ignoring those of your own. Yet this hypocrisy is often used by apologists of American brutality as a diversionary tatic.

[Trajan]

9. It should be fair to note ...

That WE have opposed The Bush's for decades: ESPECIALLY when they, along with Reagan and Rumfeld, helped Saddam Hussein amass Weapons of Mass Destruction, and TARGET them against civilian targets ..

Where was the RIGHT WING when we rightly condemned the sale of WMD's to Saddam by that GOP administration ?

Turn their argument on its head ....

[IrateCitizen]

10. You absolutely should send it in!

Remember -- the only way that the wingers get away with peddling their garbage and reinforcing the culture of fear is if we fail to confront and loudly denounce them at every turn.

There are more people out there overall who don't embrace the wingnut message. They may be more moderate or even conservative than the DU crowd, but they certainly aren't wingnuts. Chances are that they'll agree with us more than the reactionary nature of the far right on overarching issues like the rule of law and respect for the Constitution.

But they'll never stand up and say so unless all of us stand up to the reactionary right first.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Because Moore is busy trying to save America first.

n/t

[neuvocat]

12. What led the writer to do the same thing?

It sure is safe to be a letter-writing hypocrite these days. Anyone can levy criticism at someone else and say that other person is doing a good enough job. Well, at least they are doing something, and that's more than the writer can say for himself or herself.