Michael Moore offers right-wing noisemakers a crash course in what it means to really support U.S. servicepeople

-- from Michael Moore's Facebook page [click to enlarge]

by Ken

I've been paying as little attention as I could decently get away with to American Sniper, and so I'm coming late to the brouhaha caused by Michael Moore's forceful expression of disapproval. Since the American Right has now sunk to a level of cretinousness and pathological dishonesty surpassed only by its loudmouth savagery, and since Michael Moore is one of their perennial bugbears anyway, this seems to have produced one of those famous Right-Wing Noise Machine psychotic breaks, all centered, naturally, on the person of Michael Moore.

I'm grateful to Daily Kos's Intheknow for getting me up to speed on the subject ("Michael Moore disses Fox News and Right Wing Critics in the best way"), including a link to a Raw Story account of Grade A Fox Noise craziness.

So Michael M stands accused of (gasp) not supporting the troops, about as heinous a charge as can be leveled against an American. Of course there's a teeny-tiny irony here, in that the brain-dead right-wing savages leading the assault are almost to a creature low-life lying doodybags who have spent every second of their verminous existences doing nothing to support the troops except run their filthy mouths off. These are people who, after all, cheered their putrid guts out when the Bush-Cheney-Rummy gang sent American troops into a pointless war in Iraq without basic protective equipment to be killed and maimed -- and then when they came home, as the right-wing war-mongers always do, turned their backs on them.

Michael M, fortunately, isn't one to sit and suffer psychotic lying imbeciles gladly, especially not when they pollute matters that really matter to him -- of which, as it happens, supporting the troops happens to be one. And he fired back on his Facebook page. And, God bless him, he didn't just fight back on the ground that, unlike his attackers, he actually supports both active-duty servicepeople and veterans in a whole range of ways that he's never had occasion to talk about publicly. He pounded the politically tougher but crucial point that he has consistently supported the troops by fighting having them put pointlessly in harm's way.

Here's just the start of the list Michael offers of what he does to support the troops:

** I have an aggressive affirmative action policy specifically to hire Iraq and Afghanistan veterans at my film production company, my movie theaters in Michigan and my film festival. I have asked other businesses in my town (and nationwide) to join with me on this. http://www.traverseticker.com/…/michael-moore-asks-business…. A vet was an editor on my films "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko" and a vet (who served in both Iraq AND Afghanistan) is the projectionist at my flagship theater in Michigan (to name a few).

** I also ask people to post a sign I designed and have made available: "I Shop Where Vets Work". Here's my policy and the poster: http://www.statetheatretc.org/veterans#opening (Can someone at Fox News send me your posted affirmative action program to hire Iraq and Afghanistan vets?)

** Since I opened my movie theaters in northern Michigan, this has been my admission policy: "Admission to all movies at my theaters is FREE, 365 days of the year, for ALL active duty military and their families."

** I allow local veterans support groups to use my theater to meet for PTSD issues, I host quarterly PTSD summits, and I've hosted a conference to start a jobs movement for vets in our town.

** I have raised tens of thousands of dollars through my website for groups that help veterans and wounded warriors: http://web.archive.org/…/20140829053240/http://fa…/soldiers/

** In the early years of the war I made all my books and DVDs available free of charge to all service members through BooksForSoldiers.com

(A later point notes that his books "were the #1 requested books by troops" via BooksForSoldiers.)

Here are a few more:

** I will NOT do business with vendors who don't have a policy to hire vets.

** I regularly post blogs from troops http://www.ivaw.org/blog/ivaw-featured-michael-moore and I show and support many movies about what they've gone through in the past 12 years at my theaters.

** My movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11" - #1 selling/#1 rental on all military base PXs

** When my father passed away this year, in lieu of flowers I asked that donations by made in my dad's name to the veterans group, Veterans for Peace. Enough money was raised so that the Vietnam Vets chapter could build a home in Vietnam for a family still suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. It's being dedicated in my dad's name.

And then there's an interesting one concerning American Sniper itself:

** I am currently showing "American Sniper" at my theater that I helped restore and that I program and help run in Manistee, MI. Not because I like it, but because, unlike the other side, I'm not a censor. I trust smart people and people of good heart will know what to do. You can't have a conversation about what Clint Eastwood is up to if you haven't seen what it is he's up to. And regardless where u are on the political spectrum, you'll see that every character in Clint's film comes out dead or permanently damaged. This ain't no John Wayne rah-rah pablum. Eastwood made maybe the greatest western ever - "Unforgiven" - but now it's sad seeing him talking to an empty chair on a stage or making an Iraq movie that Rolling Stone this week called, "too dumb to bother criticizing."

And finally Michael says (again, click to enlarge):


If you think I'm going to try to top that, you're wrong.

#

Is Rep. Peter King just not very bright, or is he demagoguing the death of the "pervert" Michael Jackson? (Some choice!)

"Let's knock out the psychobabble. This guy was a pervert, he was a child molester, he was a pedophile, and to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country? I just think we're too politically correct. No one wants to stand up and say, 'We don't need Michael Jackson.' You know, he died, he had some talent, but fine. There are people dying every day, there's men and women dying, say, in Afghanistan. Let's give them the credit they deserve."

-- from a video posted on YouTube Sunday by NYS Rep. Peter King

by Ken

Time was when Rep. Peter King was thought of, and I imagine thought of himself, as a "moderate" Republican. Apparently no longer.

Perhaps our Pete has noticed that alleged moderateness hasn't been saving the dwindling ranks of Northeastern Republicans in Congress from extinction, or perhaps he's emboldened by the 64 percent of the vote he racked up in 2008 in his Long Island district. (NY-03 straddles Nassau and Suffolk Counties on New York's Long Island.) There is talk of his challenging Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand next year for the Senate seat she was appointed to.

Amid the countdown to today's Michael Jackson public memorial in Los Angeles today, Representative King seems to have felt a need to weigh in. You may recall that Noah, in his DWT remembrance of Michael Jackson, commented on the mindless media cacaphony, noted: "What I haven’t heard is anything about the baby-dangling, serving the Jesus Juice to little boys, or even attempting to buy the Elephant Man’s bones." Well, you knew that couldn't last.



On HuffPost, Sam Stein has reported, "Michael Jackson Fans Raise Money to Defeat Peter King." And last night the Washington Post's milder-than-milquetoast Mary Ann Akers posted this follow-up:

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) says he never imagined the short Web video he made bashing the media for its round-the-clock coverage of Michael Jackson's death would go viral the way it has.

The congressman said in a telephone interview this afternoon that when he typically sets up a news conference, "maybe one radio station shows up." Of the frenzied reaction over his Jackson video, he said, "I didn't get expect it would get this response...My God."

In the video, which King posted on YouTube, the tough-talking, blue-collar Long Island pol calls Jackson a "pervert," a "child molester" and a "pedophile" and says the media has "disgraced itself" with its relentless coverage of the pop superstar's passing.

King's video, which as of this afternoon had more than 22,600 views and had generated a spate of news stories, has infuriated die-hard Jackson fans. They have mobilized online to dethrone King, so to speak.

King tells the Sleuth that just as his stance has won him detractors, he also has plenty of supporters. "A professional wrestler from Long Island who weighs 500 pounds has offered to be my bodyguard," King told the Sleuth, chuckling. . . .

Mary Ann also notes: "King says he has gotten so much attention for his Jackson video that he has had to turn down TV appearances, which, as anyone familiar with the camera-loving Long Island congressman knows, is very rare."

There is, of course, much to complain about in the kind of media attention the death of MJ has spawned. Even the controversial word "orgy" used by the congressman could be defended. But he made it clear that it wasn't the kind of attention he was speaking out against, it was the fact of all that coverage.

Parenthetically, you may recall that Noah also wrote:

There has been some brief mention of [MJ's] legal trials, but he was, after all, acquitted, so it would be awkward for the media to spend much time dredging up the muck -- not that I wouldn’t put it past them. A modicum of decorum, and respect for the old adage that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law from the media? Now, that would be news!

Sigh.

Thinking back, I actually don't recall hearing the congressman talk a lot about the mess in Afghanistan. Of course, there isn't much indication that he has anything useful to say on the subject. This was just your standard "Yes, We Got No Brains" Republican support-our-troops obfuscation. If our Pete really doesn't see that the one story has nothing to do with the other . . . oh, never mind. If he doesn't see the difference, he's not very bright, while if he sees the difference he's just demagoguing.

Not much of a choice.

#

WHY DO REPUBLICANS ALWAYS SAY THEY SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT THEN STAB THEM IN THE BACK?

PhotoOps & strolls is not the same as supporting the troops

The GI Bill was passed in the 1940s to help veterans transition back into civilian life by offering them a college education courtesy of the American taxpayers. The GI Bill was a successful program that helped build a strong and powerful American middle class after World War II. But to Republicans it was another socialist giveaway that took money out of the pockets of the wealthy to help poor slobs. Like all New Deal programs, they set about to destroy it. And, sure enough, it isn't an effective tool these days for achieving its goals. The good news, though, is that decorated ex-Marine, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and genuine war hero Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have a bill in Congress-- the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S.22 & H.R.2702)-- to update the GI Bill and it is being supported by almost every Democrat and by 9 Republicans.

Republicans always say they support the troops. But do they? Well, they support militarism and aggression, but they rarely support vets or even active duty soldiers. They support defense contractors and mercenaries but when it comes to our  own fighting men and women... talk is cheap and the GOP is cheaper. Look at John McCain, for example. He has made claiming to be a national war hero into a cottage industry and based his whole career on it but when it comes to voting in the Senate... his record on the well-being of our military personnel and his record on veterans are abysmal. Has there been anyone with a worse voting record on support for vets and active duty servicemen? Not many but, predictably, John Cornyn (R-TX) is one. Cornyn has the worst voting record in the whole Senate on the well-being of our troops, even worse than McCain's... and, of course, the worst voting record in the Senate on veterans' well-being too boot, also worse than McCain's. But what Cornyn and McCain both have in common is that neither will sign on to the Webb-Hagel GI Bill.

Last month we talked a little about how Inhofe always claims to "support the troops" but never does. "He's the epitome of what it is to be a Bush rubber stamp senator-- and he's up for re-election in 8 months-- and in a state where they take the welfare of our troops and veterans very, very seriously." He started feeling the heat from Oklahoma voters and from Democrat Andrew Rice and he actually signed on to Jim Webb's bill, a 100% departure for his zero record of support for our troops and vets. Today VoteVets and General Wes Clark are urging all Americans to sign a petition urging John McCain to sign the petition and show some leadership by bringing along enough Republican senators to actually pass this bill and keep it from being filibustered to death by chief GOP obstructionist Mitch McConnell. Take a look at Robert Greenwald's new video for this effort:

As the Bush regime makes a show of fake respect for "Army Families," how much do you figure the Pentagon'll be paying Halliburton for all those "F"s?

Longtime DWT readers are aware that we don't take kindly to the Bush regime's shockingly shameful, not to mention viciously hypocritical, history of abuse of our armed services.

It was bad enough that those vermin, puffed up with their megalomania and war-profiteering greed, put American military lives at risk for the sake of their delusional and bone-headed policies of unilateral aggression. But then to do so without making even a minimal effort to equip and supply those forces adequately, and to subject them to such grotesque overuse (in order to spare themselves having to confront the American people with the reality of their warmongering), in the process pulling apart the lives of all those reservists and National Guardsmen, and going farther than any American government might ever dare to render the country all but defenseless militarily, and finally--the crowning indignity--to treat our wounded and maimed servicepeople with such imperious disdain and ineffective care.

That alone should guarantee that every last scumbag who has participated in the formulation and/or execution of Bush regime foreign policy roasts in hell for eternity.

But then factor in the deliberate and vile hypocrisy, in the form of the monumental campaign of slimification waged by Dick Cheney and his America-loathing Right against authentically patriotic Americans who had the sense--and, it turns out, courage--to ask basic and obvious questions about those hateful and insane policies. For all these years in which the regime bullyboys have played on what they knew, at least in their lucid moments, to be a vicious and vile fabrication, that the questioners "don't support our troops"--well, can we consign them to roast in hell for two eternities?

Now finally, it appears, the Bush regime has recognized some obligation to the families who have been called on to make sacrifices that the Bushbullies would never consider making themselves. Or at least some obligation to Army families--or rather, now, "Army Families."

The customarily vigilant Al Kamen has the story in his Washington Post "In the Loop" column today:

Army Puts an Emphasis on Families

This e-mail from the Army brass was circulating last week:

"The Acting Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff, Army have emphasized that Army Families are a key component of our readiness. Army Families shoulder a great burden of sacrifice, supporting their Soldier and often enduring long periods of separation from their loved ones.

"Top notch care and support of Army Families demonstrate our sincere appreciation and gratitude for their many contributions, and allow our Soldiers to fully concentrate on the fight and focus on their duties.

"Effective immediately, the word 'Families' will be capitalized in all Army correspondence. Please ensure wide dissemination of this change. Thanks for your continued efforts to do all you can to provide steadfast support to our Army Families."

Also, Extended Tours, Multiple Deployments, Shortened Home Leave and Other Words Will Be Capitalized From Time To Time, As Deemed Necessary.

No word as of yet from responsible officials about the possibility of "steadfast support" for Navy, Air Force, and Marine families. (And Coast Guard? Merchant Marine?)


IRONIC POSTSCRIPT

I'm not sure "irony" covers dereliction of responsibility on this scale, but did you pause, while reading the above, to reflect: Why exactly is it, again, that we have an "acting" secretary of the Army?

Poor old Francis Harvey was just one of the (now rapidly) growing number of Bush regime hacks being forced to fall on their swords in the regime's increasingly desperate attempt to deflect attention--and of course blame--from its pervasive misdirection, corruption, and incompetence. Former Secretary Harvey retains the distinction of being the highest-ranking regime apparatchik to take a fall for the Walter Reed disgrace, a scandal that should by now have consumed the highest ranks of the Pentagon and then laid siege to the Oval Office.

I WANT TO URGE EVERY SINGLE DWT READER TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS... RIGHT NOW

An old friend of mine-- a political independent from Maine-- was always spewing all this hatred for our guys in the military. He was never sympathetic to their plight and always felt that they got what they deserved. He seemed more against them than against wars or even war-makers, something that I picked up a little from Donovan's 60s cover of Buffy St. Marie's "Universal Soldier" too. I never understood it and argued about it with him over the years, but he could never quite get it through his Libertarian-oriented brain that many-- most?-- of the volunteers have been forced into the military because of bad finances and dreadful economic opportunities in their communities. My friend arrived in California from the backwoods of Maine with no money and no education and managed to finish high school, college and a masters degree on his own. His attitude is that if he can do it, everyone can. That's where he's wrong; not everyone can.

My own view was more pragmatic than my Maine friend's or Ms St. Marie's. These men and women are doing a socially legitimate job and until Man comes up with a way to make their line of work unnecessary, we should treat them with the dignity and respect anyone conscientiously doing a tough and dangerous job deserves.

When Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang of criminals who have been at the helm of our government in these dark times are finally brought before the bar of Justice, I hope their grotesque disregard for and mistreatment of our soldiers are thoroughly examined. I think many people-- of all political stripes-- started catching on when, through the hysterical din of nationalistic palaver and warmongering, we all watched in horror as John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Cheney and ultimately Bush, pushed aside the Geneva Conventions, which are, after all, in place to protect all soldiers (including our own). I didn't see a single military man defend the Bush Regime on this tragic and disgraceful episode, one that, alone, should have led to his immediate impeachment. (I still think the Congress should impeach Gonzales for his role in this at once.)

Today's Washington Post paints another side, a less abstract side, of the same disrespect with which the Bush Regime misuses our military men and women. "Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses. This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where [Army Spec. Jeremy] Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

That's not abstract. And the people responsible-- and responsible for making it worse and worse-- use the hateful refrain "support our troops" as a weapon against anyone who challenges the policies that have brought so many young American men and women so low. Today John Aravosis at AMERICAblog is launching a campaign to really support our troops, the actual flesh and blood soldiers, not the militaristic policies of the small clique of criminal war profiteers around Bush and Cheney.

This is beyond sickening. We have to sit back and listen to GOP members of Congress, George Bush's White House, and that pig General Petraeus dare to tell us how WE'RE the ones turning our backs on the troops, when all three of them knew this was going on under their watch and none of them lifted a finger to fix it.

Our soldiers were lied to about this war, they were lied to about their enlistment, they were never given a plan for victory or the numbers of troops they needed, they still don't have the armor they need for their vehicles. And now, the young men and women wounded and maimed for our country are living in government-run pig-stys not fit for farm animals. The American Taliban and the detainees in Guantanamo get better conditions than this, all courtesy of the Republicans.

The Republicans want to talk about treason? They want to talk about slowly bleeding our troops to death? Fine. Forget the agenda Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid had planned. It's high time we helped our troops. And if the Republicans won't do it, then we will. Let's ensure that the American people and our troops know which party got them into this mess, and which party is getting them out of it. Let the hearings and investigation and legislation begin until we fix these problems once and for all.

Jesus' General has joined Aravosis, and, in fact, his all-American patriotic site is where I found the graphic above. Bush, the most callously and viciously and criminally anti-military of any U.S. leader in American history, has replaced every general who has opposed his idiotic and destructive policies. And now he's found the perfect Republican lackey, an ambitious and fascist hack who is more at home on Fox News than on the battle field, this pathetic Petraeus-- rhymes with Betray US-- creature. While Petraeus shills for the Republican Party on Fox, wounded American troops are suffering the ultimate indignity of being treated like disposable garbage in their own country. I hope Madame DeFarge has noted down the General's name for future use.


We'll have to leave Madame DeFarge to keep track of the John Yoos and General Patraeusii for now. We we need to do right now is make sure Democratic politicians, and the Republicans who actually do care about these men and women, get off their backsides and raise and huge hue and cry over this. Please read the whole piece in the Post that I linked above and think about contacting your representatives about making this a PRIORITY. Not one day should go by while these men and women should be forced by the malevolent Bush Regime to undergo this kind of treatment. Bush should be thrown out of the White House like the stinking sack of trash he's proven himself to be-- and made to do whatever he does from his pig farm in Crawford-- in order to make room for the wounded soldiers in the Pennsylvania Avenue digs he's been disgracing for 6 years. (When your call your congressional rep, put that a little more moderately.)