Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php...04_01_18_dish_archive.html#107484015911379229
MOORE ON CLARK, 1999: Check out Michael Moore's 1999 diatribe against the war to stop genocide in the Balkans. Now, we all know Moore opposes any military action to stop dictators murdering innocents. But doesn't Moore recall that it was one, er, General Wesley Clark, who was commanding this military operation? Money quote:
Right about now, some of you, with all good intentions, are saying, "But, Mike, this Milosevic guy is a madman. He's committing genocide. We should not ignore this as we did the Holocaust in the early days of World War II. He must be stopped by any means necessary."
Yes, he must be stopped. But bombing the people of his country is exactly the wrong way to stop him. In fact, it has only strengthened him. There was a growing dissident movement in Yugoslavia before the war, and every letter I get from these brave souls tells me that the bombing has set back their struggle so incredibly far that they worry they will now be stuck with Milosevic for a long time. They are pleading with us to stop it. The bombing has made him a hero at a time when nearly half of the country was very unhappy with his leadership. We did not consult the anti-Milosevic movement in advance to see if they would like our help in the form of 10,000 bombing sorties. We just went off half-cocked on our own, and started killing the very people we were claiming to save. Anyone who remembers Vietnam knows that sordid logic and insanity. We have strengthened Milosevic and destroyed his opposition. Happy now?
Michael Moore: a man who never without an excuse for keeping murdering tyrants in power. But now he's supporting the man who bombed Milosevic into submission? How about an explanation, Mr Moore?
- 6:02:25 PM
BUTCH IT UP, MOBY: Classic Drudge response. I wonder if I'm the only person on the planet who's friends with Drudge and has sung karaoke with Margaret Cho. I think they're both geniuses in different ways. When Cho is funny, she's extraordinary. But increasingly, she has succumbed to asinine political diatribes rather than her trademark dead-on social comedy. A pity. But I still love her humor.
- 4:28:47 PM
CLARK IS TOAST: That's the only substantive conclusion I can draw from the New Hampshire debate last night. His complete vacuousness in the face of Brit Hume's recitation of his Times of London piece celebrating the Iraq war was stunning. And his inability to distance himself from the vile Michael Moore's comments was, to my mind, definitive of his attempt to be all things to all people. His slow drift down in the polls might now accelerate. At least I hope so. Lieberman was by far the best performer, perhaps because he has so little to lose at this point. He was funny, self-deprecating, human and, when it mattered, sincere and passionate. (And Lieberman, of course, was the only one in any way persuasive on the Iraq war.) Kerry was Kerry - dull, almost as pompous as Peter Jennings (but not quite), and uninspiring. I don't share the Republican conventional wisdom that he can be Dukakised. But I cannot get too enthusiastic. John Edwards was the only candidate who seemed able to engage the viewers, and you can see how he won over jurors in his time. He still strikes me as not quite ready - but I want him to be. He had no clue about the Defense of Marriage Act, which is not the end of the world, but not a good sign. (Both he and Kerry made the states' rights argument very effectively against a constitutional amendment, however.) Kucinich just gets better and better: I have a serious hathos issue with the guy. He mesmerizes me - in a disturbing kind of way. Almost everything he says is nuts, but I can't help kind of liking him. Dean has enough money to survive - maybe longer than many of us now expect. But he's surely not going to win and cannot be a veep. It looks like Kerry will win both Iowa and New Hampshire, which will make him extremely hard to beat. We'll see. A Kerry-Edwards ticket still seems like a good bet to me.
MOORE ON CLARK, 1999: Check out Michael Moore's 1999 diatribe against the war to stop genocide in the Balkans. Now, we all know Moore opposes any military action to stop dictators murdering innocents. But doesn't Moore recall that it was one, er, General Wesley Clark, who was commanding this military operation? Money quote:
Right about now, some of you, with all good intentions, are saying, "But, Mike, this Milosevic guy is a madman. He's committing genocide. We should not ignore this as we did the Holocaust in the early days of World War II. He must be stopped by any means necessary."
Yes, he must be stopped. But bombing the people of his country is exactly the wrong way to stop him. In fact, it has only strengthened him. There was a growing dissident movement in Yugoslavia before the war, and every letter I get from these brave souls tells me that the bombing has set back their struggle so incredibly far that they worry they will now be stuck with Milosevic for a long time. They are pleading with us to stop it. The bombing has made him a hero at a time when nearly half of the country was very unhappy with his leadership. We did not consult the anti-Milosevic movement in advance to see if they would like our help in the form of 10,000 bombing sorties. We just went off half-cocked on our own, and started killing the very people we were claiming to save. Anyone who remembers Vietnam knows that sordid logic and insanity. We have strengthened Milosevic and destroyed his opposition. Happy now?
Michael Moore: a man who never without an excuse for keeping murdering tyrants in power. But now he's supporting the man who bombed Milosevic into submission? How about an explanation, Mr Moore?
- 6:02:25 PM
BUTCH IT UP, MOBY: Classic Drudge response. I wonder if I'm the only person on the planet who's friends with Drudge and has sung karaoke with Margaret Cho. I think they're both geniuses in different ways. When Cho is funny, she's extraordinary. But increasingly, she has succumbed to asinine political diatribes rather than her trademark dead-on social comedy. A pity. But I still love her humor.
- 4:28:47 PM
CLARK IS TOAST: That's the only substantive conclusion I can draw from the New Hampshire debate last night. His complete vacuousness in the face of Brit Hume's recitation of his Times of London piece celebrating the Iraq war was stunning. And his inability to distance himself from the vile Michael Moore's comments was, to my mind, definitive of his attempt to be all things to all people. His slow drift down in the polls might now accelerate. At least I hope so. Lieberman was by far the best performer, perhaps because he has so little to lose at this point. He was funny, self-deprecating, human and, when it mattered, sincere and passionate. (And Lieberman, of course, was the only one in any way persuasive on the Iraq war.) Kerry was Kerry - dull, almost as pompous as Peter Jennings (but not quite), and uninspiring. I don't share the Republican conventional wisdom that he can be Dukakised. But I cannot get too enthusiastic. John Edwards was the only candidate who seemed able to engage the viewers, and you can see how he won over jurors in his time. He still strikes me as not quite ready - but I want him to be. He had no clue about the Defense of Marriage Act, which is not the end of the world, but not a good sign. (Both he and Kerry made the states' rights argument very effectively against a constitutional amendment, however.) Kucinich just gets better and better: I have a serious hathos issue with the guy. He mesmerizes me - in a disturbing kind of way. Almost everything he says is nuts, but I can't help kind of liking him. Dean has enough money to survive - maybe longer than many of us now expect. But he's surely not going to win and cannot be a veep. It looks like Kerry will win both Iowa and New Hampshire, which will make him extremely hard to beat. We'll see. A Kerry-Edwards ticket still seems like a good bet to me.
