This question was put to Labour MP Harriet Harman and her answer was 'Hero of the Left but time for Cuba to move on'. Now my most generous interpretation of her answer is that it is simply a statement of fact that much of the 'Left' (Ken Livingston, Galloway) regard Castro as a hero, but that he is not necessarily Harman's own personal hero. However, I fear that she meant he is a hero to all of the Left including herself.
This has wound up a number of Conservative and Liberal writers who see Castro as an authoritarian dictator who has been given a free pass by the Left.
For instance, Daniel Finkelstein writes an article in The Times about Harriet Harman's comment:
'I had a strange idea yesterday. I had the idea of inviting Harriet Harman home for dinner. This isn't a thought that occurs to me often, but I suddenly felt it might be fun.
I'd invite my Dad too. And then, when we'd given Harriet a nice meal (what do you think she likes to eat?), my father could tell her his story.
He could tell her how the Soviets and the Nazis closed in on his home town of Lvov in September 1939 and how the town council chose the Soviets to surrender to. Then he might tell her how the fathers of his friends were taken to the woods at Katyn and shot by the communists.
Background
He might recount the story of his father's arrest as an antisocial element, of Adolf Finkelstein's repeated interrogations leading to a trial in his absence and a jail sentence of 15 years' hard labour. Then Dad could tell the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party about his own experience as a child, exiled to a remote Siberian village. And how he and his mother and his father never saw their home again.
And, when he'd finished, he could let Harriet speak. And she could explain to Dad why she thinks that Fidel Castro is a hero.'
And on his blog Comment Central Daniel Finkelstein lists the reasons why Castro isn't a Hero to the Left:
'In an extraordinary statement Harriet Harman, Deputy leader of the Labour Party, says that she believes Fidel Castro to be a "hero of the left".
Here are the top ten reasons why she is wrong.
1. Hero of the left? In the 1960s, Cuba sent homosexuals to forced labour camps. Raul Castro was particularly active in this policy, reputedly because he looked effeminate at the time and wanted to seem more macho
2. Hero of the left? In 2003, Castro oversaw the execution of three men who had hijacked a ferry in a bid to escape from the island. Sounds pretty left wing to me.
3. Hero of the left? During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike on the American mainland. This is never mentioned by the anti-war campaigners who admire Castro.
4. Hero of the left? According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, in 2006 there were 316 political prisoners in Cuba.
5. Hero of the left? Independent labour unions are illegal in Cuba. Has Harriet told Jack Dromey?
6. Hero of the left? On January 19, 2003, an election was held for the Cuban National Assembly. There were 609 candidates —all supported by the regime— vying for 609 seats.
7. Hero of the left? The purchase of computers and access to the internet is severely restricted with many citizens using black market sources.
8. Hero of the left? In 2003, state security forces raided 22 independent libraries and sent 14 librarians to jail with terms of up to 26 years.
9. Hero of the left? Castro personally has been one of the most conservative forces in the Cuban government. Castro was fiercely opposed to economic reforms of Gorbachev. At the 4th Cuban Communist Party Congress in 1991, there was a movement for modest liberalisation of the economy - allowing limited market in agricultural products. Fidel immediately scotched any suggestion of it.
10. Hero of the left? Castro’s admirers talk about how the deployment of troops to Angola in 1975 helped defeat apartheid in South Africa. But they don’t discuss the other aspects of his Africa adventures. Notably, how he supported the despicable Mengistu in Ethiopia, which cost enormous number of lives during the war with Somalia.
Harriet Harman has made a dreadful error. She should apologise.'
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Iraqi TV Debate: Is the Earth Flat?
Found by SG. Unbelievable. Watch to the end.
Best to watch it here:
Video - Iraqi TV Debate: Is the Earth Flat?
A debate between an Iraqi "Researcher on Astronomy" and a physicist on Iraqi television. Apparently, this is an important question in the Islamic world...
-From the transcript-
Interviewer: Lunar and solar eclipses, sunset and sunrise, and the changing of seasons -- how would you explain all these phenomena, if the Earth is not round, as you claim?
Fadhel Al-Sa'd: The sun circles the Earth because it is smaller than the Earth, as is evident in Koranic verses.
Have you ever seen how the sun moves? I have seen the sun moving. The sun makes one move every 24 hours.
What I say is based on Koranic science. He bases his arguments on the kind of science that I reject categorically -- the modern science that they teach in schools. This science is a heretic innovation that has no confirmation in the Koran. No verse in the Koran indicates that the Earth is round or that it rotates. Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false.
Comes from here originally:
Iraqi Researcher Defies Scientific Axioms: The Earth Is Flat and Much Larger than the Sun (Which Is Also Flat)
Memri
October 31, 2007
Best to watch it here:
Video - Iraqi TV Debate: Is the Earth Flat?
A debate between an Iraqi "Researcher on Astronomy" and a physicist on Iraqi television. Apparently, this is an important question in the Islamic world...
-From the transcript-
Interviewer: Lunar and solar eclipses, sunset and sunrise, and the changing of seasons -- how would you explain all these phenomena, if the Earth is not round, as you claim?
Fadhel Al-Sa'd: The sun circles the Earth because it is smaller than the Earth, as is evident in Koranic verses.
Have you ever seen how the sun moves? I have seen the sun moving. The sun makes one move every 24 hours.
What I say is based on Koranic science. He bases his arguments on the kind of science that I reject categorically -- the modern science that they teach in schools. This science is a heretic innovation that has no confirmation in the Koran. No verse in the Koran indicates that the Earth is round or that it rotates. Anything that has no indication in the Koran is false.
Comes from here originally:
Iraqi Researcher Defies Scientific Axioms: The Earth Is Flat and Much Larger than the Sun (Which Is Also Flat)
Memri
October 31, 2007
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The appalling neglect of Britain's armed forces
Difficult to see how even the most ardent Labour fan (Wembley?) can defend the appalling neglect of our armed forces.
Coroner: MoD guilty of unforgivable betrayal
Telegraph
15/02/2008
A coroner has accused the Government of causing an “unforgivable and inexcusable breach of trust” with the Armed Forces by sending soldiers into combat with “totally inadequate” equipment. Troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan were not defeated by terrorists but “by the lack of basic equipment,” Coroner Andrew Walker told the hearing into the death of the first British soldier to be killed in Helmand province.
Capt James Philippson and colleagues had been sent to fight the Taliban without night vision goggles (NVGs) and without adequate machine guns or grenade launchers which led to them being “outgunned by a bunch of renegades,” the inquest heard.
Oxford Coroners Court also heard that while the small British force in Sangin town had been equipped with .50 calibre heavy machine guns there was no device to mount the weapons on vehicles. Capt Philippson was killed in a firefight in which it was conceded that the British soldiers were “totally outgunned” by a smaller force of Taliban as they went to rescue ambushed colleagues on June 11 2006.
Major Jonathon Bristow, the commander of the 20 man patrol, said he had just three NVGs to go round his men whereas a small attached American unit had all the equipment they needed. He conceded that they could not adequately defend their base from attack and although he had requested eight general purpose machine guns the unit still only had three.
The coroner asked Major Bristow if they had been supplied with Minimi machine guns and under-slung grenade launchers, they would have been a match for their attackers. "It would have made a hell of a difference," he said. Asked if he had the right equipment if things might have turned out differently Major Bristow said: “We lost the initiative through a lack of firepower and thus the Taliban had a greater weight of firepower.”
Capt Philippson was killed in the opening salvo of the fight as the patrol stumbled on a dozen well-armed Taliban in the darkness around 10pm.It was conceded that “bad luck” played a major part in his death.
Outside the court Tony Philippson, the soldier's father, said it was a disgrace that troops had been sent to fight terrorists without sufficient kit. "I hold the MoD responsible for my son's death but in turn they were starved of cash". He accused the then “parsimonious” Chancellor Gordon Brown of not spending money and “risking soldiers' lives”.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the Coroner's findings were “a damning indictment on Labour's treatment of our Armed Forces”. "The Government were willing to do the one thing which is unforgivable which is to commit troops to battle without due protection," he said. The coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing with a single AK47 gunshot wound to the head the cause of death.
--------
Navy to cut its fleet by half
Telegraph
05/01/2007
Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure. Sailors standing on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, which may never go to sea again. Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.
Coroner: MoD guilty of unforgivable betrayal
Telegraph
15/02/2008
A coroner has accused the Government of causing an “unforgivable and inexcusable breach of trust” with the Armed Forces by sending soldiers into combat with “totally inadequate” equipment. Troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan were not defeated by terrorists but “by the lack of basic equipment,” Coroner Andrew Walker told the hearing into the death of the first British soldier to be killed in Helmand province.
Capt James Philippson and colleagues had been sent to fight the Taliban without night vision goggles (NVGs) and without adequate machine guns or grenade launchers which led to them being “outgunned by a bunch of renegades,” the inquest heard.
Oxford Coroners Court also heard that while the small British force in Sangin town had been equipped with .50 calibre heavy machine guns there was no device to mount the weapons on vehicles. Capt Philippson was killed in a firefight in which it was conceded that the British soldiers were “totally outgunned” by a smaller force of Taliban as they went to rescue ambushed colleagues on June 11 2006.
Major Jonathon Bristow, the commander of the 20 man patrol, said he had just three NVGs to go round his men whereas a small attached American unit had all the equipment they needed. He conceded that they could not adequately defend their base from attack and although he had requested eight general purpose machine guns the unit still only had three.
The coroner asked Major Bristow if they had been supplied with Minimi machine guns and under-slung grenade launchers, they would have been a match for their attackers. "It would have made a hell of a difference," he said. Asked if he had the right equipment if things might have turned out differently Major Bristow said: “We lost the initiative through a lack of firepower and thus the Taliban had a greater weight of firepower.”
Capt Philippson was killed in the opening salvo of the fight as the patrol stumbled on a dozen well-armed Taliban in the darkness around 10pm.It was conceded that “bad luck” played a major part in his death.
Outside the court Tony Philippson, the soldier's father, said it was a disgrace that troops had been sent to fight terrorists without sufficient kit. "I hold the MoD responsible for my son's death but in turn they were starved of cash". He accused the then “parsimonious” Chancellor Gordon Brown of not spending money and “risking soldiers' lives”.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the Coroner's findings were “a damning indictment on Labour's treatment of our Armed Forces”. "The Government were willing to do the one thing which is unforgivable which is to commit troops to battle without due protection," he said. The coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing with a single AK47 gunshot wound to the head the cause of death.
--------
Navy to cut its fleet by half
Telegraph
05/01/2007
Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure. Sailors standing on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, which may never go to sea again. Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims
Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims
The Sunday Times
February 10, 2008
A government minister has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects - comments likely to spark a new row over the place of Muslims in British society.
Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the “elephant in the room”. Woolas, a former race relations minister, said: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.”
The minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said: “The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children].”
Woolas emphasised the practice did not extend to all Muslim communities but was confined mainly to families originating from rural Pakistan. However, up to half of all marriages within these communities are estimated to involve first cousins.
Medical research suggests that while British Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of all births, they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses.
The Sunday Times
February 10, 2008
A government minister has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects - comments likely to spark a new row over the place of Muslims in British society.
Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the “elephant in the room”. Woolas, a former race relations minister, said: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.”
The minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said: “The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children].”
Woolas emphasised the practice did not extend to all Muslim communities but was confined mainly to families originating from rural Pakistan. However, up to half of all marriages within these communities are estimated to involve first cousins.
Medical research suggests that while British Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of all births, they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses.
Archbishop: Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
Have decided to create a separate thread for this, as it's a big story, so am gonna try to move stuff from the original thread.
-----------------
Originally posted: February 07, 2008
Dan drew my attention to this story, and his pithy comment - what a fucking cock - is, for me, unimprovable.
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
BBC News
07/02/08
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable". Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
...
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
-----------------
Originally posted: February 07, 2008
Dan drew my attention to this story, and his pithy comment - what a fucking cock - is, for me, unimprovable.
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
BBC News
07/02/08
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable". Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
...
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
Monday, February 11, 2008
Red is banned till Friday
The following article has been published in The Saudi Gazette. It is absolutely fascinating that this is not a paragraph from some literary piece but actually taking place now, here, on this planet.
Red is Banned till Fri
By Suzan Zawawi
Saudi Gazette
11/01/08
RIYADH - Agents of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice visited flower and gift shops in the capital Saturday night to instruct them to remove all red items - from red roses and wrapping paper to boxes and teddy bears - from their shelves, shop workers said.
"They visited us last night," said a couple of florists Sunday morning.
"They gave us warnings and this morning we packed up all the red itmes and displays."The florists asked not to be identified.
Sunday was the last day people could buy red roses in Riyadh, until Valentine's Day on Feb. 14 passes.
Every year, Commission agents visit flower shops a couple of days before Feb. 14 to issue warnings. On the eve of Valentine's Day, they start their raids and confiscate any red items that are symbols of love, florists here said.
But as a result of the ban, there's a black market in red roses.
"A single rose costs around SR5-7 but today the same rose costs SR10 a piece and the price will go up to SR20-30 on Valentine's Day," said a florist who caters to customers on Valentine's Day from his apartment.
Loyal customers place orders with the florist days and sometimes weeks before Feb. 14. "Sometimes we deliver the bouquets in the middle of the night or early morning, to avoid suspicion," said the florist.
Islamic scholars around the Kingdom such as Sheikh Khaled Al-Dossari preach that celebrating Valentine's Day and other non-Islamic celebrations is a sin. "As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women," Dossari, a scholar in Islamic Studies and the Shariah, said.
However, many young hearts are planning to celebrate in their own way, whether in secret, abroad or on the Web.
"I send e-cards to all my special friends online," said Famita Hakeem, a young Saudi university student.
"We are planning on going to Dubai Wednesday night to celebrate Valentine's Day as a couple," said Hannan Radi, a Saudi wife and teacher.
With Valentine's Day coinciding with the mid-term break, some Saudis have already left the Kingdom. With Bahrain so close to Al-Khobar, many Saudis who cannot travel further are planning on driving to Manama this weekend.
"I expect the bridge to be packed full," said Mahmood Naseeb, a Khobar resident.
"This happens every year on Valentine's Day but this year it might be worse because many people are on vacation."
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore - Christopher Hitchens
Andy just lent me a Christopher Hitchens book, Love, Poverty and War. It contains amongst other essays this blistering attack on Michael Moore.
Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate
June 21, 2004
...
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
...
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.
...
A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.
But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)
more
Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate
June 21, 2004
...
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
...
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.
...
A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.
But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)
more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)