The Faux Michael Moore Controversy
By now, you’ve probably heard of the big to-do about Chris Matthews saying that Osama bin Laden sounded like Michael Moore in his latest message. Well, this is typical of the blogosphere at its worst, and we see it from both sides from time to time. There is nothing remotely controversial about what Matthews said. He DID NOT say Michael Moore was a terrorist, or a traitor, or anything like the sort. What Matthews clearly meant is that bin Laden, who was explicitly tailoring his comments to an American audience, was actually pretty shrewd about picking talking points that were lifted from the anti-war crowd.
I don’t even think that’s remotely deniable…I mean, have you READ bin Laden’s statement? The MinuteMan points out the similarities, not only with Moore, but with the makers of the new film “Why We Fight” (for a snarkier look at other similarities between bin Laden’s statements and statements of the radical Left, see today’s Best of the Web). Let’s let Mr. Maguire take over for a minute:
First, let’s extend the transcript a bit to minimize any confusion – Chris Matthews begins by reading this from Bin Laden’s statement:
There is no defect in this solution [a proposed truce] other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush’s election campaign with billions of dollars.
Matthews then says, roughly, “I mean he sounds like an over the top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore. Do you think that sells in America, that this war is being fought for the Daddy Warbucks?”
In case someone still misconstrues what I’m saying, let me put it to you this way. Suppose Adolph Hitler, in the middle of World War II, wanted to appeal to the Americans to call off the war. In doing so, Hitler (surely no idiot, and neither is Osama) might appeal (remember, this is a hypothetical for illustrative purposes only) to the sentiments of various founding fathers who made statements to the effect of keeping our noses out of foreign quarrels, and how he was fighting against the evils of Bolshevism, etc., etc. In response, a pretend columnist of the time might say, “Wow, he sounded like a regular George Washington (or Winston Churchill, say) in that speech”.
Now, we wouldn’t be foolish enough to think that was a statement of moral equality, would we? In fact, we would know, if we were honest, that it was a statement about the rhetorical points of emphasis that Hitler hit in his speech. Similarly, when Chris Matthews made his statement, I think that clearly this was the sort of thing he meant…judge for yourself, of course, but to me, this is a perfect example of the false outrage that is so prevalent these days. We just look for things to get upset about, don’t we?…and if you need further proof of how stupid this thing is, note that John Kerry has jumped in:
“You’d think the only focus tonight would be on destroying Osama Bin Laden, not comparing him to an American who opposes the war whether you like him or not. You want a real debate that America needs? Here goes: If the administration had done the job right in Tora Bora we might not be having discussions on Hardball about a new Bin Laden tape. How dare Scott McClellan tell America that this Administration puts terrorists out of business when had they put Osama Bin Laden out of business in Afghanistan when our troops wanted to, we wouldn’t have to hear this barbarian’s voice on tape. That’s what we should be talking about in America.”
Oh, please…Q.E.D…
UPDATE 01/21/06 9:42 p.m.: Rick Moran has more on the incredible denial going on with this issue…
UPDATE 01/21/06 11:16 p.m.: And more still from Myrhaf…
So was Kerry for having more troops in Afghanistan or fewer?
For more BEFORE he was for fewer….
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
I don’t even think that’s remotely deniable…I mean, have you READ bin Laden’s statement?
That’s the problem Mark. The left IS denying it – and screaming like a stuck pig that it is simply not true that Bin Laden is using lefty talking points.
This denial is what I’m writing about – not that Matthews was right or wrong or that lefties are just like terrorists. The fact is, you are more correct than you realize when you talk about the undeniability of the facts in this case. And that is what has the left going ballistic.
Rick, I look very forward to seeing what you have to say on that score…it’s bound to be a treat…
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
RINO Sightings
Rusty proves he’s still Jawalicious after all these years. How? By celebrating his second blogiversary and helping to catch a terrorist. Politechnical found something really scary. Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan discussed Iran and made absolute sense. …
Now, we wouldn’t be foolish enough to think that was a statement of moral equality, would we?
Oh, never! But of course, in the simplistic with-us-or-against-us light in which this president has cast the GWOT, that is precisely what likening OBL’s statements to Michael Moore’s achieves: the assertion of a moral equivalence.
And the comparisons don’t achieve this equivalence incidentally or by accident. It’s so engrained in the right-wing mindset to cast moral aspersions at those who object to this president’s ill-conceived and counter-productive war that you don’t even recognize it when it happens.
For example when you remark that OBL is “pretty shrewd about picking talking points that were lifted from the anti-war crowd.” You all love the idea that to be against the war is to collude with the evildoers. In fact, here you’ve even given “the AWC” more credit than OBL by implying that he’s a mere plagiarist from the definitive anti-war playbook written treasonously by us over here in liberal America.
What you can’t seem to understand is that OBL and anti-war liberals can interpret the same set of facts without being in tactical or moral collusion. For example, to acknowledge the fact that roughly 2000 of the 2200 U.S. casualites in this war took place after this president’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” performance, and to conclude from this fact that this president and his war planners grossly miscalculated does not mean that I’m with bin Laden and against the troops.
No matter how many times the right screams to the contrary or insinuates it through an unwilling loudmouth dupe like Chris Matthews. (Whose comments tear the American public apart. Just like bin Laden. I mean, doesn’t Chris Matthews sound kinda like an over-the-top bin Laden…? Oh, sorry.)
The real news, which the likes of Matthews might actually report if they were actual journalists instead of entertainers, is the OBL is offering a truce — not something you do when things are going your way.
Of course that’s the real news, tmorange! It’s the Left that has manufactured this controversy! I think you have seriously misconstrued my point – this is a joke, and by the way, have you seen my new post? It seems Michael Moore bragged about being a source for OBL’s talking points himself, on Election Eve!…
Tell me, is Michael Moore also a rightwing loudmouth dupe? (Well, he’s two out of the three, I’ll grant you)…
Of course that’s the real news, tmorange! It’s the Left that has manufactured this controversy!
no, i’m afraid the “blame liberals first” game won’t wash here. peter daou is spot on: the right would be howling if anyone from the SCLM compared a prominent conservative activist to bin laden and you know it.
and as i’ve detailed, this is not the first time matthews has turned bush’s opponents into partisans for bin laden. his affection for bush is well documented. his readiness to join gingrich, hannity, scarborough, carlson, the conways, etc in the demonization of moore and anyone who opposes this president is only suprising in the offhandedness with which it was done.
Tell me, is Michael Moore also a rightwing loudmouth dupe? (Well, he’s two out of the three, I’ll grant you)…
personally i’m not a big fan of michael moore. his fondness for conspiracy theories is too reductive and lacks subtlety, qualities which are unfortunately too common on the left. he makes entertaining films but he’s a sloppy thinker.
tmorange, I’ve made the arguments…clearly, Matthews was not making a statement of moral equivalence…if you want to pretend he did, then I’ll respectfully disagree and let me previous work on the subject stand…
since you pretend that matthews’ comments take place in a contextless, implicationless void and can’t acknowledge the obvious fact that comparing a provocative american activist and filmmaker with an islamic fundamentalist terrorist murderer clearly partakes in a right-wing chorus that slings accusations of treasonous aid and comfort to the enemy at anyone who dares to criticise this morally self-assured and self-righteous president, we’ll have to agree to disagree.