Re: [Marxism] Fwd: [DK] CORRECTING MICHAEL MOORE

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Counterpunch, January 16, 2004


The General's Henchman


Michael Moore Smears Kucinich

By DAVE LINDORFF

Film producer and journalist Michael Moore, who has decided to endorse and
actively campaign for retired Gen. Wesley Clark for the Democratic
presidential nomination, has crossed the line in attacking at least one of
Clark's rivals.

Moore, in emails to supporters, and on his website (www.michaelmoore.com),
asks forbearance on the part of those who have been pointing out Clark's
negatives, notably his role in the bombing of civilian targets in Serbia
during the NATO Kosovo campaign, his dangerous order (disobeyed fortunately
by a British commander) to have NATO troops confront Russian troops at the
Pristina airbase where they had landed a contingent without NATO
permission, and his record of supporting Republicans in the past.

Moore backs up this plea for grace by claiming that Dennis Kucinich --the
most consistent and outspoken opponent of the Iraq war of all the
Democratic candidates, and the only member of Congress running for the
presidency who had the guts to vote against the November war resolution
which Bush used as his "Tonkin Gulf" authorization to invade Iraq--is
himself a waffler on the issue of the war.

How so?

As Moore explains, "Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war
resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which
stated `unequivocal support' for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted
against this--Dennis abstained)."

After this nasty charge, he goes on to play coy, saying, "What's the point
of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other
stands against the war."

But putting aside for the moment whether it makes sense--in the interest of
ousting Bush--not to look too hard into the pasts of the various candidates
for the Democratic nomination, as Moore is urging us to refrain from doing,
let's look at the truth of this particular libel against Kucinich.

What exactly was that resolution in March '03 that Kucinich abstained on
(he voted "present" rather than yes or no)? It called on congressmembers to
"express suport and appreciation of the nation for the president and the
members of the armed forces who are involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom."

This was not a further authorization for war--something which Kucinich, who
had voted against the original war authorization, would certainly have
opposed. Rather, as the politically savvy Moore clearly knows, it was a
meaningless "feel good" resolution, and a blatant Republican effort to
"sandbag" Bush critics in Congress by offering up a "support the troops"
resolution that they would find it politically hard not to vote for. The
trick was, the resolution didn't just say Congress members supported the
troops and their families; it also said they supported the president.

As Kucinich spokesperson David Swanson explains, "Dennis supports the
troops, but he doesn't support the president, so he couldn't support the
resolution. But he didn't want to vote against support for the troops, so
he voted `present.'"

A purist might argue that Kucinich should have simply called the resolution
for what it was--a dirty trick designed to silence war critics--and voted
against it, which, as Moore correctly notes, a handful of Democrats did in
fact do. But given the simplistic way the corporate media reports such
matters, and the way Republican opponents could be counted upon to use it
in a campaign, it is also understandable why Kucinich chose to simply
abstain. (Just look how Moore and Clark are using it now!)

full: http://www.counterpunch.org/


Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism