Michael Moore digs himself a deeper hole

By Stephen Gowans

I was wondering how filmmaker Michael Moore would react to the avalanche of criticism, outrage, and shock set off by his paean to retired General Wesley Clark, the ex-Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, who's thrown his hat into the ring for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Moore had written friends and fans, urging them to pressure Clark – a man the filmmaker says is antiwar, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and opposed to Bush's tax cuts -- to bid for the nomination.

What Moore left out of his missive was that Clark  -- a career soldier who had fought in Vietnam -- led NATO's 78-day air war on Yugoslavia, an illegal affair from start to finish, that saw the NATO commander order his bombers to destroy roads, bridges, factories, petrochemical plants, electrical power stations, telephone switching equipment, a radio-TV building and an embassy, in defiance of articles of war prohibiting the targeting of civilian infrastructure.

Hundreds, if not thousands of civilians were killed by Clark's bombs, missiles and cluster bombs, and many more were permanently disabled, in a campaign that Human Rights Watch (not known for going hard on Americans) condemned for grave breaches of humanitarian law.

Clark – the man Moore says is against war -- is a war criminal.

That, and other deplorable episodes from Clark's pro-war past (including British General Michael Jackson's revelation that Clark almost touched off world war three by pressing Jackson to order British paratroops to clash with Russian soldiers at Pristina) didn't, however, escape the attention of many of Moore's fans. Some were left dumbfounded by the filmmaker's warm words for a principal figure in one of the most egregious recent instances of US imperialism run amuck.

When FAIR, the media watchdog, dug up Clark's pro-war newspaper columns, Moore looked stupid. When Clark said he wouldn't cancel Bush's tax-cuts, Moore looked dumber still. And when Clark said he probably would have voted for the war on Iraq, Moore looked like a man who had been bamboozled, or was in the bamboozling business himself.

There was no question the filmmaker had dug himself a deep hole. The only question was, how was he going to get out of it? Would he say nothing, and pretend the whole thing hadn't happened, hoping that, after a time, everyone would forget? Would he say, I've learned when you make a bone-headed move, the best thing to do is fess-up? Or would he simply dig himself a bigger hole?

Turns out he's reached for the shovel.

In a letter dated September 23rd, Moore dances around the issue of his supporting a war criminal, taking 13 paragraphs to finally get around to addressing what's on everyone's minds. What's up with the Clark love-in?

It then takes Moore 11 paragraphs to tie himself into knots of illogic, as he flings dirt pile after dirt pile from a hole that gets deeper and deeper.

Here's what he has to say:

It's true that as commander of NATO forces, Clark led a bombing campaign that killed civilians, and it bothers Moore to this day that civilians were bombed. But it wasn't Clark's fault. If President Clinton and Defense Secretary Cohen had let Clark use ground troops (as Clark recommended), there would have been fewer civilian casualties, Moore argues.

Problem is, they didn't. And still Clark ordered his bombers to target civilian infrastructure. It doesn't matter what Clark wanted to do. What matters is what Clark did do. (And did Clark want to deploy ground troops to minimize civilian casualties, or to achieve the war's objective -- to drive Milosevic's forces out of Kosovo? I'd say Clark was more concerned about military objectives than minimizing civilian casualties.)

Even so, if Clark had his way on ground troops, would that have made the war any less illegal or any less a war of aggression? And would Clark have been any less a principal figure in the exercise of American imperialism on steroids?

And what of Moore -- did the Kosovo war itself, apart from the civilian casualties, bother him? It doesn't look like it. Moore defends Clark as a man who recommended the right – that is, civilian casualty limiting – tactics, without uttering a word of disgust for the whole sordid exercise, or Clark's role in it. In this, he's like Clark: Not opposed to war so much as opposed to wars that aren't carried out the way he would carry them out.

And Moore says Clark needed to "stop Milosevic's genocide of the people in Kosovo." Moore should know there never was a genocide, and at the time, he challenged the claim. I recall him ridiculing a NATO propaganda exercise involving before and after satellite photographs. Look, in this photo the ground is undisturbed, NATO spin doctors said. But in this photo, taken hours later, there are signs of a disturbance. Could mass graves have been dug here? We were supposed to answer the question with a resounding yes.

But Moore, exercising a skepticism that seems to have melted away with the first kind words he received from Clark, asked pointedly: If they can take pictures before the graves are dug, and pictures after, why can't they take pictures during?

Perhaps Moore has a short memory. The original charges against Milosevic in connection with Kosovo, brought by the NATO controlled tribunal at The Hague, concern incidents, with one exception, that happened after the bombing began. And the number of deaths in those incidents is in the hundreds, not hundreds of thousands and not even tens of thousands. The one pre-bombing incident, the Racak massacre, involved fewer than 50 deaths, most, if not all of which, it now seems, were KLA guerillas. So how could there have been a genocide in progress if the bulk of the charges against Milosevic – involving only hundreds of deaths – happened after Clark ordered his bombers to take out bridges, roads, factories, power plants and other civilian targets?

In the months following Clark's destruction of a country, forensic pathologists roved widely over Kosovo, to document the genocide NATO assured them had happened. They left in disgust, complaining they had been deceived by NATO's war propaganda. Rather than finding mass graves containing tens of thousands of bodies, they found a few thousand bodies, most buried individually, the kind of low-level carnage that attends a civil war, but hardly amounts to genocide. Before there were weapons of mass destruction that couldn't be found, there was a genocide that couldn't be found.

Still, Moore seems to have decided that reviving tall tales about genocide that even NATO won't back up any more, will help his case. And the motivation seems to be to polish up the reputation of a war criminal and hit man for American imperialism, so that he – Moore – doesn't seem like such a dumb ass or fraud (take your pick) for taking a shine to him.

The next step Moore takes as Clark's unofficial spin doctor is to brush Kosovo aside as water under the bridge. "The war we are in NOW is not called Kosovo," he thunders, "but Iraq."

"If we have a former general, who may have done some things that some of us don't like – but he is now offering to be an advocate for peace – why would any of us want to reject this?"

"May" have done some things, that "some" of us don't like? There's no question about what Clark may or may not have done. The facts are plain. And Moore's point about Clark doing things "some" of us don't like," raises the tantalizing question: Is Moore among those who don't like what Clark did? These days, one would be inclined to say he's not. And what makes a general a better advocate for peace than anyone else?

Moreover, it's doubtful Clark has turned into an advocate for peace. Even Moore points out that Clark's problem with the Iraq war is that it doesn't follow the Powell doctrine, that is, it doesn't have an exit strategy. Clark's expressing reservations about the war isn't advocating for peace; it's advocating for the Powell doctrine. Moore seems to have mistaken a difference of opinion over military strategy, with advocacy for peace.

The filmmaker's last shot at defending a war criminal is to invoke the biblical, "Let he who is free from sin, cast the first stone." They all have blood on their hands, Moore says, referring to Clark's rivals for the Democratic nomination. Kerry does ("he killed people in Vietnam.") Kucinich does (he once voted "for laws restricting a women's right to an abortion, potentially forcing women back to the alley and, for many of them, to certain death.") And Dean does, too (he was in favor of war on Afghanistan and would execute people on death row.)

Incidentally, we learn earlier in the letter that Moore isn't opposed to capital punishment either. In the filmmaker's view, the state's taking of life is all right if "the problem of potentially executing the innocent can be solved." Well let's see. Since there's no doubt Clark is a war criminal, and that the blood of hundreds, if not thousands of Serb civilians is on his hands, shouldn't Clark, if we follow Moore's reasoning, be headed for the execution chamber, not the White House? After all, in Clark's case, there's no risk of executing the innocent. Oh, but I forgot -- that Kosovo thing is all behind us. And all the candidates have blood on their hands. It's quite a sign of Moore's desperation – and it's  grotesque to boot — that he should put Clark's ordering bombers to target civilian infrastructure on the same moral plane as Kucinich once voting against abortion rights.

What's most troubling about Moore – apart from his ignorance, his silly arguments, and his unrequited love for the Democratic Party – is his failure to grasp the enormity of who Clark is, what he has done, and what he has participated in. There seems to be an unshakable belief, residing deep in the filmmaker's soul, that Americans have the right -- no, the obligation -- to meddle in the affairs of others, that unspeakable crimes are beyond the capability of Americans, (especially Democrats), and that monsters, thugs and brutes live half way around the world, in countries the US must takeover and control, but not at home, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.

What's more, Moore's distaste for Republicans, and his "any Democrat but Bush" attitude is dumbfounding, not so much because it clashes violently with his belief, loudly trumpeted in the last election, that the Democrats and Republicans are the same, but because the Democrats and Republicans, on matters of foreign policy, are the same. Exactly what is Moore's trouble with Bush's wars, that doesn't, in the end, boil down to a difference over tactics?

He seems completely untroubled by Washington having waged a war of aggression on Yugoslavia (apart from the civilian casualties that bother him to this day.) So how is he any less pro-war, pro-imperial and anti-international law, than Bush? Neither Bush, nor it seems, Moore, is especially bothered by the US waging wars of aggression and neither regard UN sanction for war as essential. (Compare Kosovo and Iraq. On these grounds, they're no different.) Trampling international law is also all right. (Again, no difference between Kosovo and Iraq.) And neither is particularly troubled by the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure. (War crimes were carried out as unreservedly by Clark as by Bush's commanders.) What's more, neither have any qualms about telling tall tales (in Moore's case, about mass graves that never existed, and in Bush's case, about weapons of mass destruction that don't exist) to justify war to advance the United States imperialist goals.

Except for mostly non-economic differences on domestic policy – affirmative action, a moratorium on capital punishment, abortion rights – Moore, the die-hard Democrat, affirms what he argued so vigorously four years ago. Democrats aren't really all that different from Republicans, after all.

...

You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.

Michael can I reccomend a good Analyst?

"Clark – the man Moore says is against war -- is a war criminal. "

How is it that Clark is a "war criminal"? Merely because he's a soldier and went to war?

Are you a complete idiot?

Do you even know what "war criminal" means?

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.



It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance

2. Selectivity

3. Coincidental

4. Teamwork

5. Anti-conspiratorial

6. Artificial Emotions

7. Inconsistent

8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.



4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

2. Become incredulous and indignant

3. Create rumor mongers

4. Use a straw man

5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule

6. Hit and Run

7. Question motives

8. Invoke authority

9. Play Dumb

10. Associate opponent charges with old news

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

12. Enigmas have no solution

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

14. Demand complete solutions

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses

17. Change the subject

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad

19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs

20. False evidence

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor

22. Manufacture a new truth

23. Create bigger distractions

24. Silence critics

25. Vanish

"Clark – the man Moore says is against war -- is a war criminal. "

How is it that Clark is a "war criminal"? Merely because he's a soldier and went to war?

Are you a complete idiot?

Do you even know what "war criminal" means?