A Letter from Michael Moore to George W.

[larry emdur is my hero!]

www.michaelmoore.com/

Monday, March 17, 2003
A Letter from Michael Moore to George W.
Bush on the Eve of War

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that
"France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the
table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because,

I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and
conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to
hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like

to share with you:

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and
Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this
one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in
America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about
wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO
Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has
even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average
Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a
threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill
him!
Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you
-- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know
what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of
them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and
a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market
having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement
funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars --
the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this
go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to
lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole
world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans
among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The
Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out
against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that
you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you
personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL
while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of
South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed
forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send
your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don
their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of
Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for
this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well,
hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal
screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying.
But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known
as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in
the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest
thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben
Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the
concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our
Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of
Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of
French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are
doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about
yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank
them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should
have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your
ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has
painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with
this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm
guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their
lives
to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will
enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a
winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every
now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So
try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's
election.
Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a

good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even
further down the toilet!

But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days
before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope
alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

[fathershark]

I weep for the future. At least we'll get the sanitised version of this invasion in a Jerry Bruckheimer shlockfest in a few years.

[dirtgirl]

congratulations to mr moore on his oscar for 'bowling for columbine'. The truth may win out yet...

[Tiberius]

I wonder if they'll censor out what he said? I might actually watch it tonight to see if they show it (well, until Buffy comes on of course).

[Sonic Death Monkey]

I kept flicking back and forth between oscars and whatever else was on but didn't see Moore getting his oscar, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if channel nine had censored it those bastards.

Michael Moore is a champion.

[kim-b]

they didn't censor his oscar winning speech..it was pretty crazy. As soon as it sounded like he was about to protest, huge "boo's" came from the crowd and the camera cut to the celebrities faces who were laughing and clapping (Nicholson + Cage) or were straight faced trying to show no emotion (Kidman etc.) They didn't show any of the yelling people though...i wonder who they were...

[somethingforkaty]

"ACCEPTANCE SPEECH
Michael Moore: Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much"

I saw that. It was funny after he said 'fictitious election results and president', because they showed a shot of the audience and they were so stunned as was i he had enough balls to say something like that!

Not that many people booed, just a few, most of the audience looked confused. I doubt they booed him because they support the war, probably because it wasn't really the time or the place i guess.

What do you think?

I mean, the war has already started and isn't about to cease because Bush all of a sudden wants to listen to protestors. I think it kinda cheapens what is happening to the soldiers over there who have been captured and killed.

[somethingforkaty]

Forgot to say, if you go to:
www.oscars.com

and then go to the winners page, click on Michael Moore under best Docu then you can watch a video of the acceptance speech. I didn't bother because my internet is so very crap so I'm not sure if they cut anything out or not.

ON EDIT - I just listened to it and it's actually an interview after his speech which is pretty good.

[kim-b]

well, i don't know if it was good timing...

i agree katy, the war is already on, and i think the only good thing that can be done now is to support the guys over there. i didn't really like the speech either, it was just full of insults and calling names. i mean, i like michael moore, his shows and his movies, but mmmm, i didn't like his protest at the oscars.

hmm, on second thought, it wasn't that bad...i don't know, it just didn't seem right when i was watching it.

[TheAstronaut]

i applaud Michael Moore for his comments at the oscars. It's about time somebody took a media controlled event and used it to shout and spout!

[somethingforkaty]

But how do you think the troops who were watching it felt?

[Sonic Death Monkey]

I'd Like to Thank the Vatican...

By Michael Moore
March 27, 2003

A word of advice to future Oscar winners: Don't begin Oscar day by going to church.

That is where I found myself this past Sunday morning, at the Church of the Good Shepherd on Santa Monica Boulevard, at Mass with my sister and my dad. My problem with the Catholic Mass is that sometimes I find my mind wandering after I hear something the priest says, and I start thinking all these crazy thoughts like how it is wrong to kill people and that you are not allowed to use violence upon another human being unless it is in true self-defense.

The pope even came right out and said it: This war in Iraq is not a just war and, thus, it is a sin.

Those thoughts were with me the rest of the day, from the moment I left the church and passed by the homeless begging for change (one in six American children living in poverty is another form of violence), to the streets around the Kodak Theater where antiwar protesters were being arrested as I drove by in my studio-sponsored limo.

I had not planned on winning an Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine" (no documentary that was a big box-office success had won since "Woodstock"), and so I had no speech prepared. I'm not much of a speech-preparer anyway, and besides, I had already received awards in the days leading up to the Oscars and used the same acceptance remarks. I spoke of the need for nonfiction films when we live in such fictitious times. We have a fictitious president who was elected with fictitious election results. (If you still believe that 3,000 elderly Jewish Americans -- many of them Holocaust survivors -- voted for Pat Buchanan in West Palm Beach in 2000, then you are a true devotee to the beauty of fiction!) He is now conducting a war for a fictitious reason (the claim that Saddam Hussein has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction when in fact we are there to get the world's second-largest supply of oil).

Whether it is a tax cut that is passed off as a gift to the middle class or a desire to drill holes in the wilds of Alaska, we are continually bombarded with one fictitious story after another from the Bush White House. And that is why it is important that filmmakers make nonfiction, so that all the little lies can be exposed and the public informed. An uninformed public in a democracy is a sure-fire way to end up with little or no democracy at all.

That is what I have been saying for some time. Millions of Americans seem to agree. My book "Stupid White Men" still sits at No. 1 on the bestseller list (it's been on that list now for 53 weeks and is the largest-selling nonfiction book of the year). "Bowling for Columbine" has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My Web site is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House's site). My opinions about the state of the nation are neither unknown nor on the fringe, but rather they exist with mainstream majority opinion. The majority of Americans, according to polls, want stronger environmental laws, support Roe vs. Wade and did not want to go into this war without the backing of the United Nations and all of our allies.

That is where the country is at. It's liberal, it's for peace and it is only tacitly in support of its leader because that is what you are supposed to do when you are at war and you want your kids to come back from Iraq alive.

In the commercial break before the best documentary Oscar was to be announced, I suddenly thought that maybe this community of film people was also part of that American majority and just might have voted for my film, which, in part, takes on the Bush administration for manipulating the public with fear so it can conduct its acts of aggression against the Third World. I leaned over to my fellow nominees and told them that, should I win, I was going to say something about President Bush and the war and would they like to join me up on the stage? I told them that I felt like I'd already had my moment with the success of the film and that I would love for them to share the stage with me so they could have their moment too. (They had all made exceptional films and I wanted the public to see these filmmakers and hopefully go see their films.)

They all agreed.

Moments later, Diane Lane opened the envelope and announced the winner: "Bowling for Columbine." The entire main floor rose to its feet for a standing ovation. I was immeasurably moved and humbled as I motioned for the other nominees to join my wife (the film's producer) and me up on the stage.

I then said what I had been saying all week at those other awards ceremonies. I guess a few other people had heard me say those things too because before I had finished my first sentence about the fictitious president, a couple of men (some reported it was "stagehands" just to the left of me) near a microphone started some loud yelling. Then a group in the upper balcony joined in. What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing. But then the majority in the balcony -- who were in support of my remarks -- started booing the booers.

It all turned into one humungous cacophony of yells and cheers and jeers. And all I'm thinking is, "Hey, I put on a tux for this?"

I tried to get out my last line ("Any time you've got both the pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, you're not long for the White House") and the orchestra struck up its tune to end the melee. (A few orchestra members came up to me later and apologized, saying they had wanted to hear what I had to say.) I had gone 55 seconds, 10 more than allowed.

Was it appropriate? To me, the inappropriate thing would have been to say nothing at all or to thank my agent, my lawyer and the designer who dressed me -- Sears Roebuck. I made a movie about the American desire to use violence both at home and around the world. My remarks were in keeping with exactly what my film was about. If I had a movie about birds or insects, I would have talked about birds or insects. I made a movie about guns and Americans' tradition of using them against the world and each other.

And, as I walked up to the stage, I was still thinking about the lessons that morning at Mass. About how silence, when you observe wrongs being committed, is the same as committing those wrongs yourself. And so I followed my conscience and my heart.

On the way back home to Flint, Mich., the day after the Oscars, two flight attendants told me how they had gotten stuck overnight in Flint with no flight -- and wound up earning only $30 for the day because they are paid by the hour.

They said they were telling me this in the hope that I would tell others. Because they, and the millions like them, have no voice. They don't get to be commentators on cable news like the bevy of retired generals we've been watching all week. (Can we please demand that the U.S. military remove its troops from ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/Fox?) They don't get to make movies or talk to a billion people on Oscar night. They are the American majority who are being asked to send their sons and daughters over to Iraq to possibly die so Bush's buddies can have the oil.

Who will speak for them if I don't? That's what I do, or try to do, every day of my life, and March 23, 2003 -- though it was one of the greatest days of my life and an honor I will long cherish -- was no different.

Except I made the mistake of beginning it in a church.

[TheAstronaut]

i saw Bowling for Columbine and it is so funny. Im definently basging the DVD!!!

[dirtgirl]

if the opportunity to speak the truth is given to you - then you must speak the truth!

the silent majority can't be silenced forever.

as for silencing disenting voices because it doesn't support the troops...they shouldn't bloody well be there in the first place! Then we wouldn't have to worry about the sons and daughters of this brown land coming home in body bags. I don't buy the argument they are simply doing their job without them accepting some degree of personal accountablity for their actions. At the end of the day they are citizens of free countries where people have freedom to make the correct moral choice. This isn't a just war where people's freedoms, homes and ways of life are being protected. This war is about greed and power. No reason that I can see for condoning the murder on both sides. Bring the troops home. America has already lost the propaganda war, so whether they win the military war is immaterial. The damage had already been done. And sadly whether you live in iraq or australia, we have all lost out freedom and peace forever becuse a new generation of terrorists ready to strike the innocent at any place anytime has been spawned from this damn war. (i'll get of the high horse now ).

[timbaxterml]

The one thing that really gives me the irrits about the whole situation from the protest perspective is that there is such a frigging huge focus (as there always seems to be) on the "innocent women and children" who will die. I have problems with this.

Nobody deserves to die. I don't care if you are a six week old baby, a mother, a father, a soldier, a "terrorist", Saddam Hussein or George Jr. None of them deserve to die. Ever.

I may feel like choking some people on occassion, but I get over it. None of them *deserve* to be dead. So when protestors focus on the "innocent women and children" who will die I can't help but feel that they have missed a very important point somewhere along the lines. Everybody is innocent. But sometimes our nature/nurture gets in the way of it all.


Re: "America has lost the propaganda war"

apparently, in their attempts to win the war that the USA "lost", they did not fail to cement a very important distinction (for their cause) into the common intelligence. This is the apparent difference between the "terrorist" (a dirty, most likely muslim, male who delights in causing suffering to others) and a "soldier" (a noble creature fighting for truth, democracy and some other lie). Can anyone tell me the difference between these two words in real terms? Both describe individuals who are fighting for a cause that they belive in, both are paid individuals, both are trained in various methods of killing other humans.

The purpose that this really serves is to cement in our consciousness the "us" (isn't it interesting how "usa" abbreviates to "us" so comfortably. I'm not insisting on a conspiracy here. it's just an interesting side point) and "them" mentality. We have defense systems and defense forces. They have weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. What in the frigging hell is the difference?

That said. If Bush wants to go to war for oil, more power to him. He wouldn't be the first and certainly won't be the last to kill others to further his own wallet. I will never say that it is the right thing to do while sober, but I've accepted that fact that these things have been happening as long as humans have organised into groups.

I just wish everyone'd cut the crap and state their true motives.

Even France, the unofficial champion of human rights, has their own vested interests. By controlling the Persian Gulf with various puppet states under the facade of democracy, the USA controls the vast majority of the oil going into Europe. Once they control the oil the can restrict the flow into certain countries that don't step in time with the current US demands. Obviously Jacques Chirac (known in some circles as Chameleon Bonaparte) didn't want to be the victim of this sort of power so he arked up under the pretense of "human rights violations" and "freedom loving" intentions.

I just wonder why the media refuses to dive any deeper into either party's intentions. The Australian media has been nearly half-decent at showing both sides of debate's speeches, etc. but I don't understand why they refuse to poke even a centimetre through the facades. Even the extreme right-wing media seems to be refusing to question France and Germany's true concerns.

[/my 2 cents]