The next time I get pulled over, I’m going to simply tell the police that their actions aren’t fair because I had no idea that any law was meant to apply directly to me. Come on. I’ve never actually seen a politician take the time to say, “And this applies to you, Mr. Heimlich.“
I mention this approach because so many others seem to think that claiming the opposite of something absolutely obvious is the way to go, and many pundits seem to accept this line without question.
This past week Sergeant Raymond J. Plouhar was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb. Plouhar was one of the Marine recruiters featured in Michael Moore‘s “Fahrenheit 9/11“ movie. His father has chosen to distance his son from the infamous director by claiming that Raymond had no idea that Moore’s movie would be critical of the war. Isn’t that ironic? I wonder if he expects us to accept that any more than people accept the pleas of the Marines his son recruited when they claim they had no idea they’d end up in Iraq as a result of signing up? They thought they were signing up to go play basketball for the Marines like David Robinson.
Let’s see. Michael Moore makes a movie about General Motors and rips the company. He had two TV shows where he was critical of every topic he covered. He makes a movie about guns and is acerbic on every topic covered and with every person interviewed. He was vilified in the media for having the audacity to expose Charlton Heston as a bigot and charlatan. He’s crucified by the Right every time his name comes up. He then approaches you, or someone in your family for an interview that’s willingly granted, and your response is to claim you had no idea his angle would be critical? Hmm.
Mr. Plouhar is far from the first person to attempt to make this claim and I’m sure he’ll be far from the last. While I’m sorry to hear about his son’s loss, this argument doesn’t wash. I wonder just how much Mr. Plouhar now thinks about the kids who are in Iraq as a result of his son’s efforts.
I suspect Moore’s film has resulted in a number of kids deciding against signing up. They got to see the pitch from the other side for a change and didn’t see enlisting as the glamorous choice his son attempted to portray it as. I wonder if their parent’s would want to claim that they had no idea Michael Moore’s actions would ruin the integrity of their children’s future as a result of their choosing not to enlist? Somehow I don’t think so. It’s amazing to me that someone can be critical of Michael Moore on the one hand while, at the same time, having no issue with actions taken in their own nest. His son recruited (while ridiculing) kids from the poorest areas of society by glamorizing the Marines and selling it in any way possible. I wonder just how much that weighs on Mr. Plouhar’s conscience. I suspect it doesn’t at all.
Mr. Plouhar, you’ve lost your son in a war that has no glory. This administration has stolen his life and taken him from you in an unjust war designed with the sole purpose of lining the pockets of those in a position to profit from the effort, at the cost of the blood of those who believe the rhetoric put forth in support of this war. I’m personally sorry for your loss, but I firmly believe you’re aiming your criticism at the wrong party here. History will see this conflict as a fiasco. The dead of this war will not be viewed with the same reverence as the dead of World War II. At best his loss will be viewed in much the same way as the dead from the Vietnam War—a death that was ultimately for nothing. Michael Moore, sir, had nothing to do with that. Perhaps you should look to President Bush for answers as to how this was allowed to happen to your family only 30 years after we all thought we’d learned this lesson.
