We Finally Got Our Frankenstein

We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole! -- by Michael Moore

December 14, 2003

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, go here).

We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!

Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.

And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (see the photo here).

Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole.

So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.

Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.

Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.

Yours,

Michael Moore

[email protected]

http://www.michaelmoore.com

I am so glad Michael Moore is a Democrat. He always looks as scruffy as Saddam just out of the hole. Saddam at least had the excuse that there was no shower in the hole, and he needed the beard as a disguise. Michael has no such excuse. He is just to lazy to clean himself up. And his rantings are a good deal loonier than Saddam's. Yeah, yeah, I know you dems think MM is a great guy because he hates Bush. But do you really think he is a good representative of your party? Do you really think he appeals to more people than he drives away?

What a big fat dirty piece of stupid garbage Michael Moore is.

The argument that "we used to be friends with Saddam, therefore we shouldn't stop him," is THE SINGLE DUMBEST argument against the war.

President Bush himself gave a speech 6 weeks ago, the essential point of which was that the U.S., through Democratic and Republican Administrations, including his own father's, has made a mistake in past decades in the Middle East by propping up dictatorships, and that post 9-11, we can no longer afford to do that.

Bush's whole point (which happens to be motivated by the theological mandate to spread freedom, along with the geopolitical imperative of doing so) is that our association with vile dictatorships is what drives a lot of Muslim hatred towards us and helps Al-Qaeda recruitment drives. So, by smashing an oppressive dictator out of existence and bringing freedom and democracy to 25 million Arab Muslims in the heart of the Middle East, the U.S. will fundamentally change that region and change how we are perceived there, a huge victory in our war against Muslim fundamentalist terrorists.

How is it an argument against the war to say that past Administrations befriended Saddam Hussein? Bush says the same thing - which is all the more reason, one could argue, that we have an obligation to eliminate him, and a great benefit to be received from doing so.

>Yeah, yeah, I know you dems think

>MM is a great guy because he hates Bush. But do you really

>think he is a good representative of your party? Do you really

>think he appeals to more people than he drives away?

I think that, sadly, the most rabid Bush-haters have given up on the idea of convincing anyone of anything. They are so self-absorbed, and so consumed with hatred and blind rage that they are much more interested in laying on the therapists' couch and venting about how much they hate Daddy (Bush) than they are in trying to figure out ways to convince fence-straddlers that the country is being taken in the wrong direction and that they have a superior, viable alternative.

I think that the Democratic convention will resemble the 1992 Republican convention in Houston - so filled with hateful extremists and horrendously unattractive, vile people spouting things repugnant to the mainstream (check out any random thread from this section if you want an illustration) that they will drive even most undecided voters away before they have a real chance to consider what could be (if it's Dean) a very attractive, unique candidate representing their party.

>How is it an argument against the war to say that past

>Administrations befriended Saddam Hussein?

I disagree with this characterization about our previous relationship with Saddam Hussein. Prior administrations seeking to pursue the best interests of the United States (which is their job to do) simply supported, militarily and politically, what they considered to be THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. At the time, they considered Iran to be the bigger threat to U.S. interests.

There are many other examples of this in our history ... the Taliban over the Soviets and the Soviets over the Nazis to name just two of them. It's an unfortunate necessity when pursuing our interests in a very complicated world.

Because what they look like is more important...

...then any compelling content. Need proof? Two words: Ann Coulter.

I very much agree that MM can be off-putting, and sometimes goes over the line, but he also has had some great things to say. He's been a bit off the deep-end since he backed Nader in 00, but I for one refuse to outright dismiss anybody's insights because of what they look like, or disagreement with past positions.

Guess we know why Rush's only really successful on radio and O'Riely probably needs to spend as long in the makeup chair as the guy that plays Freddy Kruger (somewhat the reverse process though, I'll wager). Who's vapid and shallow now?

>But do you really

>think he is a good representative of your party? Do you really

>think he appeals to more people than he drives away?

I think he has a place in the discussions. I don't think he is a great representative of the party but I am glad he is a part of the debate. I don't think Rush or Pat Buchannon are any more appealing than Michael Moore but they are still there expressing their views.

Michael Moore's an idiot, and I love hating him. Although watching him or reading his work is like nails on a chalkboard, I'm glad that there are extremists like him around to show in contrast that being a moderate is much more attractive.

He thinks that America is not one bit more safe than before 9/11, but I disagree. All of the actions taking place in the middle east today will have an impact over years and decades, not just months. It is ridiculously shortsighted to attack each event as it happens to bolster a view that America is in the wrong.

I know we're not doing everything right, but I do believe that something bold had to be done. There needed to be a catalyst for change that may take years to acheive. As much as I disagree with Bush on some domestic and social matters, I admire his boldness in dealing with terrorism and Saddam. It would have been much more politically expedient for him to take a more gradualist course, but he realized that many years and many previous administrations have failed in using that formula. You can talk and negotiate for just so long.

The final judgement of Bush's success or failure will be written by historians a long time from now. I vehemently disagree with anyone who says that he's an abysmal failure based on a few months of difficult military action.

Sometimes things get worse before they get better, and I think it's time to bite the bullet and soldier on.

Just remember scudman: not a SINGLE scud was fired by Uncle Saddam during this past war.

None

Zilch

I find Michael Moore scary and dreadful on the eyes, but history is history and the points he makes are valid, even if one dislikes the manner in which he presents them.

These facts are bound to come out even more in the coming months once SH goes on trial -- they're already numerous articles, a quite large one in The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13558-2003Dec18.html

This is all part of history now. Yes, I suppose in hindsight it was "in our national interest" to prop up distasteful characters year upon year upon year.

And while it's nice that Bush is promoting democracy, don't fool yourself for one minute in thinking we're still not propping up distasteful characters. Just look on the map right above Afghanistan.

Sorry... I meant to add on my post that I think that it would be wise of the Bush Administration (I can't believe I'm giving constructive advice to a group I don't support... but it's in the better interest of my country and I'm a patriot first, partisan last) to cut to the chase with this information (before it gets "revised" by the media filter) and address it.

I'm not exactly sure HOW I would recommend doing it but I think it would be wise. There are a lot of people out there who probably aren't that aware of what was going on that area of the world 2 decades ago.

By the way -- is there not a way to edit a post? Am I not seeing some magic icon?

I'm sure that we are still propping up some bad guys. I'm also a little worried about how warmly Bush, Blair and Co. will be embracing our old nemesis Gadhafi, now that Libya is giving up its WMD. I'm damn glad that Libya is destroying their weapons, and I think a lot of the reason is because of the force we showed in Iraq, but I sure hope they don't act like the past is all forgotten.

It is a complicated world out there. I'm glad most of my toughest choices involve which hot boy to hire!

Scud

All of the actions taking place in the

>middle east today will have an impact over years and decades,

>not just months. >

True, but the result you desire may be quite different from the one we end up with. Many intelligence professionals have warned that our invasion of Iraq will most likely increase, not hinder, our security because it will breed a new generation of terrorists in response. We can hope they are wrong, but the early evidence isn't promising.

A lot of the others are saying that with Saddam Hussein gone, the attacks may increase for about a month and then dwindle down to none.

I am interested in how this will actually play out in the other countries in the Middle East. The blogs from Iraq seem to think that this will in time affect all the different countries in the Middle East. They were told for so long that Saddam as the one with probably the best Army in the area would hold out for a long time. The initial war in March rather put a kibosh on that one but they still held out that he was free and that he would not be taken alive but would take a lot of the Americans out with him. Then when he was taken without firing a shot, this rather put a damper on the other countries and probably indirectly led to Khadafi deciding to give up his WMD. He was already under attack from Reagan in the 80's and that combined with what happened to Iraq probably made up his mind. If it affected somebody as militant as Khadafi, it could also affect people like the Assad family and the Iranians as well. It will be interesting for the next few months at least.