RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
A Few Committed People Have the Power to Make Big Change Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46273"><span class="small">Amy Goodman and Michael Moore, Democracy Now!</span></a>   
Saturday, 30 September 2017 08:46

Excerpt: "I really believe the power of a few people can make huge change happen. And I talk about this in my show, that history is full of examples of people who really changed the world, not accepting the lie that they were told all their lives, that they were just a nobody from nowhere."

Filmmaker Michael Moore. (photo: Sacha Lecca)
Filmmaker Michael Moore. (photo: Sacha Lecca)


A Few Committed People Have the Power to Make Big Change

By Amy Goodman and Michael Moore, Democracy Now!

30 September 17

 

e speak with Michael Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker behind "Michael Moore in TrumpLand," "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Bowling for Columbine" and "Sicko." Now, Moore has added theater production to his list of accomplishments with his debut play, "The Terms of My Surrender." He launched the production with the question, "Can a Broadway show take down a sitting president?" and lays out a roadmap of what he believes needs to happen next.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We spend the rest of the hour with the Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, the person behind Michael Moore in TrumpLand, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, Sicko, Capitalism: A Love Story and Where to Invade Next. Now Moore has added theater production to his list of accomplishments. He’s now starring in his theatrical debut on Broadway, his play, The Terms of My Surrender. He launched the production with the question, "Can a Broadway show take down a sitting president?" In typical Michael Moore fashion, the one-man show infuses humor as he examines the 2016 election, speaks with special invited guests, lays out a roadmap of what he believes needs to happen next. This is a clip from a recent performance of The Terms of My Surrender. In this one, he speaks to, oh, actress and activist Rosie Perez.

ROSIE PEREZ: We have to resist, and we have to just march and shut him down. And I think that the way to do it is the same way that America shut down Trumpcare, is not just go to the White House, but go to your local and state elected officials, because they really have a lot of power. And a lot of people don’t understand that. You know, if you put pressure on them, they will cave. You know, Trump may not, but they will cave.

MICHAEL MOORE: Right.

ROSIE PEREZ: And—

MICHAEL MOORE: They want to keep their jobs.

ROSIE PEREZ: They want to keep their jobs, and they want to keep their paychecks and their free healthcare. So—it’s true, though.

MICHAEL MOORE: Ladies and gentlemen, Rosie Perez!

ROSIE PEREZ: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, that is Rosie Perez, Puerto Rican actor and activist, speaking with our guest, Michael Moore, who is now starring in his Broadway debut, The Terms of My Surrender. He came into our studio right before his matinée performance on Wednesday, and I just asked him, well, the question he opens with: What kind of a Broadway show can take down a sitting president?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes, I think, actually, anybody watching this can do this. I really believe in the power of a few people can make huge change happen. And I talk about this in my show, that history is full of examples of people who really changed the world, not accepting the lie that they were told all their lives, that they were just a nobody from nowhere. And so, I believe—I believe in that.

And I believe—so, yes, so I’m on—you know, I’ve come from Michigan to New York to do the show. I come from the Brexit states out there. And I wanted to—I wanted to do this in the city that gave us Donald J. Trump. I mean, basically, I’ve come to the belly of the beast here. And we do the show 12 blocks from Trump Tower every day.

AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t you take a bus there?

MICHAEL MOORE: We took a bus—yes, one night, we thought we’d go over and have some cheesecake or a tortilla bowl or whatever it is that he—the KFC, whatever he loves, we were going to like have some dinner with him, but he said he wasn’t hungry.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what are the terms of your surrender?

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, now, if I told you that, what’s the point of coming to the—it takes me two hours to explain that. I can’t. But, well, basically, none of us are going to surrender. I mean, the actual terms are pretty extensive. And it’s not just getting rid of Trump. I mean, we have—we have to take a look at how we got Trump. He didn’t just fall out of the sky. He’s the end result of decades of both dumbing down the country but also the widening gap between those with wealth and those who work to provide the wealth for those who are rich.

AMY GOODMAN: We just were—

MICHAEL MOORE: It’s also—yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —interviewing Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize winner from Bangladesh, talking about—he thinks it’s now five men own more wealth than half the world’s population.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, yeah. Isn’t that amazing?

AMY GOODMAN: Right? Three-point-six billion people.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah. So, he’s the kind of natural result of this. It’s not some crazy accident, the way I look at it. And, in fact, he’s the result of a racist clause in the United States Constitution. So, this is—that Electoral College concept of trying to convince the slave states, as you know—you’ve talked about it on the show—to come into the country, the new country, we put this clause in there that let them count slaves while giving them no power, really. And so, he benefited from that. But the show isn’t—I mean, it’s not a history lesson. It’s not a college lecture. Well, I mean, you’ve seen it. So, it—

AMY GOODMAN: The show is spectacular. And you are constantly responding to whatever the latest is, which is happening every day. So, on Sunday, you raised the fist in honor of Colin Kaepernick?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes, right. Well, I’ve been wearing Colin’s jersey and the 49ers hat here for well over a year ago, since he first did that a year ago, last summer. And I participate in the NFL boycott. I don’t watch any NFL games. I encourage people to boycott the sponsors of the NFL. The owners colluded to keep him from his job this year because he took a stand. What’s real—so this past—so, a few Sundays ago, I got the whole audience, we all stood with these signs, hashtag #ImWithKap. And I put that out on the internet. But this Sunday, I wore the jersey, his jersey, the whole show. And the whole audience, or most of them, raised the fist there with me on the stage.

But what was interesting about this past Sunday—I just want to say this—is that it became more against Trump than about the original idea of what Colin was saying, which is that we have to take a stand against this brutality of police killing unarmed black citizens. And that’s how this originally started. And the owners punished him for that. And it was supposed to send a message to the rest of the players: "Don’t you take a stand. Don’t you speak out politically." After Trump said what he said, then all—it was clear all the players were all going to participate.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go—

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —to that moment Friday night, Huntsville, Alabama. This is what Donald Trump said at his rally.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, "Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He’s fired. He’s fired!"? Wouldn’t you love it?

AUDIENCE: U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s going to say, "That guy that disrespects our flag, he’s fired." And that owner—they don’t know it. They don’t know. They’re friends of mine, many of them. They don’t know. They’ll be the most popular person for a week. They’ll be the most popular person in this country, because that’s a total disrespect of our heritage. That’s a total disrespect of everything that we stand for, OK?

AMY GOODMAN: As he talked about firing these "sons of bitches," Colin Kaepernick’s mother said, "Guess that makes me..."

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah. Well, I’m not going to say it, but, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: One proud one.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah. No, that Trump—see, this is what—this is what bothered me, though, about Sunday, is that we think that he’s easily distracted by, you know, the shiny keys, whatever it is. You know, there’s this awful thing going on with the tragedy in Puerto Rico, and he’s completely consumed with the NFL. And so we think that’s—you know, that’s how simple he is and where his mind goes. But I think and I’m worried that we’re the ones distracted by the shiny keys, because as soon as he made such a big deal about it, then the protest shifted from what it’s really supposed to be about—stop shooting black people in this country, police of America—and now it was all about Trump, and now the owners joined in. They all joined. And once—you know, I think a lot of the players, especially the white players—"Well, now I’m not going to lose my job, if the owners are going to lock arms with us."

But then, the whole point—and I thought, "Jesus, he’s really—Trump is really good with this, with this sort of—the way we just jump to the next thing." You know, something really important is going on every single day in his administration, where they are poisoning this country, where they’re selling off lands to oil companies. Whatever it is, it’s going on as we speak right now. And we, all of a sudden, and especially the mainstream media, gets focused on what he said about, you know, Joe and Mika in the morning. It’s just like the whole rest of the news cycle is all about Mika, and it’s not about what it should really be about.

AMY GOODMAN: But when he does the attack and goes after someone—of course, with these players, we’re talking about largely African-American teams.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes, right.

AMY GOODMAN: And he’s attacking African-American players.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: You respond, as so many people do. And how critical it is. He may create the situation—

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —but then it has to be responded to.

MICHAEL MOORE: And then we have to point out, and I think—and a lot of the players have pointed out—remember, this isn’t about—really about Trump. We’re doing this against the racial injustice, the racism that still exists in our society and how safe it is to be a black man in our society when it comes to the police pulling you over or whatever. And I think nobody wants that to get lost in all this discussion.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go then to Puerto Rico, the critical point, right?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: He tweets however many times, 15 times over the weekend—

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, right.

AMY GOODMAN: —about the NFL and fire them and cursing. Not once did he tweet about Puerto Rico. And I want to talk about the catastrophe, climate catastrophe, there. Took him five full days to respond to the plight of Puerto Rico over the weekend. Right, 17 times about athletes, and again, protesting police violence. Facing withering criticism, on Tuesday he holds a news conference congratulating himself for his response to the disaster. I think he repeated nearly a dozen times that he was doing a great, amazing, tremendous, incredible job, and denied he had neglected Puerto Rico. This is what he said.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I wasn’t preoccupied with the NFL. I was ashamed of what was taking place, because, to me, that was a very important moment. I don’t think you can disrespect our country, our flag, our national anthem. To me, the NFL situation is a very important situation. I’ve heard that before, about was I preoccupied. Not at all. Not at all. I have plenty of time on my hands. All I do is work. And to be honest with you, that’s an important function of working. It’s called respect for our country. ...

The governor of Puerto Rico is so thankful for the great job that we’re doing. We did a great job in Texas, a great job in Florida, a great job in Louisiana. We hit little pieces of Georgia and Alabama. And frankly, we’re doing—and it’s the most difficult job, because it’s on the island. It’s on an island in the middle of the ocean. It’s out in the ocean. You can’t just drive your trucks there from other states. And the governor said we are doing a great job. In fact, he thanked me specifically for FEMA and all of the first responders in Puerto Rico. And we’re also mentioning with that the U.S. Virgin Islands. It was devastated. So we are totally focused on that.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s President Trump. Instead of "Heck of a job, Brownie," it’s "Heck of a job, myself."

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes. And, Amy, "It’s an island. You know it’s an island, don’t you?" And he went on to say, too, "There’s a big ocean. There’s a big ocean there between us." It’s like—I’m convinced he has no idea where Puerto Rico is. All he knows is that the people there are not white. And that’s why it’s not a priority. And let’s just be honest and say, you know, how his mind thinks.

And, you know, the way that he and others, too, focus on—you know, when they talk about these NFL players, who, as you say, are 70 percent African Americans, and how much they make and how—they keep saying this: "Look how much—they’re not grateful to this country. Look how much they make. Look how much they make." You will never hear anybody complain about what Tom Hanks makes. You know? You will never—it’s just—it’s always a little tell that it’s just "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We let you in the club, boy. Behave yourself." You know, that’s really the message. And that message was right there about Puerto Rico, "By the way, did I mention the Virgin Islands?"

It’s like, you know, it’s still—like, see, I even—we laugh, but now—see, we used to laugh at him, especially New Yorkers. You know this, because you guys were supposed to take care of him for about 40 years and make sure he wasn’t foisted on the rest of us. I’m not putting you personally responsible for this, Amy, but I’m just saying, if Donald Trump came from Flint, Michigan, I couldn’t show my face on this show, because how could I explain that I, for 30 or 40 years, you know, didn’t do something about him there, before he would be thrust upon this country? But he is—he’s not a joke. And the time to sort of—laughing about this has to be, hopefully, long, long gone by now, because we are in very serious trouble here. And anybody who doesn’t think he could be a two-term Trump is living in their little fantasy bubble. The Republicans are not going to impeach him. They’ve already polled their gerrymandered districts back home. They’re pretty sure they’re safe. They don’t think we can flip those 24 seats in the House next year and three in the Senate. And all he has to do is keep his base, which he seems to have pretty well intact, and win those same electoral states. So, we have a real fight on our hands here.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you were the one who did predict all along—you took him very seriously, comedian that you are, from the beginning. You said this man has a real chance, even as the Hillary Clinton folks were saying, "We want to run against him."

MICHAEL MOORE: I know. And, you know, those of us, like in Michigan and Wisconsin, we kept trying to get a hold of people at the headquarters in Brooklyn, you know, another New York city. I mean, seriously, you couldn’t get through the bubble in Brooklyn to say, "Would you please come out to Wisconsin and Michigan?" I mean, I voted for Bernie. I was for Bernie. But she lost Wisconsin and Michigan to Bernie. If you lost your own primary—in other words, your people didn’t want you to be president—wouldn’t you kind of maybe show up there sometime before the last week of the general election? It just—it was mind-boggling how—the poor judgment that took place around her.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Michael Moore. And I want to turn right now to, you know, the white supremacist rallies that have taken place, after what happened in Charlottesville, and President Trump.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it, either. And—and—

REPORTER 1: But only the Nazis—

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And—and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER 2: One side killed a person. Heather Heyer died—

REPORTER 1: The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville. They showed up in Charlottesville—

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me.

REPORTER 1: —to protest the removal of that statue.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They didn’t put themselves down as neo—and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group—excuse me. Excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name. ...

I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group, other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers. And you see them come with a—with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You’ve got a—you had a lot of bad—you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Trump talking about the "very fine people" in Charlottesville, the white supremacists. We’re talking about the Ku Klux Klansmen in Boston. Forty thousand people turned out to protest a small group of people, because they were so horrified. You tell the story in The Terms of My Surrender about your experience as a young man going to Bitburg because President Reagan did. Could you share that story here?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes. Well, I was—it came on the TV. I was in a bar with some friends in downtown Flint, Michigan, and Reagan announced that he was going to Bitburg to lay a wreath on the graves of SS Nazi soldiers to honor them, in Bitburg, Germany. And nobody—people were confused. Why are you—why would you want to honor Nazis? And let me just say—this is a side point here—thank God we’ve never had another president since Reagan that was so enamored with Nazis.

But so, a friend of mine, Gary, both of his parents were survivors of Auschwitz. And we decided to go to Bitburg to confront Reagan in the cemetery. And we made up some fake press credentials. Gary spoke fluent German. I spoke fluent bull—well, BS. And we were able to get into the cemetery. We snuck into the cemetery and waited for Reagan to get there. And then we whipped out this banner that said "We came from Michigan to remind you they killed my family." And the German cops jumped us immediately, ripped the banner out of our hands. This is—

AMY GOODMAN: But wait, there was some media there.

MICHAEL MOORE: Oh, yeah, there was a lot.

AMY GOODMAN: Which you had managed to get right next to.

MICHAEL MOORE: Well, yeah. Well, I saw Pierre Salinger standing over there. And he was working for ABC at the time, and he was President Kennedy’s press secretary. So I just went up to him, and I said, "Mr. Salinger, my friend and I, we’re from Flint, Michigan. We’re not press." You know, like he couldn’t tell.

AMY GOODMAN: Though you had press badges.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes, we had the badges. "We’re going to do an action here, when Reagan gets here, but we’re afraid the Germans are going to hurt us. And if you could have your camera there? Because I think the last thing the Germans want today is footage going out across the world of them beating a Jew in the Bitburg cemetery." And Salinger was like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’ll help you. Sure, sure, sure." And so, he had his camera right there. And I think that—because the cop that had grabbed me already had his club up over my head like he was going to come down with it. And he saw the—he turned, and he saw the lens of Pierre Salinger’s camera right there. And he goes, "Aaaarrgh, aaaarrgh," and he puts the billy club away, and I didn’t get my head cracked open. So, then they just hauled us out of there. They put us in the back of a truck and just hauled us out of there.

AMY GOODMAN: So this was shown all over the world. This—

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes, yes. We were live on ABC. And yeah, because it was—yes. If you remember, at the time, if you’re old enough, if you saw that, it was quite—people just couldn’t understand why Reagan was wanting to lay a wreath on Nazi graves. But like I said, fortunately, we’re through that kind of president, and that won’t happen again.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve been taking on these issues, from white supremacy, Ku Klux Klansmen, racist violence, for quite some time, right back to high school, another story you tell. But your story of the Elks Club?

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes. Well, I had gone to—I was selected to go to Boys State, which is where you go to play government for a week. Every high school, at least in Michigan, sent five girls and five boys to Girls State and Boys State. And you elect a girl governor and boy governor and a state legislature and all that. It’s to teach you how to run a campaign. And I didn’t want anything to do with it, and so I just stayed in my dorm room the whole time—except I saw a poster one day that said "Speech contest. Write a speech on the life of Abraham Lincoln and win a prize here at Boys State, sponsored by the Elks Club."

And my dad had just gone to join—it’s 1971. He had just gone to join the Elks Club. And he got there, and they gave him an application form, and at the top of the application form it said "Caucasians only." This is the '70s. It's still legal. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, there was a loophole that allowed—racial discrimination could continue if it was a private group or a membership organization. So, back then, for instance, you have "the Friends of Democracy Now!," whatever. If you were a member of Democracy Now!, you could actually—you could actually racially discriminate, as long as you were a private membership group. And I just stood there, and I’m thinking, "They’re sponsoring a contest on the life of Abraham Lincoln, this whites-only organization?" So I went and wrote a speech back in my room. I showed up at the contest, I gave it, and I won the contest. And then I had to—

AMY GOODMAN: An Elk wasn’t choosing?

MICHAEL MOORE: No, there was no Elks there. It was like a speech teacher. And the whole thing was slamming the Elks for doing this, and slamming Boys State: Why are you having these racists here at this, you know? Then I have to give the speech the next day at the boy governor inauguration. And there was—I had to sit next to the head Elk, who’s got big antlers coming out of his hat and a trophy in his lap that he’s going to present to me at the end of the speech. And I’m just thinking, "Oh, no, this is not going to end well."

And so, I gave the speech. And I turned and looked at him, and he’s just all beet red. His face is so angry. And I just said at the end of the speech—I just looked at him, and I said, "And I don’t want your stinkin’ trophy!" And the whole place erupted in applause. I ran off the stage, because I was worried he was going to hurt me. And from that, that very night on the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, because it was out on the wire services that I did it, they did the story. And then it’s in the media for the rest of the—

AMY GOODMAN: You refused to talk to them.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, they wanted me to come on, but now I was really—I know this is hard to believe, but I was really shy—a really shy kid. You know that a little bit about me, don’t you? Kind of? You know, on a personal level, I’m a very—like this, you know. And back then, I was worse. And so I didn’t go on—I didn’t go on the CBS Evening News, but they did the story anyways. And it caused this uproar all over the country. And we had a great, very liberal-left U.S. senator from Michigan named Philip Hart. And he called me, and he said, "I want to introduce a bill to fix this loophole in the Civil Rights Act, and I want you to come down and testify." And I’m like, "No, I’m not"—you know, I just told him my parents won’t let me leave the house. So, I didn’t go to D.C. to testify. But hearings were being held all over the country. A federal judge takes away the tax-exempt status of the Elks Club. And they start getting hit with all this stuff. Liquor licenses were being pulled from their clubs. A big hullabaloo. And a year and a half later, the Elks and all these private groups are finally forced to accept all Americans into their organization regardless of the color of their skin.

And it was such a lesson to learn at the age of 17—a dangerous lesson for me—that you could effect change by doing just a little tiny thing. And again, it was just what I said at the beginning here, is how we—you know, we’re told from the time we’re kids that we really—you can’t fight City Hall. You know, why knock your head against the wall? It’s not going to do anything. That’s the big lie. That’s the big lie, that we’re nobodies from nowhere and we can’t effect change. The truth is, is that we’re all somebody. We’re all from somewhere. And the thing that the wealthy elite establishment is afraid of is that if we ever figure out that there’s more of us than there are of them, they’re in big trouble. They know that, because the thing they must hate about this country—the rich—is it’s still—at least on paper, you know, in spite of the voter suppression, in spite of the gerrymandering, it’s still one person, one vote. That hasn’t been changed. So, and there’s only so many of them. There’s a hell of a lot more of us. And if we take that power in our hands, they’re in a boatload of trouble.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think there are a lot more woke folks now?

MICHAEL MOORE: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. Look what happened the day after Trump’s travel ban. He announces this the week after his inauguration. The next day, tens of thousands of Americans—there was no organization to this, no leadership, no call for a demonstration, none of this. Just people, on their own, showed up at their local airport. Whether they lived in Hays, Kansas, or out at JFK, people just poured out to the airports with home-made signs against the travel ban. It’s a week—that was one week after the women’s marches all over the country, all over the world. No, I’ve been very hopeful in the sense that a lot of people have come alive, and nobody is going back to bed.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll have more with filmmaker Michael Moore, who is starring on Broadway for the first time in his one-man show, The Terms of My Surrender. Yes, more with Moore in a minute.

AMY GOODMAN: Daniel Santos, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our conversation with the Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, who is starring on Broadway for the first time in his one-man show, The Terms of My Surrender. He’ll be doing a new TV show on network television, TNT, called Michael Moore Live from the Apocalypse in February. And he has a new movie coming out in the spring called Fahrenheit 11/9. That’s the day after the election. Well, I asked him how he has time for everything.

MICHAEL MOORE: I don’t have a choice. None of us have a choice. We all—we have to do everything. We are in the French resistance. Everybody has to have that attitude, that, you know, you’ve got to get the kids to soccer practice, but the kids can walk, for the next year, 'til we get rid of Trump. You know, you've got couples therapy at 4:00. You know, get along with your spouse for just one more year. We have to got to get rid of Trump. I mean it seriously. I hate to put it this way, but we—I just—you know, I have a fire lit under me, I guess. And I’m doing whatever I can do. And I think people watching this are doing what they can do. And we just have to reach out and continue to get more and more people involved in this.

You know, 'til he's gone, we have to at least discombobulate him, to the point where he’s so obsessed about all the things that are going to keep him from focusing on the really bad things that he’s going to do. He will take us to war. We will be in a war with this man. And when we—you know, when that happens, I need everybody watching this show, listening to us on the radio—I need everybody to commit that we have to stand up immediately. Don’t even stop to think. If Trump is taking us to war, you have to automatically assume this is an insane idea from an insane man, it’s a lie we’re being told.

My fear is that the so-called liberal establishment, the Democrats—29 Democrats in the Senate voted to let Bush invade Iraq. The New York Times got behind the war in Iraq. Judith Miller, they put stories on the front page that weren’t true. The New Yorker magazine ran an editorial the week—I think it was the week before the war, saying that this—we should do this. These are the—our liberal establishment has to be called into question here, and not—we have to not follow them if they do that again. And in the show, I actually play a couple of clips of the night Trump bombed Syria, that Syrian airfield. Right away on MSNBC and on CNN, people were waxing poetic about "Trump is now the president."

This next time when we go to war, and he—I will say this again: Trump will take us to war. He’s out there in Bedminster, New Jersey, you know, last month, threatening "fire and fury." You know, I mean, I ask the audience every night, "Can we all just agree that no good idea has ever come out of Bedminster, New Jersey?" I mean, just no offense to the town. I’m just saying that’s not where you start a nuclear war.

If Trump says that North Korea suddenly is the enemy, and we have to—do not believe this. Do not go to war. Unless you see North Korean troops marching through that arch down in Washington Square Park, or if a friend calls you from the vegan section at Chelsea Market and says, "There are North Koreans marching down the aisle grabbing all the vegan food," OK, then maybe—maybe. But still, question it. Question it. Do not follow along with the liberal New York Times, with the liberal commentators—the so-called liberal—the Democrats in the Senate who won’t stand up.

As we sit here right now doing this interview, not a single Democrat in the U.S. Senate has called for his impeachment, has stood up on the floor and said, "I demand the impeachment of Donald Trump." Not one Democrat can say that yet in the Senate. There have been a number in the House—Maxine Waters and others—but nobody in the Senate. This is—the people that are supposed to be representing us still don’t have the spine that’s going to be needed to fight Trump and to make sure we don’t have a two-term Trump.

AMY GOODMAN: And you don’t think the woke folks in the streets, the people who marched in Boston, the NFL players—

MICHAEL MOORE: That has to continue. It has to continue and not stop, because, remember—

AMY GOODMAN: —can stop them?

MICHAEL MOORE: Remember, a month before the war started in Iraq, New York City, how many were in the streets? Wasn’t it like a half a million? Or—

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, millions rocked the world for peace that day.

MICHAEL MOORE: And around the world, it was millions. And then the war started, and people around the world still protested, but here the protests shrunk. People started to be quiet about it. That can’t happen this time. Everybody—everybody off the bench. Everybody in the pool! Seriously, this is—this is it.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s filmmaker Michael Moore, starring on Broadway for the first time. It’s a one-man show, The Terms of My Surrender. Oh, there are little appearances of other people. It has a limited run until October 22nd.

And that does it for our show. If you’d like to see the whole interview, go to democracynow.org. Well, if you’d like to get a copy of the show, you can go to democracynow.org, as well.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
GOP Creates Illusion of Middle-Class Benefits in Their Tax Plan Print
Friday, 29 September 2017 14:39

Blair writes: "For months, Republicans have been touting their forthcoming tax plan on the basis that it will help the middle class. Wednesday, we finally got a look at their plan. What's not surprising is that the vast bulk of tax cuts will go to the richest households. What's actually a bit surprising is just how little low- or middle-income families will get."

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. (photo: Greg Nash/Getty)
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. (photo: Greg Nash/Getty)


GOP Creates Illusion of Middle-Class Benefits in Their Tax Plan

By Hunter Blair, The Hill

29 September 17

 

or months, Republicans have been touting their forthcoming tax plan on the basis that it will help the middle class. Wednesday, we finally got a look at their plan. What’s not surprising is that the vast bulk of tax cuts will go to the richest households. What’s actually a bit surprising is just how little low- or middle-income families will get.

The tax giveaways to the rich in the plan released yesterday are clear. It lowers the top tax rate, which is paid only by the richest 0.5 percent of households. It slashes the rate corporations have to pay from 35 to 20 percent.

It provides a huge new loophole for owners of hedge funds, law firms and hugely lucrative businesses — hiding behind rhetoric about helping “small businesses.” It makes the egregious loophole that big multinational firms use to defer paying taxes on profits booked overseas permanent.

Are there any crumbs for the middle class? Hardly. The most incredible part is how hard the plan tries to hide just how stingy it is to the broad middle class.

The plan includes a much-touted doubling of the standard deduction. If it stopped there, it would deliver a straightforward tax cut to the broad middle class. Instead, the plan also ends personal exemptions, which by itself largely neutralizes any potential tax cut for most middle-class families. On top of this, the plan raises the lowest tax bracket rate from 10 to 12 percent.

The plan also increases the Child Tax Credit. By itself, again, this would genuinely constitute a middle-class tax cut. But the authors couple it with the elimination of the personal exemption for dependents, which neutralizes this cut for most middle-class families.

On average, for households in the broad middle class, these changes will probably end up as a wash on net. The tax increase and ending of personal exemptions claws back most of what the doubled standard deduction would’ve given low- and moderate-income households, and the increased Child Tax Credit is clawed back with the elimination of personal exemptions for dependents.

But depending on the details, which the Republican plan is sorely lacking, a non-trivial number of middle-class households could be looking at a tax increase.

Admittedly, without the details left out of today’s plan, it’s hard to say exactly which low- and middle-income families are likely to be immediately harmed by the Republican tax plan. But their previous tax plans do give us enough to make some educated guesses.

If the parameters of those older plans hold, then millions of low- and middle-income families will likely see their taxes go up.

Those previous versions, which look almost exactly the same as this version, albeit with a few more details specified, also got rid of personal exemptions while doubling the standard deduction. But they also got rid of “head of household” filing.

At the end of the day, the interactions between these tax changes in Trump’s campaign plan resulted in about 20 percent of households, including more than half of single parents, paying more in taxes.

Households that currently itemize deductions rather than taking the standard deduction are also likely to see their taxes go up. Currently, taxpayers take personal exemptions on top of either the standard deduction or their personal itemized deductions.

But the Republican plan only offsets the elimination of personal exemptions by increasing the standard deduction. This means that households that itemize (and hence do not use the standard deduction) will simply lose their personal exemptions with nothing to offset it.

Will middle-class families get anything in return for risking a tax increase? No, and the programs they depend on are likely to find themselves on the chopping block in coming years as the deficits that result from the Trump plan are used to justify damaging cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

Today’s plan came out as many of us expected all along: a deficit-financed tax cut for the rich that sets up later budget debates where Republicans will claim that deficits demand we savage the social insurance and public investment that the middle class relies on.

We know from past regressive tax cuts that no flood of economic growth will cushion any of these blows. Today’s plan should put the lie to any remaining claims the Trump administration has to genuinely care about the plight of low- and moderate-income households more than the rich. It’s all on paper now.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
But Their Emails: Republicans React to Their Own Email Scandal Print
Friday, 29 September 2017 14:33

Laslo writes: "Now that fellow Republicans - and not Hillary Clinton - are in the hot seat, many in the GOP are whistling a different tune."

Jared Kushner, pictured here September 12th, is one of six top White House officials who are reported to have used private email accounts for government business. (photo: Brendan Smialowsi/Getty)
Jared Kushner, pictured here September 12th, is one of six top White House officials who are reported to have used private email accounts for government business. (photo: Brendan Smialowsi/Getty)


But Their Emails: Republicans React to Their Own Email Scandal

By Matt Laslo, Rolling Stone

29 September 17


Now that fellow Republicans – and not Hillary Clinton – are in the hot seat, many in the GOP are whistling a different tune

cross the Capitol this week, there were heated debates over using private email accounts for official government work, skirting federal transparency laws and accusations of partisan hypocrisy were heard, in what many see as an unwelcome rerun of the debate over Hillary Clinton's use of a private server. But unlike the last episode, when the GOP showed uniformity in calling for Clinton's head, this time the party is divided over the issue.

Reports that six senior White House officials, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, have used private email accounts for government business is receiving mixed reactions in Washington, as many Republicans say it's no big deal while others are asking if those implicated are trying to get around a requirement that officials preserve White House records.

In a rare moment of bipartisanship this week, the two top lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee penned a strongly worded letter demanding answers from the Trump administration.

"With numerous public revelations of senior executive branch employees deliberately trying to circumvent these laws by using personal, private, or alias email addresses to conduct official government business, the Committee has aimed to use its oversight and investigative resources to prevent and deter misuse of private forms of written communication," Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy and Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings wrote.

Gowdy made a name for himself leading the Benghazi investigation that eventually led to the uncovering of Hillary Clinton's use of a private server while secretary of state – a fact that has lawmakers wondering whether Trump's top advisers and family members are devious, doltish or simply ignorant of what's required of them.

"This all came right after we spent a year or so on Hillary Clinton's situation. You would think that they would have been educated and felt warned not to do this," Cummings tells Rolling Stone. "We are entitled to know how they were used, who used them, whether there was classified information – and if there was classified information, whether it was protected. Was any of this information subject or have any relevance to the various investigations, including [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller's investigation? We want to know that."

Cummings says the latest controversy is disturbing because in the spring he was assured White House officials were above board when it came to the use of personal email accounts and devices.

"Back in March of this year, we asked the White House, was there anybody using any of these devices? And they said no. ... I'm not saying that they were being untruthful, but they clearly were inaccurate," he says. "We just want to find what was going on there."

Some senior Republicans are also scratching their heads, noting that everyone working in this new administration should be versed in the Federal Records Act, which requires White House officials to maintain all official government communications.

"I think the rules are pretty clear: You shouldn't do that, not for official business," Sen. John Cornyn, the Senate's number two Republican, tells Rolling Stone. "I think that's a mistake, and I'm sure it will be addressed."

But most Republicans are brushing aside the reports.

"I really haven't followed it, honestly I haven't," Sen. John Kennedy, a member of the Judiciary Committee, says.

Pressed on how his party went after Clinton over the issue – and how President Trump, as recently as last week at an Alabama rally, basked in chants of "Lock her up!" – the junior senator from Louisiana demurs. 

"I just didn't see this as a big issue in my state," says Kennedy, who earlier this year questioned then FBI Director James Comey about Clintons's email server.

"Who did what, who uses what email, and who tweets whom – I don't know about all that. I don't follow that. And, frankly, I don't much care," Kennedy says.

Other Republicans say there's no comparison between Clinton's server and lost emails to what Kushner's lawyer now claims is fewer than 100 private emails about his government work.

"It's much different than a private server and really destroying documents – I see no evidence of that," Republican Mark Meadows, a member of the House Oversight Committee, tells Rolling Stone. "It's a common occurrence in the executive branch, as long as they forward it to their official account and we can preserve the documents. That's what the Federal Records Act requires, and I assume that's what they're going to be doing."

While Meadows, like most of his fellow Republicans, assumes Trump's inner circle is abiding by the letter of the law, he's not stomping his feet to force the White House to disclose what's going on.

"I think at this point there are whole other things that are a lot more pressing than that," Meadows says with a smile.

But Democrats say this revelation of senior officials seeming to skirt the law highlights their bigger concerns about the administration's attitude toward ethics. And they say the cool response from these formerly boisterous Republicans is troubling and fits a trend of lax oversight from this Congress.

"It is scandalous ... it gives hypocrisy a bad name," says Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly, a member of the Oversight Committee. "It's a double standard that makes one's head spin, and I think it's going to bring the administration grief if they don't clean it up."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Anthony Weiner Is In for a Rude Awakening Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 29 September 2017 11:35

Kiriakou writes: "Anthony Weiner is in for an experience that he'll never forget - and not in a good way. Being convicted of a crime is bad. Being convicted of a felony, with all the accompanying losses of civil liberties, is worse. But being convicted of a child sex crime is life-changing in the worst possible way."

Anthony Weiner leaves federal court after his sentencing in New York on Monday. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/Getty)
Anthony Weiner leaves federal court after his sentencing in New York on Monday. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/Getty)


Anthony Weiner Is In for a Rude Awakening

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

29 September 17

 

nthony Weiner is in for an experience that he’ll never forget — and not in a good way. Being convicted of a crime is bad. Being convicted of a felony, with all the accompanying losses of civil liberties, is worse. But being convicted of a child sex crime is life-changing in the worst possible way. On November 6, Weiner will begin a 21-month federal sentence for transferring obscene material to a minor.

I served nearly two years in a federal prison after blowing the whistle on the CIA’s torture program. One of the first things I learned in prison, on my very first day, was that there is a hierarchy there, and it’s set in stone. Those convicted of crimes not associated with children — and who did not rat on codefendants — are at the top of the heap. That includes those people convicted of drug and white-collar offenses. Rats and those who act as informers for the corrections officers are a distant second. And “chomos,” prison slang for “child molesters” or anybody convicted of any sex crime involving a child, are at the very bottom of the pecking order.

Pedophiles are divided into two categories — clickers and touchers. Clickers are people who looked at child pornography online. They may not have had physical contact with a child, but some of them have hoarded thousands, or in some cases even millions, of images or videos of children engaged in sex acts. The mandatory minimum sentence for those monsters is five years, even for possessing, receiving, or transmitting one single image. There are also aggravating factors. Was the person selling child porn? I knew one prisoner who was described to me as a “major east coast distributer of child porn.” He had millions of images and videos on six hard drives. He was doing 22 years. Another was manufacturing child porn and was in the middle of a 30-year sentence.

Touchers are the lowest of the low. They are the ones who have actually violated children or, as in Weiner’s case, attempted to violate a child. I’ve written in the past about how the prison library and the prison chapel were safe havens for pedophiles. They knew that nobody would harm them there (there were always guards present) and so they spent whole days there. Many spent their entire sentences sitting in the library or the chapel.

When I worked in the prison chapel at FCI Loretto, we had a rule: Nobody was permitted to talk about his case. The chapel was supposed to be a place of reflection and prayer. But pedophiles can’t help themselves. A psychiatrist friend told me during a visit that pedophiles get sexual gratification by talking about their cases and reliving their crimes. I can’t tell you how many times I had to shout, “Hey! Stop talking about your case!” only to be told indignantly, “She liked it. She came on to me,” or “She said it felt good.” The “she” in question was the perpetrator’s daughter. The worst response I heard was, “Jesus loved the little children.” It was sickening.

Pedophiles have a tougher time in day-to-day life in prison than your average prisoner. First, they are not permitted to do their time at minimum-security work camps because they pose a threat to society. Medium and high-security prisons are too dangerous for them. So they all do their time in low-security prisons. It’s not unusual for 35 or 40 percent of prisoners in a low-security prison to be pedophiles. Second, many of them are not permitted to have access to the prison email system. (No prisoner has access to the internet.) Third, other prisoners do not allow their pedophile cellmates to have visitors. This is a hard-and-fast rule and can result in a hearty beating if violated. Fourth, pedophiles are not allowed to sit in the TV room. If they want to watch a show, they can stand in the entryway, but they are not allowed to have seats, most of which are assigned by the various races’ “shot-callers.” Most importantly, pedophiles must sit with other pedophiles in the cafeteria. They often share their tables with rats, who also are not allowed to sit with “good guys,” which is what prisoners who have no child sex crimes in their pasts call themselves.

Anthony Weiner is going to have a tough time in prison. But I have some advice for him.

Nobody wants to be a friend of a pedophile except another pedophile. Whether or not Weiner is trying to turn over a new leaf, as he told his sentencing judge, he’s going to have to keep a low profile and keep his mouth shut. Don’t speak unless you’re spoken to. Don’t try to move into another cell, even though you may not like the one you’re assigned to; take what you’re given and don’t say anything. Learn to get through your time without watching television. Take a seat at the pedophile table in the cafeteria and learn to live with it.

Weiner can pass the time by reading, writing letters, and working a menial job that he’ll likely be paid $5 or $10 a month to perform. When he gets out of prison, he’ll register as a sex offender and start his three years of federal probation, or “supervised release.”

There’s no good side to this story. Weiner’s life as he knew it is over. There’s no coming back from a child sex crime. But he can get through the next 21 months if he keeps as low a profile as possible. It’ll be worth the effort.



John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Can a War of Words Become a World of War? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15946"><span class="small">Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company</span></a>   
Friday, 29 September 2017 10:30

Moyers writes: "Given the nature of his rhetoric, given his known temperament, does North Korea have to worry that Trump just might order an attack for whatever reason?"

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un inspecting the Korean People's Army Tank Crews' Competition-2017 at an undisclosed location. (photo: Getty)
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un inspecting the Korean People's Army Tank Crews' Competition-2017 at an undisclosed location. (photo: Getty)


Can a War of Words Become a World of War?

By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company

29 September 17


Andrew Bacevich and Bill Moyers talk Trump and Kim Jong Un.

here is no saner, seasoned or sensible voice on American foreign policy today than Andrew Bacevich. He graduated from West Point and served in Vietnam, earned his doctorate in diplomatic history from Princeton University, taught history and international relations at Boston University, and has written several acclaimed books, including the best-selling Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War and more recently, America’s War for the Greater Middle East. He contributes essays and articles to a wide variety of publications and is writer at large for The American Conservative.

Bill Moyers: The rhetoric between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un gets hotter and more belligerent — it’s incendiary and personal. When’s the last time you heard this kind of vitriolic, threatening rhetoric between a US president and a head of another country?

Andrew Bacevich: I don’t believe that we’ve ever had a president who has used this kind of language. Certainly not in my lifetime. One of the things that strikes me about President Trump is that his capacity to use the English language is so stunted. He simply has no ability to adapt the language he uses to a particular circumstance. In the past when presidents are out campaigning, they use one kind of language, a different kind of language when they’re speaking to a joint session of Congress, [and] a different kind of language when they’re meeting with a foreign dignitary. But [with] Trump, it’s all the same. It’s all crude. It’s all unsophisticated. And with regard to our current standoff with North Korea, it’s that crudeness that makes it so dangerous.

Moyers: What’s your take on the rhetoric coming out of North Korea — and in particular from Kim Jong Un and the foreign minister, who seems to have taken Donald Trump literally?

Bacevich: It’s not unprecedented. North Korean language over decades has tended to be provocative. That said, previous administrations have tended to discount North Korean language — not to ignore it, but to not take it quite so literally as Trump seems to. That tendency to discount has served us well in the past. Part of the thing we have to keep in mind is — and I expect this is true with regard to North Korea, and I know it’s true with regard to the United States — is that a leader speaks to multiple audiences. Any sophisticated politician appreciates that and tries to frame a statement so that it will be understood and presumably [be] correctly perceived by multiple audiences. But these two guys seem to not understand that political requirement. To some degree, I think Trump mostly speaks to himself. He says things in a way that somehow satisfies his own sense of who he imagines himself to be as a leader. He certainly doesn’t take into account the fact that American allies as well as adversaries are taking in his every word and trying to interpret them.

Moyers: Given the nature of his rhetoric, given his known temperament, does North Korea have to worry that Trump just might order an attack for whatever reason?

Bacevich: If I were a North Korean who was advising Kim Jong Un — I’d be counseling my boss that we’re dealing with somebody who could easily fly off the handle and make an impulsive decision. Kim Jong Un might say to me, “Well, why do you think that?” and I’d say, well, let’s consider the attack on Syria that followed the allegations, probably true allegations, of Syrians using chemical weapons. That was a decision made off the cuff, impulsively, with no particular connection to larger policy purposes. From a North Korean perspective, I would take that episode quite seriously.

Now, would taking it seriously therefore make the North Koreans more careful, more cautious, or would it be something that would tend to push them closer to the brink themselves? I don’t know. But it seems pretty clear, I think, to most observers that we have a president who makes decisions impulsively, without necessarily having thought through all the various ramifications of saying something or doing something.

Moyers: Kim Jong Un must have seen what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. Do you think it’s possible that he believes the US wants to do him in as well, and that if Hussein and Gadhafi had had some nuclear weapons, they might still be around? Do you think this might cross his mind?

Bacevich: Oh, absolutely. The recent language by the Trump administration — they revived the phrase “rogue regime” — seems to recall the kind of language that was much in evidence in the George W. Bush administration after 9/11. Remember, North Korea was part of the “axis of evil.” After 9/11, if you were on the “axis of evil,” it seemed pretty clear that the United States was going to come after you. In that post-9/11 period, Gadhafi in Libya, perhaps taking seriously the possibility that he was going to be somewhere on the hit list, made a point of giving up his nuclear weapons program. From what we know, it wasn’t a very impressive program, but he gave it up and his reward then was to be attacked and overthrown by the Obama administration.

I’m in the camp that believes we cannot know for certain how the North Koreans think, and we cannot know for certain what their purposes are. But I’m in the camp that believes that as vicious, as oppressive as that regime is, nonetheless there is a rational basis for the things that they do, and that Kim Jong Un’s ultimate objective is to maintain his regime, and by extension, to maintain himself. I also believe that they are likely to appreciate that they are in a position of extraordinary weakness relative to us, relative to almost any other nation in the world. Weak economically, weak militarily, weak in terms of their capacity to innovate, to adjust, to improve their situation. And it makes sense from that perspective to see nuclear weapons, particularly nuclear weapons along with some kind of a long-range ballistic missile capability as a lifeline. I think that that’s their purpose, to be seen to be developing this capability in order to try to keep us at arm’s length and to keep China as their only serious ally.

Moyers: We don’t have many historians of North Korea, but one of them, Cheehyung Harrison Kim, teaches the history of Korea at the University of Hawaii. He says, and I’m quoting him: “The nuclear threat as a real war is not real. North Korea is using the nuclear weapons to stand up to the US and South Korea, and to send a message to the world that it will bend to no one. North Korea sees nuclear weapons as one definitive way to gain international attention and be heard, and it sees nuclear energy as a solution to its energy problem.” Make any sense to you?

Bacevich: It makes great sense to me. I would add this: Without claiming any great knowledge of the North Korean domestic situation, from Kim Jong Un’s point of view, such posturing could be useful in maintaining discipline in North Korean society. It would be a way of trying to rally national cohesion and keep at bay any internal adversaries that Kim Jong Un might worry about. And any dictator of his type is going to be constantly weary of the possibility of internal opposition.

Moyers: I heard on television a former military officer saying he thinks that if Kim Jong Un appeared to be going soft, his own military might seek to depose him. Does that make sense to you from what you know about the Korean military?

Bacevich: I don’t know much about them myself, but it makes a lot of sense. I think this is standard behavior by autocratic regimes, to try to maintain domestic cohesion by claiming that the outside world consists entirely of enemies.

Moyers: As dreadful as it is to even ask it, what might lead either Trump or Kim Jong Un over the tipping point — to start a war?

Bacevich: If one side takes the other side’s rhetoric as literally true. If on either side, the central figures get up in the morning and say, “We believe that the other side is going to attack within the next 24 hours,” that can then lead to a decision, “Well, I guess then we should pre-empt.” I think that’s the great danger. Meaning not so much war by calculation, but war by miscalculation and misunderstanding.

Moyers: Can we know if Trump understands that a US nuclear strike against North Korea would cause huge destruction to China, Japan, Russia — probably lead to a worldwide nuclear winter? Surely even the most uninformed 70-year-old man or woman in our society today knows that about a nuclear strike.

Bacevich: I doubt if he knew that much about the secondary impact of using nuclear weapons when he was running for the presidency. You have to think that at this point, people like Gen. McMaster and Gen. Kelly and Gen. Mattis would have had some opportunity on a face-to-face basis to say, “Mr. President, here is what we think would occur were there to be an actual use of nuclear weapons.” You have to think somebody has spoken to him. But with this president, you don’t know what sinks in. Just look at his use of rhetoric — “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

That language is so over the top that it seemed to suggest that at that moment, either he didn’t have any understanding of what the use of nuclear weapons would produce or simply didn’t care. I think that’s why so many of us were taken aback by that kind of language. And the way you asked the question, does he understand — even if it is possible to make an argument that a fairly precise nuclear attack could eliminate the regime in Pyongyang — does he have any understanding of the secondary implications? Does he understand that we would have once more taken the nuclear genie out of the bottle and reintroduced it as an actual instrument of international politics? Does he have any understanding of the effects on neighboring countries — including our ally South Korea, and China, which is somewhere between trading partner and adversary, but certainly a country of enormous importance to our own well-being and to the well-being of the world? You don’t get a sense that he’s able to think through the subsequent effects and that’s disturbing.

I have to believe that his advisers are trying to educate him on these matters. But he doesn’t seem to be terribly educable.

Moyers: You mentioned three of the military men who are advising him. You are an experienced military officer in your own right. What kind of burden does this put on them?

Bacevich: I think I’ve met Mattis once. I’ve met McMaster once. I don’t believe I’ve ever met Gen. Kelly. I do not know any of them well. All three of them are highly regarded in military circles, I think more broadly in national security circles. I don’t think any of them are fools. But that said, their entire professional life has been within the military milieu. They have been brought up to think in terms of hard power. That doesn’t mean they’re warmongers. I’m quite certain that none of the three is a warmonger. But I tend to think that because of their upbringing and professional experience, there’s not a lot of creativity and imagination there. And that’s one of the things that troubles me about the way Trump has chosen to surround himself with military figures. Of course, our secretary of state is not a military figure, but he doesn’t seem to wield all that much influence, doesn’t seem to be particularly energetic. And so almost by default, it appears the military figures are the ones that would seem to exercise the greatest influence over the president.

Moyers: Think on this for a moment. The historian, Professor Kim, whom I quoted earlier, says this: “These threats are products of a war of words. As we all know this rhetoric well, it’s a battle of language. And the fight with words does matter. This is how governments gauge each other and how militaries create plans and prepare to respond. Militaries all over the world live for moments like this. They need such battles of words because this is what makes militaries move and how militaries justify themselves. This is no different in the US and North Korea. The militaries of the two countries are relatively enormous and their economies involve millions of people. The military industrial complex in the US needs constant threats from the North Koreans to do what it does and prepare for the future. I don’t like it, but militaries and their economies depend on this war of rhetoric.” What do you think of that?

Bacevich: I think that’s overstated. But it’s not entirely incorrect. What the military industrial complex requires and what military institutions tend to favor is a world in which the potential for conflict is always present and in which there are national security threats for which maintaining military power offers the only plausible response. But neither the military industrial complex nor the military requires constant war scares. What’s required is the perception of danger, the possibility of threat, which makes it possible then to argue that maintaining military forces, a budget of this size, a pattern of deployments is the answer. And with that, they can maintain the sort of arrangements that, sadly, we Americans have come to simply take for granted over the past several decades.

Moyers: Which is…?

Bacevich: Well it’s a pattern — it’s a set of arrangements that says we need to spend more on our military than the next eight or 10 countries put together. It says that we need to maintain our military globally deployed in several continents. It’s says that we need to be engaged in this so-called war on terrorism that has been going on now for 16 years without any success in sight. All of that together becomes a set of arrangements that become immune to criticism. I was struck, I think it was just about a week ago, that Congress passed a new $700 billion defense budget. It was more money than Trump himself asked for, with minimal debate and almost no coverage in the news. It’s just one of those things we do every year, pass this massive military budget.

Moyers: It seems to have been normalized. It doesn’t create much reaction.

Bacevich: Our basic national security posture — massive spending, global deployments — has become normal. Worse, the actual engagement in hostilities has become normal. I’m referring here to Afghanistan and Iraq and Somalia, large parts of Africa — just in the past week we had another airstrike in Libya. That’s normal as well.

Moyers: Little attention is paid to it by the press or by the public, right?

Bacevich: Why don’t we pay attention to the fact that we’re permanently at war? Well, at the present moment, US casualties are down because we’ve learned to use contractors and proxies and rely on airpower. The amount of money that we are spending, and I think wasting, gets little attention. I recall a speech by President Eisenhower — I think it was in 1953 or 1954, when he was making the point about opportunity costs. He said in effect, every dollar we spend on our military means one less dollar that goes to education, that goes to health care, that goes to other things that the country needs. There’s no awareness of opportunity costs today with regard to our military spending. The only time we notice what’s going on is when we do have some sort of a war scare such as we’re having right now with North Korea. Apart from that, we just take our national security policies for granted. There’s no accountability. There’s no scrutiny. There’s no serious debate. I think it’s one more indicator of how bankrupt our politics have become. These are things that aren’t even considered worth discussing.

Moyers: Let me go back to North Korea and the US for a moment. Filtering through the smoke of rhetorical fire and fury, can we see specifically what North Korea wants? Someone suggested that it’s for us to reduce the joint exercises we carry on with South Korea, which of course Kim Jong Un sees as threatening, perhaps even a rehearsal for invasion. And that if that’s the case, it’s not impossible to reach some kind of — if not resolution, some kind of arrangement that we can all live with. Is that romantic to think that?

Bacevich: I don’t think so. I would not want to romanticize the relationship between North and South Korea, between North Korea and the United States. But the fact is we’ve maintained the status quo on the Korean Peninsula without war since 1953. It seems to me from the point of view of the United States, and I suspect of South Korea and Japan and probably China as well, that’s what we want, to maintain the status quo. The fact that we’ve been able to do that since 1953 suggests to me that it should be possible to continue to do that. If you set aside the irresponsible rhetoric, I don’t see that there are any facts that would render the status quo of the past several decades obsolete.

Moyers: The US wants North Korea to halt its nuclear program. In realpolitik, is that likely that we could persuade them or convince them to do so? We’ve already offered them money for disarmament and they rejected that. So is this wishful thinking on the US’ part?

Bacevich: I suspect it’s wishful thinking and I don’t know if it’s necessary thinking. Again, my view is based on the conviction that at the end of the day the North Korean regime is rational and aims above all to preserve itself. And if that assumption is correct — and I have to emphasize it’s an assumption — then they should be deterrable.

Now in that context, the ongoing situation with regard to United States and Iran is not irrelevant. When the Obama administration succeeded in negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, that was with an expectation on the part of Iran that suspending their effort or reducing it in scale, would provide benefits to Iran. To the extent that the Trump administration is now making all kinds of noises about wishing to pull out of that deal or somehow overturn it, that would suggest to the North Koreans that making any kind of agreement with regard to nuclear weapons is something the Americans might change their minds about, and therefore that becomes an obstacle to any sort of negotiations.

Moyers: It also strikes me, however, that whereas Iran agreed for certain concessions in exchange for putting its nuclear program aside, we can’t expect any pause in testing with North Korea until Kim Jong Un is certain that he has a nuclear weapon that could be loaded on a long-range missile. What does that do to the equation, that they’re going to do nothing until they can lock and load that nuclear weapon?

Bacevich: You may be right. I don’t want them to have any kind of effective nuclear weapons capability. But absent military action to prevent them from continuing their missile development program — and I think preventative military action on our part would be foolhardy in the extreme — they’re probably going to develop a missile and a warhead that can be married together and be used. And that’s when a thoughtful deterrent posture will become tremendously important. If we go back to the early stages of the Cold War, of course, we for a time had a nuclear monopoly. The Soviets tested their first bomb in August of 1949. There were those in American political circles and I believe in American military circles who said at the time that we needed to attack the Soviets while we still had a very significant nuclear advantage. Cooler heads prevailed. We adopted a posture of deterrents vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, and that worked. I mean, we came damn close in October of 1962, but nonetheless, a posture of deterrents was successful in preventing nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. I don’t believe that that success should be discounted as we think about how to deal with the North Korean nuclear threat.

Moyers: Agreed. It’s possible to describe a foreign government as an evil empire and still come to terms with it on a peaceful basis. Ronald Reagan showed us that with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Bacevich: Yes he did. He absolutely did.

Moyers: So what do you hope for? What should be our objective?

Bacevich: Well, in the near term, I think our aim is to try to maintain stability in the region, meet our commitments to our allies, especially South Korea and Japan, and avoid war — particularly avoid any war that involves the use of nuclear weapons whether by them or by us. And so to my mind, we need to ratchet down the rhetoric. We need to put in place the basis of a strategy of deterrents that accepts the fact that the North Koreans are going to have a nuclear capability. Then I think we need to look beyond the North Korean problem to appreciate that the Korean crisis is happening in a broader regional context. That context is that the regional distribution of power that existed as a result of World War II in which the United States enjoyed clear-cut primacy — that’s ended. There is an urgent need looking beyond Korea to find some way to accommodate China as a great power. There needs to be some kind of a power sharing or balance of power or mutual accommodation that allows the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and others to mutually coexist. I wouldn’t for a second suggest that this is something that can be done in a week and a half, but I think if we can sort that out then in a sense the North Korean issue will almost take care of itself. But the overarching question of how to accommodate China as a great power seems to be to be actually of greater importance than any threat posed by North Korea today or in the near term.

Moyers: Which brings us full circle. Do you see anything in Donald Trump’s behavior or temperament that makes you think he can envision such a grand bargain and has the patience and skill to help bring it about?

Bacevich: No, sadly, none at all. Nor do I see any indication that his military advisers have the imagination to conceive of a post–Cold War world in which the United States is no longer the great global hegemon. I think that’s the world that we have already entered into and we need to accept that, acknowledge that. The foreign policy discussion these days is just so impoverished, so repetitive, so trapped in a vocabulary — “the indispensable nation, global leadership” — that is at odds with our reality. And sadly, we’ve got a president who I think is completely out of touch. I suppose we had a president once who had a different temperament. When Harry Truman became president [1945] he was not prepared for the office and probably had a fairly limited understanding of the intricacies of statecraft, but he proved to be a pretty quick learner. He also proved to be somebody who was coachable. Truman listened to what [Secretary of Defense] George C. Marshall had to say, listened to what [Secretary of State] Dean Atchison had to say. That may have been one of Harry Truman’s greatest virtues. Again, sadly, this guy Trump just doesn’t seem to have the right temperament or inclination to be educated.

Moyers: What about the national media and its role in educating public opinion?

Bacevich: I think there is a hysteria about Trump.

Moyers: In the media?

Bacevich: Yes, it’s not helpful. I mean, just in the last 48, 72 hours, as the news has been dominated by Donald Trump’s confrontation with the National Football League — and put me down, by the way, as being supportive of the players who take a knee. The obsession with Trump and everything that he says and everything that he does gets in the way of sober reporting about issues like the Korea crisis. To put it more bluntly, I think the media is guilty in this case of helping to promote the idea of imminent war in ways that are not helpful.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 Next > End >>

Page 1493 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN