A SPECIAL PRESENTATION WITH VIDEO AND COMMENTARY
Michael Moore Talks Wikileaks, Assange’s Rape Charge on Rachel Maddow
Annotated by Patrice Greanville | All annotations in brackets [ ] by the editors.
Julianne Escobedo Shepherd provides a good summary of the event: ”On December 21, Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow came together in a meeting of the minds for a special edition of her show broadcast from 92Y in New York. They discussed Wikileaks and his assistance in Assange’s bail, of course. But perhaps most importantly, Moore addressed the accusations that he’s been dismissive of Assange’s rape allegations, amid a firestorm of criticism from those who have felt betrayed and appalled by his dismissal of the charges as “hooey” on Keith Olbermann’s show. Here, he clarifies his position — that we must take the charges “very seriously” — notes he started a rape crisis center in Flint, Michigan, and credits the women’s movement for advances in rape being taken seriously.” (http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/404550/)
“From the Maddow blog:
MADDOW [Notice the loaded framing of the question by Maddow]: Can your suspicion about the forces arrayed against Julian Assange and Wikileaks — your suspicion about the timing and pursuit of these charges — coexist with respect for the women making these accusations against him and with a commitment to take rape allegations seriously, even when the person accused is someone that for other reasons you like? [What PC liberal or person with any sense is going to declare that he "doesn't respect women" in front of a whole audience of liberals? These are strawmen questions, marshalled for pure rhetorical effect.]
MOORE: ...Every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted or raped has to be, must be, taken seriously. [This is something of a non-issue. But, "every woman"??? What about a woman who has been paid or coerced into false accusations? Police and intelligence services have a long tradition of doing exactly that, under a variety of ruses. And obviously neither Moore nor Maddow have heard of J.P. Sartre's The Respectful Prostitute / La putain respecteuse (1946)] Those charges have to be investigated to the fullest extent possible,” Moore said. “For too long, and too many women have been abused in our society , because they were not listened to, and they just got shoved aside. . . .So I think these two alleged victims have to be taken seriously and Mr. Assange has to answer the questions…”
Maddow’s snide all-out attack on the credibility of WikiLeaks, using an obviously misleading cable from the US diplomatic mission in Havana about “the banning of Michael Moore’s SICKO” (which never took place) set a new standard for service to the empire. But by leaving out the full context of the story, and by doing contortions to present WikiLeaks and its intentions in a bad light, Maddow implied that WikiLeaks is no reliable journalistic organization, or worse, an instrument for sinister purposes.
Watch the video:
Well, so much for that. Now for our formal ruminations.
Who do you believe? Assange or Rachel Maddow?
By GUI ROCHAT AND PATRICE GREANVILLE
If for no other reason, the Maddow show was useful in exposing, once again, the miserly, treacherous limits of mainstream liberalism.
Media Consumer Beware
Judging from the above display, our enthusiastic cable television commentator, the maddening Ms Maddow has apparently branched now into public performances like her antagonist Mr. Beck, proselytizing however for the establishment flavor of the liberal cause. Praising our dear leader Obama who, following his conservative policies, has traded away his campaign promises of not enriching the rich even more in order to gain political advantages into two main propaganda issues. All this was discussed at the New York YMCA at 92nd street.
First a few prelims focusing on what has now become an embarrasing tendency by Maddow to serve as a boostering shill for Obama and the Democrats.
The DADT measure was long on the books and could have been resolved by presidential decree long ago like Mr. Truman did for assimilation of African Americans in the armed forces. Second, although this is a measure that can be fairly assigned to the human rights ledger, as an advance, especially since it serves to give an extra push to the gay struggle for complete equality before the law, given the current historical context of a declining American empire with an imploding middle class, it is a gain that will do little to enhance the well-being of most gays let alone most Americans. (On this aspect, be sure to check the excellent arguments already presented by Cindy Sheehan, which we also carry on our sites.) Nevertheless our liberal heroine Ms Maddow rejoiced over this ‘great’ success of Mr. Obama as if he was our greatest emancipation hero. The army has been complaining that the majority of discharged gay soldiers were linguists who could help in the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan etc.
Ignored by Ms Maddow is the fact that soldiers are there to fight and kill (or to assist those who do), so now we can openly recognize that the LGBT population can not only be used as cannon fodder or criminal accomplices but also as additional cogs in the machine of the empire’s conquests. Though gay people have long been assimilated into most armies of the Western world, America can pride itself of following (some twenty to thirty years too late) the same policy that anyone who wants to serve its empire can do so. Lachai’im.
With the first phase of the boosterist gusher over, Ms Maddow produced the filmmaker Mr. Moore, who piously stated that he was brought up as a Christian (to indicate that he has no sympathy for Moslems?). He then proceeded to tell the liberal claque audience that he was involved in women’s rape causes since the age of nineteen, which was mighty feminist of him. Ergo he argued that the charges of rape against Wikileak Assange could very well be justified, even though the British Internet newspaper, the International Guardian, had published a detailed account of the charges against Mr. Assange which from almost every viewpoint seem to be circumstantial at best.
As for that matter the conservative liberal Internet publication The First Post published recently an article by their woman psychologist explaining all about poor Mr. Assange’s youth, his hostility to an absent father, a loyal mother and disdain for women, all gleaned from a superficial knowledge of the man, and from the glossy scandal press
. This sort of malicious gossip is fully discredited too by an interview that Mr Assange did with David Frost Julian Assange – FROST OVER THE WORLD – Al Jazeera English, and by an even better interview he did with Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show (12.22.10 — See http://www.greanvillepost.com/?p=10880)
After that Ms Maddow ruminated about the great advantages for world peace that the by now hopefully passed Start Treaty would bring to the US and Russia. One Republican senator stated openly that it would make little difference in the overwhelming military might of the US to destroy any country that would dare to stand up against the empire. The Start Treaty may be signed but nevertheless the government is spending many billions of dollars for new strategic nuclear warheads for artillery and for the ultimate weaponization of space. (See S. Lendman, http://www.greanvillepost.com/?p=11025)
As long as we listen to liberal talk, we are doomed because no real solutions are being proposed, only endorsement and endless adaptation to existing bad circumstances and the danger in that respect of such as Ms Maddow and Mr Moore cannot be underestimated. Their positions undermine any kind of possible resistance.
PATRICE GREANVILLE is TGP’s founder and editor in chief. GUI ROCHAT serves in the capacity of Senior Editor.