Story Comments
Posted by: 1-2-Oscar 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At a couple of points, in response to questions from Propeller, Morris seemed be a bit exasperated, largely because his questioner did not seem to understand how the military actually works, and why he spent his time interviewing "****** privates" instead of the Secretary of Defense.
There are actually two reasons why Morris didn't go after Rumsfeld from the get-go. First, the people at the scene can give a far more complete and indisputably more accurate account of what happened than can anyone else. Second, there is an old military truism, "In the motor pool, the Sergeant is a helluva lot more influential than the Colonel." If someone was never there, as seemed the case, they would not have been aware of that when they framed their questions.
Reply-
Neutral
JamesMarcus1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nobody at the interview actually asked Morris why he hadn't grilled Rumsfeld for SOP. There was a question about the prospect of Rumsfeld or Bush eventually submitting to a lengthy conversation for another film (as Robert McNamara did in "The Fog of War"). And at that point, Morris did blow off some steam--but in a generalized way, not in response to the specific question. Nobody at the interview suggested that the director should be talking to top brass instead of ******* privates.
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Suggesting and implying are to different things, as I'm sure you well know. The mild exasperation surfaced earlier, and was evident in Morris' response to Spadecaller's initial question. But for this reader, there is no way to gauge what degree that was prompted by the questions submitted by Propeller, or to what degree it was a reaction to questions from other participants in the Roundtable.
On the other hand, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that few of the other Roundtable participants were military veterans, either.
I noticed something, so I asked. So far we have the responses of three of the six Propeller questioners, and none were veterans. Now, James, you can pretend that I'm just gunning for you, or you can wonder what I saw--but you may be certain that I believe that I saw something in the questions and responses that prompted my question, and so far it has been borne out.
Reply-
Neutral
JamesMarcus1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't object to your initial question. That's why I was curious to have you expand on it. And my guess is that you're right, very few if any of the roundtable participants had served in the military. Perhaps they would have asked different questions if they had. Keep in mind that Morris had already spent the day hustling from one interview to the next, and may have had a residue of exasperation to draw on.
But that brings to mind another question. I assume you're a veteran, Oscar. What question would you have posed to Morris by virtue of that experience? (And by the way, I'd be happy to have you participate in future group efforts like this one, if you're interested.)
Reply-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I served. And, I know what it is to refuse to abide by an illegal order. A soldier daring to abide by international law, the Geneva Convention, or the constitution can sometimes contradict an order from a superior officer; the consequences are usually extremely hazardous.
It certainly was for me. That is why I asked that question: "Can one truthfully assert that the photographs depict a series of isolated events caused by a small group of misguided soldiers--by, as you just said, 'bad apples'?"
My experience in Vietnam was that international crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva convention, were usualy overlooked and covered-up. When they were forced into view for the world to see, deals were made. Only those on the lower rungs of the ladder were blamed. And, most often promises were made that they would be pardoned after everything "blows over."
This was 'allegedly' done to "defend" the country.
Reply -
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"My experience in Vietnam was that international crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva convention, were usualy overlooked and covered-up. When they were forced into view for the world to see, deals were made."
A little critical thinking here Spadecaller
Based on your experience and the fact that this was already know and under investigation in the year 2003 (You didn't hear about this till 2004) belie your suspicions that this was being "covered up"?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks, 1-2-O, that was very perceptive. I hadn't picked up on that at all.
My intent with my question was to have him set forth what he saw as the important "truths" (realities) that his movie had recovered for us that he felt were missing in what has passed for a national dialogue on the subject.
As I noted to James below, I was disappointed at the brevity of his response. He didn't do much beyond saying that he felt it taught us "something" that was possibly "deeply unpleasant". I understood what he meant by likening it to a "perverse" State of the Union, but that still kept things fairly vague. Gritty specifics were not forthcoming.
Reply -
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Second, there is an old military truism, "In the motor pool, the Sergeant is a helluva lot more influential than the Colonel." If someone was never there, as seemed the case, they would not have been aware of that when they framed their questions."
That would help explain Brigadier General Janis Karpinski victim hood claim that everyone below her and everyone above her knew what was going on. She was the only one in the chain of command that was clueless.
Of course with her female guards dropping dead from dehydration due to not drinking any water from 3pm (1500) to 5am (0500) the following day, she could easily missed all that was going on under her supervision.
Reply
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment positively. Is it really that bad of a comment?
not2needy
Spadecaller
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.