# Farenheit 9/11



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Watched the 1:10 p.m. showing today.
Theatre about 1/3 full and applause after the movie.

The things that Moore shows in the film are going to make neo cons sweat as evidenced by the movement to threaten theaters that show the film.

Some extermely damaging evidence. The neo con agenda is nothing more than pure greed. Billions of dollars.

Some extremely damaging evidence re: how the republicans stole the election. Stuff I didn't even know. And then there is the 2 different views of Bush's military record. Moore was smart enough to get a copy BEFORE he accused Bush of being AWOL and before the black magic marker could delete a certain name.

Bush is shown to be a real idiot. Cheney is nothing but evil.

Excllent film. A must see by all.

U.S. media poll (as reported by CBC National) shows that a majority of Americans believe that Bush was WRONG to invade Iraq.
Bush's reply; "History will be my judge."

"We the people" my ass....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

2 Links of interest:

1st, some interesting commentary on F9/11 by Kottke:

<blockquote>http://www.kottke.org/04/06/fahrenheit-911

Fahrenheit 9/11 is ultimately about Michael Moore's view of the world, which is what makes it so entertaining, pleasing to Moore fans, but also what limits its potential.

During the last half of the movie, I thought more than once about The Fog of War, Errol Morris' excellent documentary on Robert McNamara, and how Morris would have done the film. Or how Andrew Jarecki (Capturing the Friedmans) would have. You certainly can't remove opinion from a documentary, but with Fog and Friedmans, you get a sense of what the filmmakers' opinions are and how they affect the way the story is told. And as with anything in life, you find your own truth in the films based on what you think that bias might be. But Fahrenheit 9/11 is so much about Michael Moore's opinion that it's difficult to go through that process of finding the truth. The frustrating thing is that Moore has a point, but he's unable to get himself out of the way enough to tell us the story so we can make up our own minds about it. One of the charges leveled against Bush -- and probably every other politician in the US -- is that he's constantly putting spin on everything to obscure or manipulate the truth. I can't help but think that Moore is doing exactly the same thing in the opposite direction.</blockquote>

2nd, here is a link to the opinion poll showing that the majority of Americans now believe the war in Iraq to be a mistake:

<blockquote>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5511219

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans now say the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll released on Thursday.

Amid continuing violence in Iraq and questions about the justification for the war, 54 percent of the 1,005 Americans polled said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops into Iraq, compared with 41 percent who held that view three weeks ago.

The findings mark the first time since Vietnam that a majority of Americans has called a major deployment of U.S. forces a mistake, USA Today reported on its Web site.

In addition, the poll found that for the first time a majority also said the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism.

Fifty-five percent said the war has increased U.S. vulnerability, compared to a December poll in which 56 percent said the war made the United States safer.

[...]

Despite Americans' changing attitudes toward the war, the poll found Bush in a statistical dead heat with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Among likely voters, Bush edged out Kerry 48 percent to 47 percent. Three weeks ago, Kerry led 49 percent to 43 percent.

In the new poll, 60 percent of respondents said they believe the Massachusetts Democrat could handle the job of commander-in-chief, but most Americans indicated they trust Bush more in that role, 51 percent to 43 percent.

The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday, has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. </blockquote>

Some food for thought.


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

i saw the movie tonight - sold out showing - next two 920 and 1020 shows were also sold out - 
applause at the end of the show too.

i think that it was great - 
i am surprised that there was no talk of britain being a part of the coalition of the willing - 

i suppose he was just trying to keep the focus on america, but i was sure blair was going to get a bigger mention than just his picture being used for a few seconds.

i recommend it highly - 
there are a few scenes that are pretty graphic (aftermath of bombing/attacks that took place in iraq)


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*not allowing photos of U.S. flag drpaed [sic] coffins makes a mockery of the soldiers' ultimate sacrifice*

Not allowing photos of any fallen soldiers on their way home, tastefully or otherwise, is an old policy, and one that I'm not sure the Army can afford to say "just this one time" to. As poignant as the photos may have been, not cracking down on the photographer could have opened some rather ugly doors.

*Only 1 memeber of Congress had a son in the military in Iraq*

How many, I wonder, had other family members in Iraq though? I know of at least one that has/had a couple of nephews over there.

*Moore's "view of the world" is just that, his view*

Isn't it a touch hypocritical to say Bush is bad for distorting the truth, and then turn around and do the same thing to prove his point? 

Given that the info he provides isn't exactly hard to come by, shouldn't he be able to present them without forcing his opinion on the viewer and have them come to the same (or a similar) conclusion?

Wouldn't it be more powerful if the viewer forms their own opinions instead of having Moore's shoved in their face?

[/devils advocate]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Isn't it a touch hypocritical to say Bush is bad for distorting the truth, and then turn around and do the same thing to prove his point?


Bush's hypocricy costs people their lives...
800 or so americans and 10,000 or so Iraqis

that's the biggest difference....

Moore's alleged hypocricy cost me $9.35 and I would bet nobody will die as a result of his films


----------



## hmto (Jul 4, 2003)

It's true that it's Moore's point of view but then the same can be said of the opposite. Anyone can do their own documentary to cast a more positive light on what this administration has done and are doing. So far no one has stepped up...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> there are a few scenes that are pretty graphic (aftermath of bombing/attacks that took place in iraq)


the reality of war is that it is a grisly business
not allowing photos of U.S. flag drpaed coffins makes a mockery of the soldiers' ultimate sacrifice

shame on BushCo.
Moore's "view of the world" is just that, his view
He makes money from it and gets good press and notoriety

Republicans send people to die for money. Only 1 memeber of Congress had a son in the military in Iraq. Let the less well off to fight and die for those that are better off. Shame.

Which is the greater evil? Moore or BushCo.?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Mark Fiore and his biting commentary.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/favorite.html


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Aside from the "Moore is pushing his opinion on us" point of view, I think the real issue here is that Moore is not the only one in America (or the world for that matter) that holds this opinion...which is given little airtime by the American media. 

"News" corps like CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC are imbedded so far up Bush's @ss that there is no chance of a dissenting opinion to that of the Administration (unless they want to lose Presidential access). These companies have done a disservice to Americans by throwing away their impartiality. 

I certainly would never take Moore's views as the God-given truth, but I think there is a lot more truth to the film than fiction. 

The fact that the bloodied coprses of dead Iraqis can litter American airwaves, but the sterile, bloodless, flag-draped coffins of "fallen heroes" can't speaks volumes. It's also alarming that the U.S. Administration gets enraged by footage of captured soldiers...but then says nothing when American media show footage of captured Iraqis and so-called "insurgents." Hell, they kept those dreadful prison photos a secret for MONTHS and only ackowledged them after they were leaked to the media. 

Don't even get me started on how the U.S. (and the U.K.) breaks international law by illegally holding people, without charge, for years at a time off of American soil in the name of "national security." What a joke. 

Last time I checked the Geneva Convention and other international treaties - enetered into by the U.S - also apllied to America. 

So, good on Moore for exposing at least some of the massive injustices and illegal behavior of George W. Bush and the United States of America!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I wonder if it's having an effect or would the only ones to go see already in the 70% of Canadians who don't support Harper.

I was surprised how crowded it was.

I like Moore's approach as it smacks of the best of As it Happens, 60 Minutes, when it was independent, the Washington Post on Watergate and Sinclair Lewis about the meat packing industry.
Nader too with "Unsafe at any Speed transformed the auto industry.

Lurid journalism is sometimes needed as a wakeup call.
Every damn tent preacher knows the score on that as does all the right wing radio hacks.

Moore fights back.
It's nice to see the oh so serious PBS etc but they are preaching to the converted.
Stuff like Moore puts it in the face of those that shrug it off or are a party to it.

I've been pleased with the investigative journalism of the Star tho lately they seem to have lost some of the fire in their belly.
They should have been all over the Toronto Police force, Fantino and that idiot on the police board they've been trying to toss for years.

I'm glad to see the Globe editor belly up to the bar and take a stand too. 
The Fifth Estate is an enormously strong force - I notice the US talking heads get dissed deservedly in 9/11.

My sense is there is this underlying cauldron of discontent and dissatisfaction at the "status quo" that feels something like the lead in to the 60s and the very violent 70s.

It was good times then in the 60's as well but also a feeling of rebellion, I think the Greens are symptomatic of that, I suspect the Bloc as well.
Even "traditional WASP Canada" feeling squeezed into being a minority itself is "acting out".

Certainly the fight against globalization, evaluating the rat race pace of things, wanting action not talk on such topics as cleaner air, sustainable development etc.
Even the normally meek biz graduatues are focing the "institutions" to acknowledge their green ribbon campaign for promoting sustainable development and businesses
 

I suspect the muscle behind this is the internet and the communication. You almost sense from Moore's movie that the "establishment" is living in another age - that the "weapons of mass documentation" in the hands of everyperson are very seriously in play and unknown to the establisment.
The polls have all shown the anger and frustration.

How prescient was this.......20 years ago??
























Something wicked this way comes...............

Turn your speakers up 1984 remind yourself. 

••••

BTW - Moore offsets the press muzzling that goes on and on - good reading here

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/us2/



> "...if the American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier."
> 
> -- U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to Saddam Hussein, from a transcript of their July 25 meeting
> 
> ...


Go on it's okay to feel disgusted.......you're not alone. 

[ June 26, 2004, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Don't ask why, but I'm currently staying at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington for a couple of days. If you've seen the movie, this hotel is shown as the meeting place between various Saudi businessmen and members of the Bush entourage. There are 40 TV channels on the in-room TV (its a *very* nice hotel...). These include 6 different arabic channels including Al-Jezerra, Dubai TV, Dubai Sports and Abou Dabi. Right next to Fox News.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Of interest to those with an open mind:

59 (and counting) deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

I encourage anyone who's already seen the film to read it (all of it).


----------



## Goobernatorial (Sep 24, 2003)

> Of interest to those with an open mind:
> 
> 59 (and counting) deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
> 
> I encourage anyone who's already seen the film to read it (all of it).


I stopped reading when the guy compares Moore making a film about 9/11 to a Klansman making a film about Rosa Parks. Quite obviously this guy is just as biased as Moore if not more. Who is checking his info to make sure he isn't the deceitful one?

IMO I believe that the overall message of the film is that the Bush administration has used the tragedy of 9/11 to erode the rights of US citizens and to invade Iraq, which is pretty much true and it seems that finally people in the US are realizing that safety at the cost of your freedom isn't really a good trade off.

God Help America.

[ July 07, 2004, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Goobernatorial ]


----------



## WSpano (Jul 7, 2004)

I read an unbiased (really) article about the movie here on an Aussie paper. And the one quote that makes me laugh by Moore was (as best I can remember) was.

"It doesn't matter if there are inconsistancies or mistakes in the film, the idea is to beat Bush."

I'm sorry, if you want to make a film, make a film, don't call it a "Documentary" if there are inaccuracies.

At the end of it all, what scares me is that people will watch this film and belive it to be gospel, but then again, people watch cnn and so forth and believe it to be gospel as well. So what can you do?


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

> I read an unbiased (really) article about the movie here on an Aussie paper. And the one quote that makes me laugh by Moore was (as best I can remember) was.
> 
> "It doesn't matter if there are inconsistancies or mistakes in the film, the idea is to beat Bush."


i highly doubt that Moore would ever say that.
he always fights back to prove that there are no inconsistancies when someone suggests any.

check out http://www.michaelmoore.com for his updates which show him backing up any claims he made in the movie.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ironic isn't that the shrub fans take other "good books" literally without the same critical eye.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

Hello,

My wife and I saw the movie last Friday at 12:30 p.m. There were only about 20 or 30 people in the theatre, which I suppose is because it was 12:30 p.m. on a sunny Friday. There was applause at the end of the movie and I thought the show was pretty good, but I am always sceptical about people's biases and agendas (whether hidden or not).

James


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My staff has been trying to see it in Mississauga and much to my surprise it's been sold out every time.  

Hmmmmm....the movie opened on the Friday before the election and Ontario and other parts of the country foxed the pollsters big time.

Since all the theatres where generally sold out for the movie that weekend it hard not to believe there may well have been some impact on the vote.
I have not seen a single speculation to that effect.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Quite obviously this guy is just as biased as Moore if not more.*

You have Moore on one side, you have the guy counting deceits on the other. The truth, invariably, falls in the middle.

The analogy made about Rosa Parks though:

<blockquote>"If a Klansman made a film which feigned admiration for Rosa Parks, that too would be a form of deceit, even if the film were accurate in its portrayal of Parks as a great American hero."</blockquote>

Though extreme, I am not sure is invalid. I've yet to see the film (or finish reading the list of 59 deceits), so I'll save any judgement for after I have.

Needless to say, though, that after Bowling for Columbine I will be going in fairly skeptical.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Since all the theatres where generally sold out for the movie that weekend it hard not to believe there may well have been some impact on the vote.*

It's worth noting that while it was indeed sold out just about everywhere it was playing for the first weekend or two, it was also only playing on ~2/5 to 1/2 the number of screens as everything else was.

Not necessarily Moores doing, but it is buzz generating market manipulation, a technique that is quite commonly used.


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

Posterboy,
At least you can count Moore's--has anyone been able to keep track of Bush's deceits? 

It's about cash--the media is controlled by big money. If you want to defend that, go ahead. The news we see every day is so biased to the right--that's why Moore's stuff shocks you--to fight that kind of propaganda, maybe somebody has to fight back just as dirty.

Macdoc,
"Weapons of mass documentation" --did you make that up? 
I love it!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Weapons....
No wish I had, it got a great laugh from me. One of the comics on some sort of stand up - shoot out.

Only reference I could find bu I think I heard it on a pre-Election CBC comedy skit out of NL.


> he Comedy Channel's nightly news at 11, the guy who does that show played some tapes of Rumsfeld's senate or house hearing a couple of weeks ago, highlighting the piece where Rummy is dismayed that someone would take photos of such indecent behavior, and then pass them to the press instead of sending them to the Pentagon.
> the newscaster noted that Rumsfeld is very anxious to find and recover all those WMDs -- those weapons of mass documentation.


----------



## Goobernatorial (Sep 24, 2003)

> The analogy made about Rosa Parks though:
> 
> "If a Klansman made a film which feigned admiration for Rosa Parks, that too would be a form of deceit, even if the film were accurate in its portrayal of Parks as a great American hero."
> 
> ...


To me this quote goes to show you exactly how biased this guy is against Moore. It's like when people compare Bush to Hitler it's way over the top. 

Personally I think Bush is definately more comparable to Zippy the pinhead.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

That's incredibly unfair to Zippy the pinhead! Shame on you.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I saw *Farenheit 9/11* last night and was unimpressed. The movie was more hype than substance for me.

Moore does present some brilliant footage and damning facts; however, as a documentary the film is meandering and poorly laid out. If the film were an essay, I'd have dropped it _at least_ one letter grade for lack of a thesis and poor structure.

I felt like the film was two or three different documentaries crammed into one; none of them complete. Moore pounds you over the head with some facts and others he leaves incredibly obscure and under-developed.

I wonder if he rushed the release of this film to correspond with the beginning of campaigning for the Democrats and recent selection of the Democrat VP.

Despite my criticisms I do feel the movie is worth seeing. However, films such as *Super-size Me* and *The Corporation* are more cohesive and better organized documentaries.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I wonder if he rushed the release of this film to correspond with the beginning of campaigning for the Democrats and recent selection of the Democrat VP.*

Well, the DNC *is* paying for F911 to be distributed on DVD right before the election.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6678


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Check out the Control Room for unembedded viewpoints of the Iraq invasion (it should make people less dismissive of Al Jazzera).

What with this, the Clinton book and the hunting of the president, the Bush-ites must be feeling under a media siege......


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

How is Bush doing in the polls?

I hope he is fairing as poorly as Dear Glen Campbell, the bane of BCers.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I wonder if he rushed the release of this film to correspond with the beginning of campaigning for the Democrats and recent selection of the Democrat VP.


i think this is probably the case. in the film you'll notice there is testimony from condoleeza rice at the 9/11 inquiry, which was just a couple of months ago. moore's film has been held up with the distribution fiasco, so my guess is moore finished the film just weeks after the rice testimony.

i share moore's opinion of the republican regime but i do think this was a shoddily put together film.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Windows 9/11.


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

Moore did make a special effort to get the film out well before the election--he could have taken another year or so and made a better film, but then it would have had a certain lack of purpose. 

I found a couple of the shots dragged on a little, and as someone mentioned before it wouldn't make a good "essay." But it's not made up, it's not a dramatization, and I don't think it can be dismissed--especially without seeing it!!! Watch it and see if you think Bush is really acting in the interests of the American (or any other) people.

I agree, "The Corporation" was a better movie, long, but very well put together and very informative... and equally depressing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

July 16th, 2004 1:43 pm
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers

By SHAILAGH MURRAY / THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 12, 2004

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. -- John Atkins isn't the sort of person one would expect to find crowding into the Cameo Theatre here to see Michael Moore's " Fahrenheit 9/11."

The 26-year-old U.S. Army machine gunner from Fort Bragg voted for President Bush. A graduate of the University of Colorado-Boulder, he enlisted last year "to serve my country" and expects to go to Iraq later in 2004.

"That was pretty thought-provoking," Spec. Atkins says after a showing of Mr. Moore's documentary. "I guess I'm a little disillusioned. I've got a lot more questions than answers now."

Every day since "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened here more than two weeks ago, military men and women have swarmed to the 125-seat Cameo. "Everyone thinks the military is so staunchly Republican," says Staff Sgt. Brandon Leetch, a military-intelligence specialist who spent time in Afghanistan. "What this shows," he says, looking around the theater before the movie, "is that we're not all the same."

Although a nearby suburban multiplex has started screening "Fahrenheit 9/11 ," too, on two screens -- meaning Fayetteville residents have their pick of 10 shows a day -- most of the tens of thousands of troops living in the area probably won't see the film. But soldiers and their families make up well over half of each audience at the Cameo, cinema owner Nasim Keunzel estimates.

That surprises Peter Feaver, a political scientist and military specialist at Duke University in North Carolina. There is a sense in the military that "the media is stabbing us in the back as they did during Vietnam" and Mr. Moore's film would seem "Exhibit A," he says.

Most viewers are coming from Fort Bragg, just up the road. But often a few Marines from Camp Lejeune, about two hours away, join them. The night Spec. Atkins attended, three soldiers arrived from South Carolina well after the 7:30 show had, as usual, sold out. The ticket seller set up chairs in an aisle.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a harshly satirical and controversial portrait of the Bush presidency, although it has sympathetic scenes of combat soldiers and their families. Critics say it distorts facts to make its point.

It opened in 868 theaters during the week of June 25, and is showing in more than 2,011 theaters across the country. The movie opened in the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Switzerland last week.

The U.S. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which distributes films at 164 theaters on bases around the world, is trying to book "Fahrenheit 9/11 ," spokesman Judd Anstey says.

"Our policy is that if a film is popular in the U.S. and we can get our hands on a print, we'll show it," he says.

Currently, all prints are in commercial theaters. He says it took about a month to get another recent surprise hit, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

Unusual Stop

The Cameo isn't a usual stop for Fort Bragg soldiers. Ms. Keunzel and her husband turned a dilapidated downtown Fayetteville building into a two-screen theater because they loved foreign and independent films and were tired of driving to Raleigh to see them.

Ms. Keunzel didn't even advertise the opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the Fort Bragg newspaper. The film's area distributor told her, "Military people won't want to see it."

But the first two scheduled shows sold out so quickly she added a midnight show. The next day, she added more screenings, for a total of five a day. They all sold out, even though the new times were never published.

Staff Sgt. Billy Alsobrook, 28, a missile repairman in a support battalion, drove to the Cameo one afternoon in his fatigues to get tickets for the evening show so he could take his wife.

"I hear they've got a lot of interviews with soldiers," says Sgt. Alsobrook, whose one-year tour in Iraq ended in February. He expects to return in September.

The Florida native said: "I want to see another point of view on Bush. It never hurts."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=88


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I still have not seen one single mentionof the films affect on the Canadian Election that last weekend.
Lot of people went.
Pollsters caught totally off guard........hmmm.

Is a new era of political influence dawning???


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There was a commentry in the Globe and Mail last week about some guy who is trying to take Moore to court in contravention of an assinine law in which non-Canadians are not allowed to urge Canadians to vote for one party or the other. The Globe's position was that this should go to court as it was a law so out of touch with reality that it needs challenging. Moore may be prepared to follow through on that premise.

I don't think F 9/11 made a significant difference but its hardly an easy thing to prove. My feeling is that Canadians already knew what a mess the current US administration is and when Harper began to act like Bush (e.g. refusing to apologise for the idiotic press release suggesting Layton and Martin were in favor of child porn) the momentum changed. Harper would do well to learn some humility but there is no sign yet that he knows, let alone understands, the word.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We'll never know of course but it somehow feels like one of those unspoken "we won't talk about it".

Sort like having a dinner party with an elephant in the room and no one brings the subject up out of politeness.....or embarrassment. Pointedly ignoring the obvious.

If there was some minor chit chat that died away, a bit of posturing by "highminded officials etc" it would be less ominous to me than this absolutely deafening silence.

Now Canadians may indeed be getting pollster wary but that was a HUGE unpredicted swing over the very weekend 9/11 opened. Maybe 9/11 just served to firm up wafflers. The polls did say the undecided vote was very high that late in the campaign.

Anyone know how to find out how manay Canadians saw the film that weekend??


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is an interesting article debunking several of the major points in Fahrenheit 9/11. It does have a right wing bias, but unlike many other articles I've read so far, it is well researched and footnoted.

http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html

Here is an excerpt:
<blockquote>The movie opens with the 2000 election. I was baffled to hear Moore claim that “numerous investigations said that Gore won Florida.” Which numerous investigations were these? The New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today, reported the same consensus after both recounts: George W. Bush won. I’m willing to accept the fact that, nationally, Gore won the popular vote. That is accurate. However, we have something called the “electoral college.” But to claim that “numerous investigations said that Gore won Florida” is preposterous! This is undoubtedly why Moore didn’t choose to name these “numerous sources.” There were none. 

Then, in a pure pathetic act, Moore shows footage of CNN calling Florida for Gore, followed by Fox News calling Florida for Bush, and then CNN retracting their previous claim. The theory here was that Gore had won Florida and numerous stations announced it until, lo and behold, Fox News said Bush won Florida and the rest of the news stations “followed their lead.” First off, the notion that CNN and the rest of the news stations would all of a sudden change the results to fit those of one station- Fox News- is ridiculous. I highly doubt that Tom Brokaw sat; waiting for what Fox said in order to “follow their lead.” If that were the case, I would argue that CNN and all the rest who changed their results, to fit those of Fox News, should be wiped off the face of journalism as we know it. Just imagine it: “Well... Fox News said Bush won... we better say Bush won too!” Give me a break. 

Why did Fox News call Florida for Bush? They didn’t. Fox News, along with CNN, ABC, NBC etc. all incorrectly called Florida for Gore more than an hour before polls had closed in several conservative Florida counties. After getting wind of the fact that they were all wrong, Fox News and the rest of the stations retracted their statements. But what does Moore do in this movie? The same thing he does in all of his movies. He spliced and diced the footage to make it seem as though Fox News deliberately lied and somehow convinced the rest of the stations to lie too. But there is a much more important fact that Moore unintentionally raises here: By calling Florida for Gore before the polls had closed in these highly Republican counties, residents didn’t bother to vote, since the election had already been called in Gore’s favor. According to Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, Bush lost up to 8,000 votes because of the media’s reporting errors. But Moore didn’t mention this. Instead he mentions that George W. Bush’s cousin was working for Fox News that night. What he fails to mention, however, is that, as previously noted, Fox News called Florida for Gore as well and by the time Fox had corrected itself and announced Florida for Bush at 2:16 a.m., all polls were already closed and there was no harm to be done. I wonder how Moore missed all those facts.</blockquote>


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

"But what does Moore do in this movie? The same thing he does in all of his movies. He spliced and diced the footage to make it seem as though Fox News deliberately lied and somehow convinced the rest of the stations to lie too. "

Hmmm.... maybe he went to the same school of editing that Colin Powell went to to for his infamous UN address?

"I wonder how Moore missed all those facts." 

This is hilarious given the context of all of the factual errors, misconstructions, extrapolations, selective ignorance and outright deceptions of the Bush administration over the evidence for invading Iraq. At least Blair has taken responsibility for the mistakes he made in accepting the flawed "intelligence". I doubt Blair would repeat the mistake. But Bush.....?

The Florida count was associated with a series of gaffs and manipulations. The absolute importance of Florida wasn't clear until the polls closed. The selective recruitment of voters, the horrible ambiguity of the voting slips, the abysmal chad counting technology etc. have all been detailed by multiple sources (including a conglomeration of newspapers who decided to play down the study after 9/11 since they did not want to undermine the administration at a time when the country was at its most vulnerable and volatile - what a mistake). The fact is, however, that after the Supreme Court vote (5-4 along party lines), Gore declared that Bush was the winner so all of this is moot. Bush won less of the vote than Gore as a whole and the closeness of the vote clearly gave Bush the narrowest of mandates which he then used to swing the country to the Right. That's politics. Winner takes all and can screw the country for 4 years. Hopefully, Americans will be able to strip away his veneer to reveal his patronizing ignorance of the country as a whole. He stands only for the interests of the wealthy - the only sector of the community to have benefitted from his policies.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Anyone know how to find out how manay Canadians saw the film that weekend??*

Google shalt set thee free!

From what I could find out, F911 made about $2.4 Mil. in Canada on it's opening weekend. Assuming the average ticket price is somewhere between $10 and $14, that means that somewhere between 171,500 and 240,000 people saw the film that weekend.

This data is somewhat useless though, as it doesn't account for multiple viewings. We also don't have any idea how many of the people who saw F911 were actually able to vote, and of those able to vote those that actually did.

It's also worth noting that buzz was artificially created around F911 by it's distributors. Every showing was sold out, wow! But what most people don't realize is that of all the movies making lots of money in that period, F911 was the only one playing on less than 2000 screens (~850, as I recall).

*I still have not seen one single mentionof the films affect on the Canadian Election that last weekend.*

As pointed out, it's not an easy thing to prove or disprove, but I have a feeling it didn't really have any effect at all, as I think most Canadians already had a pretty good idea how they were going to vote. Also, as I recall, the polls read the Liberals and Conservatives in a dead heat right until the very last minute.

In the US, it seems that F911 has had little effect on the polls, Bush and Kerry remain neck in neck.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmmm.."...forest for trees..." homily comes to mind.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Another example of exemplary one liner content by MacDoc.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Actually it's cogent to the post above and exactly on topic and if you wish to call it exemplary why thankyou. 

Your's isn't.
Another observation by MacDoc.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*"I wonder how Moore missed all those facts." 

This is hilarious given the context of all of the factual errors, misconstructions, extrapolations, selective ignorance and outright deceptions of the Bush administration over the evidence for invading Iraq.*

So, two wrongs make a right? Because Bush & Company misrepresented facts, it's ok for Moore to do so as well? I was under the impression that Moore was supposed to be the saviour from all of that.

I guess not, eh?

Macdoc and jfpoole,

Please stop fighting, you're both pretty.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not sure where you got the impression that Moore was a PBS style documentarian - he's not. I certainly don't expect him to be.

He's a yellow journalist in the best tradition of that category. Sensationalize issues he feels are important to bring it to discussion and attention of the public.

We see editorial slant and bias all the time even in the best of news organizations. Moore isn't neutral, doesn't pretend to be.

The audience is quite able to make up it's own mind how much to take seriously and how much to assign as "sensationalizing" and "comic conceit".


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Whatever liberties Moore may take, they're in the name of entertainment because that is the business he's in (he's not producing 60 minutes). Whatever liberties George W. Bush may take costs lives - that's not the business he should be in. I don't condone Moore for exaggerating or creative editing but the examples people have given to discredit him are less compelling that the evidence used to invade Iraq. He serves a very useful purpose in a society that is being spoon-fed crap by its primary media and entertainment channels.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> He's a yellow journalist in the best tradition of that category.


Calling Moore a "journalist" of ANY kind is an insult to the profession.

He's a rather scruffy looking fat guy who makes entertaining films, (at least in his mind).

Love him or hate him, give him credit, he knows how to make a buck.

Cheers


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> He's a rather scruffy looking fat guy who makes entertaining films


It's quite disappointing to see a politically based discussion reach down to the lowest common denominator.

Schoolyard politics.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh you mean in comparison to the SUN journalists eh..y'know "the boobs" types. Those outstanding paragons of journalistic virtue you seem to be enamoured with.








Have you even seen the movie Sinc??


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Calling Moore a "journalist" of ANY kind is an insult to the profession.


*profession?*
* cough cough cough *

Toronto Sun, Calgary Herald, FAUX news....

Oh yeah, right up there with Walter Cronkite.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, it just wouldn't be a forum without hearing form our resident "sour grapes professional", MACSPECTRUM.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Have you seen the movie Sinc??? Take 2


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> our resident "sour grapes professional", MACSPECTRUM.


I prefer "realist", thank you very much.

 

"My reality includes Quebec."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nope, and I won't waste my time trying to see it either.

I don't have to see another of Moore's propaganda pieces to know it stinks. I saw one and that was enough,

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Nope, and I won't waste my time trying to see it either.


Gee, is that what journalism school teaches?
Ignore facts and/or research and formulate your opinion, "just because."

Oh yeah, "professional."

Doctor: I don't want to read that journal. I know enough already.

Oye.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But he does know the difference between waxwings and that counts for something  
Prodding the coals again Sinc....see what spark fly??  

Anyone care to write an MM vignette about 9/11 and the GREAT ONTARIO ELECTION SWING.









Openng scene Harper musing on majority over champagne
Cut to pollsters showing neck and neck election on Friday
Cut to mass line ups at 9/11 on weekend.
Cut to shocked faces on Liberal swing.............

might be fun eh.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Gee, is that what journalism school teaches?


Hell if I know. Never been there.

All my experience came from the S.O.H.K.

Cheers


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Anyone care to write an MM vignette about 9/11 and the GREAT ONTARIO ELECTION SWING. *

The scary thing is that there is just enough weak connections that it is something Moore might take credit for.

1) Conservatives and Liberals are in a dead heat
2) Michael Moore comes to Canada and says "Don't be like us Americans, vote left."
3) Conservatives and Liberals remain in a dead heat up to the last minute
4) Election day, Liberals take a fair lead over the Conservatives

Conclusion, a la Michael Moore, he must have had a big effect on the people choice. Realistically, though, I doubt he had much effect at all, just as he hasn't in the US.

It's like the part of the film where he connects Bush to the bin Ladens using the Carlyle Group, a company that many, many people are invested in, including both Clinton and Madeline Albright.

It's about context, and Moore doesn't provide it.

*Nope, and I won't waste my time trying to see it either.*

That's a little unfair. If nothing else, you could download it off the net. Michael Moore himself has said that he would rather it be downloaded than not seen.

*I'm not sure where you got the impression that Moore was a PBS style documentarian - he's not. I certainly don't expect him to be. He's a yellow journalist in the best tradition of that category. *

If he is indeed a Yellow Journalist, how can you justify his winning an Academy Award for Best Documentary?

Yellow Journalism is
<blockquote>type of journalism where sensationalism triumphs over factual reporting. This may take such forms as the use of colorful adjectives, exaggeration, *a careless lack of fact-checking* for the sake of a quick "breaking news" story, or even deliberate falsification of entire incidents. (emphasis mine)</blockquote>

A documentary, is after all, supposed to be factual.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is an article from Veterans for Common Sense, detailing one soldiers fears that the anti-war fervour may turn into anger directed at the troops.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/NewsArticle.cfm?ID=1792

Excerpt:

<blockquote>
this woman, Lila Lipscomb -- who had encouraged her son to join the military to escape the economically depressed Flint area -- tearfully asked the camera why her son had to die in Iraq, the woman behind me hissed at the screen, "Because you sent him over there, you idiot!"

I was shocked. That remark was more crass than anything I had seen on the screen. And I found myself even happier than before that my mother wasn't with me to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." Because despite her left-leaning politics and gentle nature, I couldn't help but think that she would have turned around and hit that woman. Most of the public simply can't understand the anxiety that military families live with while their loved ones are away at war. Just the other day I spoke to a woman in Montgomery, Ala., who broke down in tears as she spoke about her son in Iraq.

In the end, I was left wondering what good, if any, films like "Fahrenheit 9/11" really provide us. "Control Room" offered an insight into a network that had previously been an enigma to me, something I never watched but often heard politicians complain about. "Fahrenheit 9/11," by contrast, merely packaged a series of anti-Bush rants I had heard before into one neat, clever film. (So, too, did Tim Robbins' off-Broadway play "Embedded," though neither neatly nor cleverly.) I walked away from "Fahrenheit 9/11" as if I had just eaten a candy bar -- I was on a sugar high but knew what I had just ingested wasn't healthy for me in the least.

I also didn't appreciate the way U.S. servicemen were depicted in the film. The first time Moore shows servicemen on camera, they are bragging about the heavy metal they listen to in their tanks while they kill Iraqis. War provides "the ultimate rush," one young soldier claims. The second time Moore shows servicemen on camera, however, they are lamenting the way the war is being fought and sound as disillusioned as they do anxious to go home. As Jethro Tull plays on the tank's speaker system, one soldier rhetorically asks the camera, "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

The problem is, these two vignettes don't make sense when paired together. Are American soldiers merciless killing machines pumped up on the "XXX" soundtrack as they mow down Iraqi soldiers and civilians? Or are they scared kids from the heartland who resent U.S. policymakers and want nothing more than to come home alive?

Moore stumbles into a revelation here, albeit clumsily and unwittingly: Soldiers aren't so easily stereotyped. The reality is, they are complex, just like you and me, with both strengths and weaknesses. The American media has, through the years, done a poor job of communicating this to the public. Most media, lazily avoiding complexity so as to squeeze a war into the 30-minute evening newscast, paint soldiers as morally flawless, with a superhuman sense of duty and honor. ("I think Navy SEALs rock!" Katie Couric cheerfully cries in "Fahrenheit 9/11.") Most pop history books -- such as "The Greatest Generation" ---only reinforce this notion. As a result, America is shocked when confronted with atrocities like My Lai or, today, Abu Ghraib. _How could our boys do this?_

But equally wrong, of course, were those who shouted "baby killer" at every veteran who returned from Vietnam. Most veterans were nothing of the sort --and I would bet most protesters were as keenly aware of that then as they are now. The soldiers of that age were just as they are today -- mostly earnest young American men and women who, for the most part, proudly served their country overseas and prayed like all hell they would come home in one piece.

The irony of Michael Moore, as a friend of mine from Nashville pointed out, is that he too is guilty of mentioning only the facts that are helpful to his case, a tactic that will sound familiar to those who remember the run-up to the ground war in Iraq. Ultimately, "Fahrenheit 9/11" has more flash and anger than reason.</blockquote>

Read the rest of the article, it's quite interesting.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy,

Don't you understand? It's okay that Moore lies because Bush lies, too! Plus Moore's message is important, so it doesn't matter how he gets that message across.

The ends, after all, justify the means. Especially, it seems, when you agree with the ends in the first place.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Elections Canada to Charge Moore

<blockquote>

Elections Canada will lay charges against shockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore.</p>

Officially, Elections Canada will neither confirm nor deny plans to lay formal charges against Moore. However, Canadafreepress.com has learned through sources that charges are imminent and expected by the end of next week. [...]</p>

Moore’s pre-election advice lecturing Canadian voters not to vote Conservative quickly enraged a number of Conservative Party supporters who launched the website: www.chargeMoore.com in an effort to encourage Elections Canada to uphold its own law.</p>

Moore’s tactics encompass what legal beagles believe is a direct violation of Canada electoral law. Under the "Non-Interference by Foreigners" clause (Part 11, Division 9, section 331) of the Canadian Elections Act.</p></blockquote>

I'm not convinced that Moore's comments or _Fahrenheit 9/11_ had much (if any) effect on the election (after all, Moore tends to preach to the choir), but apparently some are. It will be interesting to see if charges are actually laid, and what happens if they are.</p>


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> PosterBoy,
> 
> Don't you understand? It's okay that Moore lies because Bush lies, too! Plus Moore's message is important, so it doesn't matter how he gets that message across.
> 
> The ends, after all, justify the means. Especially, it seems, when you agree with the ends in the first place.


Bush's lies cost human lives.

That is the difference.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"justify an Academy Award"??

I'd say that award was as much a political statement as Bowling or 9/11 are.
Perhaps also take the Academy to task for their decision to make a political statement.

Where does "supposed to be" come into play.??

The Academy belongs to it's members who are the world's entertainers. Between that award and the Palm D'Or the entertainers of the world have used Moore to voice their own assessment of the current regime in the US and at the same time rewarded one of their own whose work they felt was deserving.

They ARE entertainers which Moore is also, something that seems to be overlooked at times.
They judged Moore's work worthy of their accolades.
Viewers make their own judgements.

I used the vignette above as an example of yellow journalism. It's clearly what Moore produced. He'd be the first to admit it.

I'm trying to find the quote but the gist of is MM himself said "that's the first time in 20 years anyone called me reasonable". I think that was in response to Windsor's mayor offering him honourary Canadian citizenship as an offset against the Young PCs attempt to have Moore charged under the Elections act.

Is it propaganda?? Of course.
This article nicely delineates the point.



> *Michael Moore Versus Authority: The Media's Dual 'Propaganda' Thresholds *
> By Robert Furs / Counterbias.com
> July 2 2004
> 
> ...


as to the military



> July 16th, 2004 1:43 pm
> *'Fahrenheit 9/11' Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers*
> 
> By SHAILAGH MURRAY / THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> ...


more 

F 9/11 is entertainment with an axe to grind. That the message resonates with many viewers leading them to question the current policies of the US means MM has achieved one of his goals.
It generates controversy and discussion in the public at large and that's the idea behind yellow journalism. Be sensational.
It is.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Where does "supposed to be [factual]" come into play.??*

In the definition of a documentary film:
<blockquote>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary

A broad category of cinematic expression, traditionally the only characteristic common to all documentary films is that they are meant to be factual. </blockquote>

BfC is littered with inaccuracies, falsehoods and misrepresentations, and yet it's members voted it the best documentary. How do you justify that? Are the members wrong, or is the definition?

F911 has lots of facts in it, they are presented out of context to appear related. It's dishonest, and when questioned all Moore does is repeat the facts. To paraphrase another, it's like what you're taught in grade school: You can't use a word in it's own definition. Moore, though, is trying to use his facts to prove his facts.

If he's a yellow journalist, he's not a documentary maker, as he can't honestly be called both.

Personally though, I think that F911 does fall under the wikipedia definition of Propaganda:
<blockquote>Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The primary use of the term is in political contexts and generally refers to efforts sponsored by governments.</blockquote>

And before anyone tries to point out that Moore is not sponsored by governments, he in fact is, the DNC is putting up the cash to have F911 distributed on DVD before the election.

One final thought, I'd like to see voting results for the BfC Oscar awards. When Moore walked on stage he was greeted with about 50% cheers and 50% jeers, it'd be interesting to see just how close the vote was.

*as to the military*

That reads rather dismissive, did you actually read the article I linked? No comments on it? Or are you re-posting that article as if it is the only point of view that matters?

*Bush's lies cost human lives. That is the difference.*

Bush initiated a war with poor information, Moore is making millions off the populace peddling poor information, but last I checked a lie is a lie is a lie. Has that changed? Is it now ok to lie so long as no one gets hurt?

*That the message resonates with many viewers leading them to question the current policies of the US means MM has achieved one of his goals.*

This is true, as people are most assuredly talking, but since his main goal is to try and get Bush out of the white house and the polls are virtually unchanged since the movie came out (the Democrats went up a touch in the polls when Kerry chose a running mate last week), I'd say he's not doing so well.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald discussing Moore's past and present endeavours. I am reprinting the entire thing because the SMH is going to start requiring a free registration soon.

<blockquote>Less is Moore - July 10, 2004 - Reprinted from the Sydney Morning Herald (Free Subscription required, soon)

*Michael Moore's latest provocation, the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, is the perfect medium for one of the great propagandists of this era, writes Paul Sheehan.*
<blockquote>
"We live in fictitious times. We live in the time when we have fictitious election results that [elect] a fictitious president. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons ... Shame on you, Mr Bush. Shame on you."

- Academy Award acceptance speech, Michael Moore, Los Angeles, March 2003.</blockquote>

Michael Moore should know. He is a master of fiction, which extends to himself. He is the capitalist anti-capitalist who has used books, the internet, television, film and, above all, a brutal wit, to become a master propagandist, clown prince, and de facto leader of the American anti-war movement. He is also generating the fierce distaste that flows to all propagandists when their manipulation of the message is revealed.

Moore's moral universe is in large part an illusion. The bedrock of his public persona is the carefully nurtured image that he is a knockabout, blue-collar guy from a blue-collar family who grew up in a quintessentially blue-collar town, Flint, Michigan, an industrial city since screwed by the giant corporations he despises.

Problem: Moore is not from Flint. He is from Davison, Michigan. The two places are not far apart, but the social distance between them is considerable. It would be like Moore moving the postcode of his formative years a couple of kilometres from Woollahra to Redfern. Small distance, huge difference. Flint is working class, industrial, down-at-heel, where the majority of the population is black or Latino. It's where the factories are.

Davison, where Moore grew up and attended Davison High School, is comfortable middle class, suburban, and white. Overwhelmingly white. It's where the managers and professionals live. While many of the children of Flint go on to work at the factories or join the 15 per cent unemployment rate, the normal trajectory for the children of Davison is university. Michael Moore went to university (though didn't stick long). Unusually, he also went to Flint and tried his hand on the blue-collar front line with a job on the Buick assembly line for General Motors. He found the conditions under which the working class actually worked so appalling he quit the job after one day.

This self-serving distortion is a metaphor for the man. It follows a well-worn pattern of convenient distortion in his work. The title of his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is a literary allusion to a sci-fi classic, Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's 1953 novel, still in print, about a future America where state censorship is overpowering and book-burning is routine. The temperature at which paper burns is 451 degrees Fahrenheit (233 degrees Celsius). Moore has sub-titled his film "The Temperature at which Truth Burns". He thus presents himself as the anti-propagandist, the antidote to the lies and distortions spun by the Bush Administration since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Problem: Even for those who think the Bush Administration has exploited September 11 for political advantage, or believe the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was at best misguided and at worst disastrous, the moral trail laid down by Moore leads to an abundance of evidence that he has become what he despises - another spin doctor.

He may be funny, smart, outrageous, even genuine, but he is also a media practitioner who resorts, routinely and fastidiously, to distortion, omission and gutter innuendo with a viciousness and ideological cartoonishness characteristic of all fundamentalists. Within two weeks of its release in America, all the film's conspiracy theories have either been dismantled or rendered questionable by the American media.

Even America's pre-eminent magazine, The New Yorker, no friend to the Bush Administration, which has published revelations in the past about Moore's manipulative hypocrisy, has panned the new film as no more than propaganda. David Denby, in a review published in the June 28 issue, described Moore as skilful but concluded: "But the great documentary filmmakers at least make an attempt, however inadequate, compromised, or hopeless, to arrive at a many-sided understanding of some complex situation. Michael Moore is not that kind of filmmaker, nor does he want to be ... He's too slipshod intellectually to convince many except the already convinced, too eager to throw another treated log on the fire of righteous anger ...

"Moore never talks about Islamic fundamentalism and training camps, obsessive anti-Westernism, or suicide terrorists and the difficulty of guarding against them; he never asks how the American Government should conduct itself in a war against religious totalitarians. There are, apparently, no justifiable fears, only hysterical fears manipulated by the authorities, whose every act is purposive and conspiratorial ... Fahrenheit 9/11 offers the thrill of a coherent explanation for everything, but parts of the movie are no better than a wild, lunging grab at a supposed master plan."

Hard, but there has been much worse. Christopher Hitchens, author, columnist and recovering Trotskyite, summarised the film in Slate with this assault: "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability... Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery."

Offsetting such brutal dismissals has been praise. The film won the most prestigious award at this year's Cannes film festival, the Palme d'Or, receiving a standing ovation. The critic A. O. Scott wrote for The New York Times: "With his characteristic blend of humour and outrage - and with greater filmmaking discipline and depth of feeling than he has shown in his previous work - Mr Moore attacks Mr Bush's response to September 11, his decision to invade Iraq, and nearly everything else the President has done."

Another critic at Cannes, Mark Kermode, of The Observer in London, was repulsed by Moore's spin-doctoring at the festival: 'The most annoying sound at this year's Cannes film festival was the incessant drone of Michael Moore telling everyone in town that he had been silenced. If only." Later, he writes: "... it was neither the sharpest, the funniest nor the most politically potent documentary screened at Cannes this year. That award goes to Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me ... which has all the bite of Moore's work with none of the self-righteous sanctimony. Yet in the area of shameless self-publicity, Moore remains unsurpassed, finding a way to turn every situation to his egotistical advantage."

Moore's website, michaelmoore.com, certainly has the tone of a trumpet. The site lists these headlines:

"New York Daily News: F 9/11 is 'a soaring display of American patriotism' ";

"The Highest Grossing Documentary of all Time ... In One Weekend!"

"Ithaca Times: F 9/11 Facts Check Out";

"Statement on Disney joining forces with the Right Wing".

The website also offers a summary of Fahrenheit 9/11, which opens in Australia on Friday, July 16: "With his characteristic humour and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George Bush and where it has led us. He looks at how - and why - Bush and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saudi connection to 9/11, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and Saudi money had funded al-Qaeda. Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us a nation kept in constant fear by FBI alerts and lulled into accepting a piece of legislation, the USA Patriot Act, that infringes on basic civil rights. It is in this atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and dread that the Bush Administration makes its headlong rush towards war in Iraq and Fahrenheit 9/11 takes us inside that war to tell the stories we haven't heard, illustrating the awful human cost to US soldiers and their families."

Many critics have noted that Moore is so preoccupied with attacking Bush that he cannot bring himself to cast even a glance at the genuine evil, on a massive scale, that existed under Saddam Hussein, nor face up to the monstrous repression, especially of women, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. The Iraqi insurgents are presented in his film as justified in their outrage. Perhaps the most egregious factual error is the bald and absurd claim that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked, killed or even threatened any American. The visual images of pre-invasion Iraq are benign. Children are at play. Nowhere does Moore canvas the 35 years of Saddamist repression that seeped into every sinew of Iraqi society. This was the true Fahrenheit 451. And about this there is not one word.

Michael Moore is a creature of his age, and a reflection of it. He offers vivid proof that film has become the dominant literature of this century. A torrent of books attacking or exposing Bush has poured forth, some by big names - Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, Worse than Watergate by John Dean, Against all Enemies, by Richard Clarke, The Sorrows of Empire, by Chalmers Johnson, Big Lies, by Joe Conason - but all have been dwarfed by the Moore phenomenon.

He may have sold several million books, quickly - Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country? have sold hugely in this country as well as America - but film and TV made him a star. The books followed in the celluloid wake created by Roger & Me in 1989, his TV series, The Awful Truth in 1999, and Bowling for Columbine, in 2002. These films are the key to the phenomenon. So is his wit. An unpopular war has also helped enormously.

Moore's self-generated celebrity is also a reflection of our age. His low-budget breakthrough, Roger & Me, starred Michael Moore. So did Bowling for Columbine. So does Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore is the star. The messenger is much of the message. That's part of the package. Reality television, carefully edited.

Control is important to him, as it is to all propagandists. After the success and exposure for Roger & Me, NBC offered him a documentary series on the network. It became TV Nation and went to air in 1994. It was not a happy ship, and the show was cancelled after nine episodes, a bitter ending chronicled in The New Yorker: "Little by little, he began to alienate people. He disliked sharing credit with his writers. He would often come in late. He didn't yell at people: if someone said something he didn't like, he wouldn't argue; he would simply not invite the person to the next meeting, or the person would be fired."

After TV Nation was dropped twice, first by NBC then by Fox, there was a third version, The Awful Truth, aired on a modest cable network, Bravo, in 1999. The Awful Truth lasted two seasons, eight episodes each (available on DVD).

Success has not softened his desire for control. "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," Moore told The New York Times last month "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court." His hectoring tone, too, is a reflection of the times. No sooner had Marxism collapsed as an organising force or a credible moral universe than other orthodoxies filled the void left by the end of the Cold War. Religious fundamentalism has flourished, and the leading chronicler of this change, Professor Philip Jenkins, found that the clear winners have been the most uncompromising, most conservative and most combative groups with "a strongly apocalyptic mind-set".

Sounds like Michael Moore. His scorched-earth rhetoric, selective moral absolutism, hatred of opponents, and innate conservatism - he uses the nostalgic rhetoric of old-line socialism (preached but not practised) - are markers of the fundamentalists and evangelists. Moore happens to be a secular fundamentalist. In a film-driven, celebrity-obsessed, hyperbole-drenched society, Moore has attained the wealth, laurels and fame that western culture can offer. An Academy Award. A Palme d'Or. Best-selling author. Multimillionaire. A standing ovation greeted him at the glitzy Ziegfeld Theatre in Manhattan two weeks ago at the premiere. The blue-collar Moore now charges $US20,000 ($28,000) and above for speaking engagements.

Now he wants to turn the 2004 US presidential election. His website is explicit: "Seen the film and fired up to do something about it? Check out our voter information and sign Mike's voting pledge and head to a swing state!" If Bush is defeated, Moore will no doubt claim a slice of the credit, and perhaps rightly so. But is he a vote-changer? The Democratic candidates he endorsed in this year's presidential campaign were Wesley Clark and Howard Dean, and both quickly flamed out despite huge media hype. Does Moore fuel prejudices rather than dismantle them? David Denby believes so: "Michael Moore has become a sensational entertainer of the already converted, but his enduring problem as a political artist is that he has never known how to change anyone's politics."

If this is true, the answer can be found in his work. Fahrenheit 9/11 is designed to shock, and to display American humiliation. It includes harrowing footage of Americans who were blown apart near Baghdad. It makes sweeping innuendos which can neither be proved nor disproved. It suggests the US invaded Afghanistan to help American oil interests. It implies the Bush Administration was in league with Osama bin Laden's family - money in exchange for political influence. These are major claims, yet they are supported by only flimsy circumstantial supposition.

Moore has learned the key propaganda lesson of the Vietnam War. He makes a point of not condemning US troops, the way working class soldiers returning from Vietnam were showered with contempt by middle class demonstrators far from the horrors of war. That stuck in America's craw. On michaelmoore.com, Moore is careful not to make this mistake. There is a section headed "How Can I Help the Soldiers?"

American soldiers in Iraq are thus the victims of George Bush, not the tools. This is the key message that unfolds during the final third of Fahrenheit 9/11, as Moore steps aside and allows the narrative to be driven by a mother, Lila Lipscomb, who happens to be from Flint, Michigan, and who has lost a son in Iraq. Moore's camera follows her anguished pilgrimage to Washington as she seeks answers and meaning in the death of her son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen. She reads a letter he wrote from Iraq in which he says he does not know why he is there. This is Moore at his most ruthless, and his best, capturing gut-wrenching images of loss by people caught in the maelstrom of imperial politics.

But he offers nothing to offset the mother's loss. He leaves no doubt that Pedersen's life has been thrown away in a pointless adventure. Yet great principles are being contested on the battlefield of Iraq. Modernism is at war with medievalism. So his exploitation of Lila Lipscomb is one of the film's more potent lies. It is but one of many. The two most assiduous trackers of Moore's sins, both real and imagined, are David Hardy, a lawyer who created the website Mooreexposed.com, and Jason Clarke, a website developer who created Moorelies.com, have combined their websites and produced a new book, Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.

The puerile title suggests a right-wing rant that merely mirrors what it is attacking. But while parts of the book are boorish, Hardy and Clarke have done a lot of fact-checking and consolidated the best of the internet industry that has grown up around Moore's excesses.

Their book tracks the chasm between Moore's public populism and his domineering behaviour. Hardy and Clarke retell the tale of his first high-profile job, as editor of the progressive magazine Mother Jones, which ended badly and quickly, within months. He responded to his sacking by announcing he was "too much of a journalist" for the magazine. He also sued for $US2 million. Mother Jones responded with its own public attack: "He was impossible to work with. He was arbitrary; he was suspicious; he was unavailable. He ignored deadlines." The lawsuit was settled for $US58,000.

A year later, Moore was given a job writing a newsletter by the godfather of the American left, Ralph Nader. He was fired that same year for repeatedly failing to turn up for work. And so on and on. The list of Moore's factual errors, distortions, dummy spits and narcissism goes for more than 200 pages. The man has become an industry. The messenger has become the message. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens on July 29.
</blockquote>


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your point being??

Where are you seeing arguments that Moore is NOT a propagandist??
The entire idea of yellow journalism is to sensationalize in order to bring attention to significant issues.

Moore makes no pretentions to being the Edward R Murrow of 2004.
He makes entertaining films with a political agenda. In his case people vote with the dollars to go see his work.

That it offsets the "spin" of US media like Fox by using many of the same techniques is no surprise and is a welcome comic relief.

Air Farce did much the same in it's hey day. Comic vignettes with a truth underneath to drive them.

More please.........or is that Moore please perhaps


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I'm with Macdoc on this. Moore makes polemics... he uses facts and footage that support his views and leaves it to his many enemies to provide the other side. I think he annoys his American detractors so much because for a while, they have got away with pretending there is no other legitimate point of view but theirs. In Moore they have met their nemesis... a man whose media savvy is incredibly, a match for the power of the Republican media.

I don't agree with everything Moore says and his documentaries can be shamelessly manipulative, but what he is doing is very good for America and very good for the world.

You can also judge a man by the quality of his enemies... check this report out about what happened when Linda Ronstadt spoke her mind and called Moore a patriot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3908847.stm


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Oh. Now we know what "learned" means.

   

iG/<


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Where are you seeing arguments that Moore is NOT a propagandist??*

For a start, the many around the continent (and world) that take his word at face value as if it were the dogs only truth.
From the fact that the academy saw fit to give him an Oscar despite that his film doesn't even fit their own description of a documentary.

And if you admit that Moore is a propagandist, how, pray tell, is that ok?

*The entire idea of yellow journalism is to sensationalize in order to bring attention to significant issues.*

Actually, the whole idea of yellow journalism is to sensationalize in order to sell papers, at least originally. That's why the early practitioners focused on gory murders, and why William Randolf Hearst published greatly exaggerated and sometimes completely fabricated stories about the "Cruel Spanish" in Cuba.

*check this report out about what happened when Linda Ronstadt spoke her mind and called Moore a patriot.*

Linda Ronstadt spoke her mind about political views while working for someone. If she was a cashier at a grocery store and told everyone that came through her till the same thing, she could be fired from there, too. Whoopi Goldberg was fired from an endorsement for insulting Bush while on the job, too.

Personally, I don't care what she thinks and believe she has the right to say it, but when you run your mouth on someone else's time, someone else's dime, there are likely going to be consequences (especially if the guy who's time and dime you're on doesn't share your beliefs).

Remember that the first amendment protects US citizens from the _government_ telling you not to say things, not from _employers_ telling you not to say things.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Literalists about Moore....."many around the world"..what leads you to believe that??
I have more respect for audiences to form their own opinions.

Propaganda and yellow journalism have along histories of inciting people in one direction or another.

Moore quite clearly is using an offsetting media to the likes of Fox and GovSpin.
That it is being used to sell movies instead of papers doesn't change the role.
The fur industry was changed world wide by "propaganda" techniques. Tearful baby seals.

It's a tool for social change just as the use of other medium and styles are going back to tribal stories and morality plays. Results viewed in a positive light at the time can be viewed very differently years later....Columbus "discovering" the New World.

If it's used to send unknowing young men to war and death as it was in the beginning of the 20th century and during Vietnam then it could be viewed as reprehensible. If used to perhaps PREVENT that then it's a tool being used for what many would view as a good cause.
Many would view the fur ban as a "good use" of propaganda.

Yellow journalism was not JUST to sell papers but also to promote or popularize a political view...the Cuban War I think. It was also used by Sinclair Lewis to prompt the clean up of the Chicago Stock yards and arguably buy Nader in "Unsafe at any Speed".
Dramatic sensational material.
The Day After could be viewed in a similar manner to bring attention to global warming and extreme weather.

ALL editing and reporting has bias of some sort. Intelligent viewers make up their own minds.

Is moveon.org any more or less valuable to society as an alternative voice.
It's HAVING the alternative voices that is critical.
They range from sober scholarly and often disinteresting analysis to wildly funny monologues with truth at their heart.

Pogo was one of the very best. Doonesbury too.










Vibrant dissent is a very important part of democracy. 
Muzzling that dissent very very dangerous to free peoples and indicative of a fascist mind set in the governing group.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey PB,

I was actually commenting on the intelligence of the casino owner rather than on Ronstadt's right to express an opinion. I completely agree that he's within his rights to fire her for speaking up while on the job. However, if he had let her finish the show and decided not to hire her again, a couple of thousand people would have heard her declaration. Because he fired her on the spot and made a production of it, I got to read about it on the BBC this morning, as did millions of others on various websites. Not very bright.

Cheers!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

He He... I'm laughing now because Google in its wisdom has put an ad at the top of this page inviting us to "Apply for US Citizenship". Back to the drawing board on that search engine logic!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I took a screen shot of that for posterity.







How ironic.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Literalists about Moore....."many around the world"..what leads you to believe that??
I have more respect for audiences to form their own opinions.*

Many people around the world are taking what Moore has to say at face value, no questions. He's getting standing ovations at showings. Of course, in many of these cases he is indeed preaching to the choir.

That, and he's become one of the most polarizing names on the planet in the last year.

The problem lies at the heart of his ad campaign. "Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature at which Truth Burns." It's propaganda, stating that his propaganda film is anti-propaganda. Which is it? truth or propaganda? If he's trying for truth, his arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. If he's trying for propaganda, well, they don't really have to.

I am sure there are lots of people who want to form their own opinions, but there are just as many or more who will watch Moores film and then refuse to even heard other points of view. Moore knows this too. He thinks that the American people are dumb, and says so just about every time he leaves the country.

*It's HAVING the alternative voices that is critical.
They range from sober scholarly and often disinteresting analysis to wildly funny monologues with truth at their heart.*

While this may be true, it certainly isn't of Moore. He spins a web of conspiracy so far fetched that it probably would have been thrown out by the writers of the X-Files. Moore is not interested in truth, he is interested in lining his pockets and, as a secondary concern, seeing Bush voted out.

*[propaganda is] a tool for social change*

Indeed it is. Many have used it. Moore, Bush, Stalin, Hearst*, etc. With some, it's viewed as bad, with others it's viewed as good? Is that what you're saying? I guess it's ok, then, so long as the propaganda falls in line with your own world view?

*btw, that was the Spanish-American War that Hearst sensationalized. His reporter sent a message back that everything was pretty fine and he wanted to return. Hearst, famously replied "_You_ supply the pictures, _I'll_ supply the war."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*if he had let her finish the show and decided not to hire her again, a couple of thousand people would have heard her declaration. Because he fired her on the spot and made a production of it, I got to read about it on the BBC this morning, as did millions of others on various websites. Not very bright.
*

The thing is, he did let her finish the show. Desperado was her encore song. Considering that Moore is undeniably one of the most polarizing (and high profile) people out there right now, it was a media circus waiting to happen, really.

It's interesting, but you'd think that she would have known this type of thing might happen. After all, she was loudly booed ~ 2 weeks before when she did exactly the same thing.
<blockquote>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22172-2004Jul1.html

Those fans who came to Wolf Trap on Wednesday to hear tunes from when Linda Ronstadt wore satin short shorts and roller skates -- and the place teemed with 'em -- went away disappointed.

[...]

The biggest excitement of the night, by a long shot, came when Ronstadt then dedicated her encore of "Desperado" to filmmaker Michael Moore, kick-starting a boo-cheer competition throughout the venue that drowned out her singing and left grown-ups in tuxes and evening gowns yelling at each other on their way to the parking lot.</blockquote>

[ July 20, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

This thread is getting hotter than my pants. Woof!

... Well, not really, especially considering I was recently in 39 degree temperatures.

Moore is a sensationalist but he does what he sets out to do: stir up debate and show his own liberal slant. I wish we had a popular advocate like him who provided more unbiased and uncut truths. However, demanding the "truth" is a tricky business because unlike scentific facts political and human truths are completely based on a social, political and moral/ethical system of beliefs.

The theoretical issues behind "truth" comprise volumes of text and should not be expounded here. (Too long, too dreary.)









I agree with PB to the extent that I think that Moore can only marginally be considered a documentary maker. He presents many interesting facts, but they are often clipped or manipulatively edited. He would please critical audience members like me more if he were to give a more balanced rendering of his viewpoint. Instead he resorts to the same dirty tactics. Fight fire with fire, right? In this case substitute _B.S._ for _fire_.

The possible lawsuit against Moore is silly. Moore isn't as important as he or the media like to pretend. He didn't impact my vote and I doubt he impacted many other people's votes or opinions. Most (not all, but most) people going to see his films are leaning towards his side anyways.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

*Those fans who came to Wolf Trap on Wednesday to hear tunes from when Linda Ronstadt wore satin short shorts and roller skates -- and the place teemed with 'em -- went away disappointed.*

Yeah, let's stick Linda back into satin shorts and roller skates and gag her. How dare she dissapoint the public who want their nostalgia opiate!?










And Gawd forbid someone dare speak their mind on the job! After all, they are paid to <del>conform</del> entertain, not to rock the Showboat.

iG/<


----------



## sputnik (Jan 6, 2003)

I've figured it all out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Moore, Bush, Stalin, Hearst"

*Now who's demonizing????*  
What did propaganda ever do to you to deserve such shabby one sided treatment?? You ARE known by the company you keep and YOU would never want to be lumped in with the above - it would be, well, demeaning. 
You've just employed the same selective technique you chastise Moore for










You conveniently ignore, Nader, the fur trade, whaling, cleaning up the meat packing industry, Winston Churchill, FDR, Radio Free Europe, anti-smoking campaigns any number of "good causes" competing for our attention.
"Good" of course is up to the viewer to determine - the propagandist view is most often tho not always quite evident.



> The etymological nominal definition for propaganda reside in the latin word "propaganda", meaning "that which ought to be propagated" (cf. supra 2nd paragraph), that term is the future participle of the transitive and reflexive latin verb "propâgare" (to propagate) the which it means "to multiplify by generation or another way of reproduction" or, in a figurative sense, "to extend, to prolong or to increase something or its effects".
> 
> Some synonymical nominal definitions for propaganda could be "to disseminate", "to diffuse", "to spread", etc.
> 
> ...


Now a staunch Catholic would view that as a positive use of propaganda many others would see it as negative.
Propaganda, subtle or obvious is used to make a point as you attempted to above by associating MM with "villians".

You don't like Moore. Okay, that's a valid personal view. Lot of typing to make that point. It was kinda obvious from the get go. So beyond that what was YOUR agenda in trying to convince us of his "evil ways"?

In my view Moore does a fine job of entertaining while being thought provoking about some of the issues the current US regime would rather we took THEIR viewpoint on.

I respond in kind.
So does MM.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

*You don't like Moore. Okay, that's a valid personal view. Lot of typing to make that point. It was kinda obvious from the get go. So beyond that what was YOUR agenda in trying to convince us of his "evil ways"?*</p>

I'm reminded of Salon's review of Fahrenheit 9/11:</p><blockquote>

Moore's supporters are quick to impugn the liberal credentials of anyone who criticizes his presentation of the information he digs up (or, in some cases, makes up). For them, Michael Moore is the issues he talks about, so his detractors must be enemies of democratic principles. It's an old trick, akin to the way Pauline Kael was accused of being insensitive about the Holocaust when she didn't like "Shoah."</p></blockquote>

There are a couple of other interesting quotes from the review, too:</p><blockquote>

In the Moore universe, noisy tub-thumping is deemed more valuable than stringent logic; presenting crucial information in a manner that's irrefutable (by naysayers of any political bent) is much less important than drawing a comfortable little circle in which we're encouraged to congratulate ourselves for being on the "correct" side, for having the good sense to recognize that our president is "bad" and the Iraq war is "wrong."</p>

[...]</p>

I agree with probably 95 percent of Moore's politics. At the very least, I'm convinced that George W. Bush is the most dangerous president of my lifetime -- he long ago superseded even the spurious, deceitful Nixon. But even though I'm part of the choir Moore is preaching to, I can't help blanching at his approach: In this increasingly treacherous political climate -- particularly as we approach an election whose impact may resound more thunderously than any other in recent history -- preaching to the choir just isn't good enough. "Fahrenheit 9/11" shows evidence of being better researched than any of Moore's previous films. An article in last Sunday's New York Times made much of Moore's hiring former New Yorker fact checkers to vet it. But Moore's case is undermined by his jokey, faux-populist self-righteousness (a quality the left seems to despise only when it's exhibited by those on the right) and by the slapdash connections he makes between various facts and events. The issues at stake are too serious for a spotlight-hungry manipulator like Moore to be mucking around with.</p></blockquote>


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*You've just employed the same selective technique you chastise Moore for You conveniently ignore...*

I did! And it seems it's ok that Moore does it, but not ok if I do. Interesting, that.

Besides, the main difference between anti-smoking campaigns, anti-whaling campaigns, anti-fur campaigns, etc and propaganda is that there is some shred of truth to them. Is it that difficult a distinction to make? 

Moore doesn't even tell people where he's really from, why should anything else he says be trusted?

*You ARE known by the company you keep*

Aren't we _all_.

*You don't like Moore. Okay, that's a valid personal view. Lot of typing to make that point. It was kinda obvious from the get go. So beyond that what was YOUR agenda in trying to convince us of his "evil ways"?* 

That's a good tactic, dismissing everything as a personal and asking to change tack. You're also putting words in my mouth, I never called him evil. I did lump him in with some of the first names or propagandists that sprung to mind, true, but as I said before I guess it's become all right for someone to lie to, deceive and manipulate the populace as long as it meshes with your world view.

*Moore does a fine job of entertaining while being thought provoking about some of the issues the current US regime would rather we took THEIR viewpoint on*

No, not really, instead of focusing on real problems with real evidence (neither of which is hard to find), Moore focuses on conspiracies that he's mostly made up and uses ridiculously thin evidence to support his claims. Even if I agree with the overall message --which I do-- that Bush is a bad president, that doesn't make the movie any less ridiculously flawed.

It's interesting though, that a lot Moores fans are some of the most rabidly closed minded people I know. Most won't even listen if you have a different point of view to offer, or if you can put his "evidence" in context (which most of the time swings it away from Moores suppositions). Why is that?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_ "You've just employed the same selective technique you chastise Moore for You conveniently ignore...

I did! And it seems it's ok that Moore does it, but not ok if I do"_

Where did I say it's not okay if you do?? I merely pointed out that you used the same technique. I made no judgement at all. Observation is neither approbation OR disapproval...it's observation.

You have appear from your comments to have a problem with Michael Moore and his work and how he brings it to the screen. You seem to want to convince us that your problem should be our problem.

It would appear that others here are able to accept MM and his work for what it is. 
MM is an entertainer who produces of humourous propaganda to provoke discussion about quite serious issues with the current US administration.

You would seem to want us to view him in the same pantheon with the likes of Stalin etc.








Could that be classified in the propaganda tookit as "exaggeration" perhaps, or "demonizing by false association".....??


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*You have appear from your comments to have a problem with Michael Moore and his work and how he brings it to the screen. *

He's self serving and dishonest, what is there not to have a problem with? I have a friend who believes that extremists are needed in order to shift the political centre, and while that may be true, Moore's message gets lost among the fabrications and misrepresentations for myself and many others.

But the fact remains that you're just pointing out that I have a problem with him instead of answering any of my points.

Why is it that Michael Moore fans are so closed minded? His way or no way, why is that? Why are Moore fans so unwilling to consider anything other than what Moore tells them? Why is it when someone writes an article that is even slightly counter to Moore's message they are just glanced over (at best)? 

*You seem to want to convince us that your problem should be our problem.*

You seem to be fine with being deceived and unwilling to consider alternate points of view. I guess that's only a problem for those trying to show you another point of view.

*You would seem to want us to view [Moore] in the same pantheon with the likes of Stalin etc. Could that be classified in the propaganda tookit[sic] as "exaggeration" perhaps[?]*

It _was_ just an example, granted a rather extreme one. The point of which is that Michael Moores films and books, at least recently, are more about personal gain rather than doing what's right.

Question: If he is so interested in doing what's right, why didn't he just release F911 on the internet when Disney made Miramax back out of distributing it? He has said in an interview that he'd rather it be out for free on the net than not at all, so why didn't he?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lost on who??? The "message" seems alive and well according to the level of controversy swirling around. The polemics and humour are window dressing that make it enjoyable and funny.
If it gets "lost on you" well that's something you've been dealing with here quite "polemically".

You have these sweeping generalizations about "Moore fanatics" being closed minded and that MM shouldn't make money as if that's somehow "wrong" or demeaning.

He's an entertainer. We know that.
Jay Leno's sent some zingers by the _shrub_ ( *CAUTION* you have just experienced a propaganda technique  )
MMs was the book version of the short short story.

Have you ever seen "The Great Dictator" by Chaplin. Humour, polemics, propaganda at it's best.

_"It was just an example, granted a rather extreme one"_
is that perhaps what MM would say as well???


[ July 22, 2004, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Lost on who???*

There you go putting words in my mouth again. I said his message gets lost among the lies, not that it's lost on anyone.

*The polemics and humour are window dressing that make it enjoyable and funny.*

You'd note I never said that Moore wasn't entertaining, just that he's self serving and self righteous.

*You have these sweeping generalizations about "Moore fanatics" being closed minded*

It comes from talking to people. Maybe you should try it sometime? Even reading around the internet might help you. Michael Moore is one of the most polarizing names out there, perhaps even more so than Bush, there is a pretty fierce love him or hate him attitude out there.

And if they're not, if you're not, why is it that you've ignored or dismissed the articles that I've posted here? Why can't you answer the questions I've put forth?

*and that MM shouldn't make money as if that's somehow "wrong" or demeaning.*

I never said it was wrong for Moore to make money, I just said that contrary to popular belief making money his primary concern.

I did ask you a question about it though, I asked that if Moore is so interested in doing what's right, and considering that he's said he;d rather it be out on the net rather than not at all, why didn't he just release F911 for free on the net (which would have been faster and cheaper) or some other way when Miramax was forced to back out?

Or, could you finally explain why fighting lies and misrepresentation with lies and misrepresentation is fine, especially given that there is so much good evidence and truth out there to be used?

Or, could you explain why my questions go unanswered?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

" _It comes from talking to people. Maybe you should try it sometime? Even reading around the internet might help you. _ "
Propaganda by innuendo and insinuation Page 42
Appropriate response as is my wont...... Grow up.









•••

_ Or, could you explain why my questions go unanswered?_

Perhaps ask yourself that question.
Could it be readers find them irrelevant, repetitive and lacking new insight, perspicacity or acumen......or even find them humourless, lacking in wit and sparkle?? 

The one uncomfortable with Moore as he presents himself as political propagandist/entertainer appears to be you.
He's part of a long tradition and he employs classic technique to good effect as is evidenced by the popularity of his work.
In other words he's good for a laugh, makes a point and incites heated discussion.

Perhaps the "questions" and "insights" you ask or provide fail to ignite the interest and passions of the readers. Or perhaps they are unclear as to purpose or point.

Mayhaps as a budding propagandist yourself, MM has some lessons about entertainment value for you. 

Charlie Chaplin was villified and forced away from the US and the entertainment industry for speaking out both in his films and in his own comments against "US interests".

At least MM got his Oscar early on instead of waiting until he was in his 80s as Chaplin had to. 
MM is not the only high profile entertainer creating controversy. And the West Wing venue for Martin Sheen makes his position very interesting.

*Sheen backlash over war stance *



> West Wing actor Martin Sheen has received hate mail from the American public over his firm anti-war stance.
> The veteran star, who plays the US president in the political drama, has faced calls for him to be axed from the show because of his vociferous campaigning.
> 
> He also told the Los Angeles Times that bosses at the NBC network, which airs the West Wing, were concerned that his opinions would hit ratings.
> ...


This would all sound very familiar to Chaplin.....and Moore I suspect.

As to Moore "releasing on the internet". 
He acquired a distributor...... good on Lions Gate.

The funds developed in the release will go to moore projects, (pun intended) and his retirement fund I suspect....good on MM.
I suspect in a few circles his retirement sooner than later would be greatly applauded. 

[ July 22, 2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Posterboy,

I think it's obvious that MacDoc doesn't want to answer your questions not because you've failed to ignite his interest and passion (after all, your questions were directed at him, not other readers[1]), but because he finds them uncomfortable.

He's avoided questions before, and I'm willing to bet he'll avoid them again in the future.

MacDoc,

Perhaps if you want PosterBoy to grow up, it would help if you came down off your high horse first, sport.

jfpoole,

Stop being the third man in, whatever that means.

[1] By the way, what other readers are still following this thread. As far as I can tell it's just you and MacDoc slugging it out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Whatever that means"......does indeed appear to be an ongoing challenge for you.

Are you sniping as usual or is there "on topic relevant content, sparkling wit and insight forth coming".??


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Could it be readers find them irrelevant, repetitive and lacking new insight, perspicacity or acumen*

Questions are irrelevant? Didn't anyone teach you that there are no stupid questions?
They're only repetitive because no one answers so I have to keep asking them.
They only lack new insight because Michael Moores propensity for using weak and sometimes fabricated evidence to support theories that don't hold up to scrutiny is fairly well known
Perhaps they lack perspicacity and acumen _to you_ because _you_ don't agree with them?

*or even find them humourless, lacking in wit and sparkle?? *

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was a comedy festival, I thought it was a discussion about Michael Moore.

*He's part of a long tradition and he employs classic technique to good effect as is evidenced by the popularity of his work.*

He is part of a long tradition, he does use a classic cut 'n paste technique, but his popularity I feel is more than likely fuelled by two main factors.

First, he used to do this sort of thing quite well and grew popular with Roger and Me and The Awful Truth and TV Nation, etc. (But then, at some point, he decided to become his message and it all went to hell.)

Second, his current subject matter is probably _the most_ polarizing subject in the world right now, George W. Bush.

And also, he is still pretty funny.

*Perhaps the "questions" and "insights" you ask or provide fail to ignite the interest and passions of the readers. Or perhaps they are unclear as to purpose or point.*

They are directed at you, and I'm not really interested in your passion, I am interested in hearing answers. I've been pretty clear with the purpose and point of the questions, but even if you don't understand the point, do you really need to to answer the questions? Or is it just that you don't want to?

*jfpoole, Stop being the third man in, whatever that means.*

Feel free to jump in any time you want; it is, after all, an open forum. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to take their toys and leave.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_ He is part of a long tradition, he does use a classic cut 'n paste technique, but his popularity I feel is more than likely fuelled by two main factors.

First, he used to do this sort of thing quite well and grew popular with Roger and Me and The Awful Truth and TV Nation, etc. (But then, at some point, he decided to become his message and it all went to hell.)

Second, his current subject matter is probably the most polarizing subject in the world right now, George W. Bush.

And also, he is still pretty funny._

That's a start, we agree on that. A good summary of the phenomena. You could have qualified it slightly by saying "In my opinion....went to hell." but that's minor.

_I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was a comedy festival, I thought it was a discussion about Michael Moore_

Indeed, you as propagandist against Moore's veracity or whatever aspect of him or his work you are campaiging against, are perhaps missing a significant tool which he uses effectively. Humour.
You also invite disrespect in your tone - a tone that is NOT in the summary. The tone here leads to dismissal.
The tone in the summary invites discussion, discourse and common ground or at least understanding of agreement to disagree.

My answers??
Okay, noting the above "tone issue" put your questions here as summary
Be relevant.
Be on topic.
Be in context.

If you ask a serious and relevant question you'll get a serious and relevant answer. If you evidence your signature, I'll respond in kind.
Your choice, always has been.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc,

If there's a "tone issue" with PosterBoy's posts, there's certainly a tone issue with your posts as well. It takes two to tango, sport. Perhaps if you answered PosterBoy's questions rather than getting defensive about them then you wouldn't have issues with PosterBoy's tone.

I'm not sure why PosterBoy needs to rephrase his questions, either. They've already been asked, and unless you have trouble with the English language, they shouldn't need to be rephrased. 

Also, you seem to enjoy instructing people as to how they should post. Do you enjoy bossing people around? Is that why you started your own forum?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB is quite able to reply to my post on his own.
My "tone" was very reasonable in response to a good summary from him and is looking for common ground. I would look for a similar response from him.

••

You on the other hand make my "tone" and "off topic" case precisely for me. I respond in kind. That seems lost on you.
Start with smart assed cracks, insinuations, sniping and irrelevancies that in no way contribute to the topic and you can expect a response in kind or to be dismissed as "noise". 
It's hardly new with you.
It hasn't changed a bit.

••
Do you actually HAVE something to contribute to THIS topic about F9/11???
The audience is listening.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc,

You've replied to posts directed to others before. It's what happens when you post on an *open forum*. If you want to ask questions to PosterBoy and PosterBoy alone, might I suggest emailing PosterBoy?

As for being on-topic, perhaps you missed the posts I made earlier? I'd argue that my other posts are on-topic as well, since I'm interested in seeing your responses to PosterBoy's questions, but I fear answering those questions might make you too uncomfortable.

As for "responding in kind", after re-reading this thread it seems that PosterBoy is the one responding in kind, not you. As I said earlier, it takes two to tango, and you're the one that seems to want to tango.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_"but I fear answering those questions might make you too uncomfortable."_
Smart ass built into the genes perhaps??

A tad more serious response this time, a bit toned down and yes I noticed your two on topic posts. 
One I was aware of and the other had nothing I chose to comment on as it simply laid out Moore as a propagandist which I think he is as well.
That commentary I would generally agree with and you made no comment at all other than "interesting" which I could interpret easily in the light of your normal attitude.

The election act complaint may go nowhere - it appears to have died tho Windsor's Mayor is making some hay from it. I've been following it casually.

Election influencing through mass media or threats of terrorism as methods of attempting to change governments is not really new. What does appear to be new is that much of it is going on outside traditional state sponsorship of convert influencing and violence.

Polemics and polarization and Bush with his "for us or against us' is a lighting rod for conflict.

MM is a response.
Other more violent acts worldwide are also responses.

I hope November's vote will indicate a US course in a different direction with a different administration and MM can then point his polemic pistols at other issues.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

You question my tone and yet make no mention of your own. Interesting. And why would I need to use humour? I could, but it is by no means necessary.

All of my questions have been on topic, relevant and in context. You've just been choosing to ignore them. I am going to ask them one more time, so please either answer or explain why you can't/won't. Enough with this "you're questions aren't good enough for me."

1) Why do you go back and edit postswell after they've been replied to?

1) If it is not all right for Bush to misrepresent the truth to his own gain, why is it all right for Michael Moore to do so? Do two wrongs make a right?

1) Why is it that when there is evidence presented that Moore is indeed making things up or completely misrepresenting the truth, that evidence is bushed off as if it doesn't matter by Moore's fans?

1) Why couldn't Moore have used all the good, real evidence out there that Bush is a bad president instead of spinning his wild conspiracy theories?

1) If Moore is so interested in doing what's right, why didn't he just release F911 on the internet or television when Disney made Miramax back out of distributing it? He has said in an interview that he'd rather it be out for free on the net than not at all, so why didn't he do so, especially considering that television would have given him a much wider audience?

1) Why should anyone believe anything that Michael Moore says, given that he doesn't even tell the the truth about where he comes from?

Moore has violated election law in Canada, where he illegally urged people to vote against the the Conservatives. It's illegal for a foreign national to urge anyone to vote any way, so says the law. 

My question is, why is the law so ridiculous? What if Bush came up and said "everybody vote Conservative!"? Wouldn't there be a public outcry to have him charged under the same law that the conservative group is attempting to have Moore charged under now? Isn't that a double standard?

1) Why do you have such difficulty answering these questions? Why so defensive about it?

I'll wait for your reply.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> My question is, why is the law so ridiculous? What if Bush came up and said "everybody vote Conservative!"?


is that you don't "get it" or just don't want to

Bush is an elected (sort of) official of another country

Moore is a private citizen

Bush's decisions killed people
Moore's decisions make people think

This will be the last time I point out this difference. I can't keep repeating myself just so PB (&J) can keep chest thumping.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Posterboy you are tedious to the extreme.

1) I corrected the name on a post that I noticed was incorrect from Little Dictator to Great Dictator. I don't really care whether you like it or not. I do it for my own sense of getting it correct whenI can.

2) That's two questions. Moore is a propagandist so is Bush. Do they offset each other. We'll see in November.

3) I can't speak for Moore's fans ask them. The work was sufficient in itself to entertain me, it wasn't an article published in Nature ..it was an entertaining piece with a political agenda.

4) Ask Moore. Perhaps he wanted to entertain to get a broader message across since "scholarly " dissertations and warnings were being ineffective. How would I possibly know why he did what he did.

5) "do what's right" I answered earlier - He's a film maker with a message and out to make a buck. If he can get a distributor I would expect him to. 
"What's right" is a vague term even in context.

6) Is a rhetorical statement. - Ask "anyone"









The election "questionaire" could be a topic all on it's own and really is just a rhetorical rant.

I have no difficulty answering questions. I'm not in the least defensive and I enjoy thoughtful, witty debate.
I do get weary of foolish, poorly thought out language which you exhibit far too often.

You had a chance with my last post where I started with common ground to show some maturity by responding in kind.
Instead you've stayed true to form. 

I'm sure [email protected] will be only too happy to answer your questions, rhetorical or not.
Be sure to post his replies.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Bush is an elected (sort of) official of another country
Moore is a private citizen*

You're right, that's probably an unfair comparison.

So let's make it Limbaugh. What if Rush came up and said "everybody vote Conservative!"? Wouldn't there be a public outcry to have him charged under the same law that the conservative group is attempting to have Moore charged under now? Is the law in question so ridiculous?

*Bush's decisions killed people
Moore's decisions make people think*

Actually, this is the first time you've pointed out this particular difference. Before it seemed that Bush lying was bad, but Moore lying was not. Glad that's cleared up.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I corrected the name on a post that I noticed was incorrect*

And added a paragraph or two.

*That's two questions*

And that's not a reason not to answer. Do two wrongs make a right?

*it was an entertaining piece*

On this, at least, we can agree.

*I do get weary of foolish, poorly thought out language*

Oh, I know how you feel. Stuff like this line: "_You had a chance with my last post where I started with common ground to show some maturity by responding in kind._" is hard to read. Same with "_That's two questions. Moore is a propagandist so is Bush. Do they offset each other. We'll see in November._" 

Poorly thought out language is hard to deal with.

But really, I think we've beaten this dead horse to it's end. You're not answering, I'm tired of asking. Let's call it a thread, shall we?


----------



## Goobernatorial (Sep 24, 2003)

Whether you love him or hate him one thing is for sure he really makes you take notice of the issues.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

At the risk of beating a dead horse thread, I'm going to jump in again here with a few thoughts. 

1. I've read many of the webpages that attack Moore and I've read his rebuttals. I haven't seen anything that suggests he has lied... but there is plenty of evidence that he uses facts that support him and ignores facts that don't. I don't see that as being a bad thing; it's the job of his opponents to shoot him down.

2. Moore is media savvy and he selectively uses images and clips in a manner which I would consider to be unfair. Two good examples from his recent film are the shots of Iraqi children playing in the street before the invasion (suggesting things were quite happy while Saddam was in charge) and the shots of Rumsfled etc getting made up for TV. (a cheap shot... I'm sure Moore gets made up too before he's on screen)

3. One of the weaknesses of America is that criticism of the President or his policies is often seen to be unpatriotic. I think this may be because the President is both head of state and head of goverment, or perhaps because under their system there is no person who directly opposes the President. The problem has got worse since 9/11. I give kudos to Moore for standing up, and shouting his piece with passion and force, if not always fairness. Predictably, most of his opponents critcize him personally rather that the ideas of his works, playing "the man rather than the ball". Also predictably, they have indeed labelled him "unamerican" and "unpatriotic" which is a crock. 

4. As I've said before, Moore is an excellent counterweight to the Republican media. He plays the Socratic gadfly to Bush's administration and he plays it well. He is also playing the role of Kerry's attack dog, allowing Kerry to remain Presidential while Moore hurls the mud. 

Is Moore a brave, muckraking little-guy or a shameless, unscrupulous manipulator and promoter? I think he's both... so I don't see the argument getting resolved. At least not till the election.

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Indeed MM stirs the controversy pot. 
Almost as if "collective wisdom" throws up a wannabe David to contend with the "powers that be" giant.
I guess Bush and Co offer a surfeit of material for both the comedic and the divisive.

How about we hope for less "interesting times ".


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

> Moore is media savvy and he selectively uses images and clips in a manner which I would consider to be unfair. Two good examples from his recent film are ............ the shots of Rumsfled etc getting made up for TV. (a cheap shot... I'm sure Moore gets made up too before he's on screen)


after seeing F911 i thought about how those clips were shown - and i do agree that moore and other "entertainers" do get made up before going on screen - im not sure if i am right, but perhaps MM was trying to show the production that goes into the government press conferences about the war - 
i think those clips were pretty good - it worked for me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> He plays the Socratic gadfly to Bush's administration and he plays it well. He is also playing the role of Kerry's attack dog, allowing Kerry to remain Presidential while Moore hurls the mud.



















Poor old Socrates might imbibe hemlock AGAIN were he to be compared to Moore but now you mention it Moore has that "attack dog" demeanor. Perhaps junk yard dog might take in the scruff as well.  

Tag team politics.
Bush Limbaugh vs Kerry Moore 
hosted by WW????










Politics as a blood sport???..........too often sometimes


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

_I do get weary of foolish, poorly thought out language which you exhibit far too often._

If there ever was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is most certainly it. MacDoc, I've never seen someone that claims to have a degree in English write as incoherently as you do.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Of course its not only Michael Moore who is compiling material on Bush. Check out this web page on Howard Stern's site for a one-stop web directory of sources tackling the Bush Presidency.

As for eloquence, I guess its not fair that people critical of George W. have access to a larger vocabulary than the Prez.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*As for eloquence, I guess its not fair that people critical of George W. have access to a larger vocabulary than the Prez.*

As many have said, it's not the size that counts, it what you do with it


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

On right NOW on CBC's the Passionate Eye, best documentary winner Helen's War. 

HELEN'S WAR
Sunday July 18, 2004 at 10pm ET/PT
repeating Friday July 23, 2004 at 10PM ET

She's a doctor from Australia who has taken the Hippocratic oath for the entire planet, swearing not to die until all nuclear weapons are destroyed.

A profile of the charismatic and pugnacious Helen Caldicott as she tries to make a comeback as an outspoken dissident in George Bush's post 9/11 world.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5762018
<blockquote>LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - If Michael Moore had hoped that his biting documentary critique of the Bush administration might turn the tide of the upcoming U.S. presidential race, he may have to settle instead for the film's box-office success.

A Los Angeles Times poll of likely voters published on Friday showed that "Fahrenheit" is drawing an overwhelmingly Democratic audience and that few Republicans who have seen the movie appear to have been swayed.

[...]

Moore has said he hopes the film could shape the outcome of the election, but political scientists and campaign strategists have speculated that the movie's most likely effect would be to energize the liberal base of the Democratic Party. </blockquote>


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The LA Times story just interviewed registered voters apparently. I think the movie will convince a lot of people to register and vote against Bush. As the GOP knows, if it sways just 3-4% of voters, it will have done its job. 

The movie is still going to be viewed by a lot more people in theatres and even more when it comes to video.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It may still be too early to measure response, but realistically I think the biggest effect the movie may have is to motivate democrats to actually vote. The Democrats need motivation if they are going to win, and Moore may be the only thing they've got. As is, at least compared to the Republicans, they are pretty disorganized.

Either way, I doubt many Republicans will be swayed based on F911.

If I was American, this site would be fairly close to my personal beliefs: http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, I recall the apathy towards Humphrey during the 1968 election by young Democrats (I was a young Democrat back then, but I was NOT apathetic and NOT old enough to vote). The tide turned in the last week or so when people actually started to contemplate Nixon as president. Sadly, not enough people came to this realization in time. Many contend that if the election was held a week later, Nixon might not have won. Still, there is a lesson to be learned in NOT being apathetic and in the need to vote.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> As the GOP knows, if it sways just 3-4% of voters, it will have done its job.


with the way things went in Florida, less than 1% would have been enough
at least it would have given Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris a much more difficult time to hijack the election


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, now with some votes being "counted" by computer-mediated means, there shall be no "hanging chads" to argue over. The debate shall be how Bush won over a vast majority of voters in Boston..............and by a margin of over 20 to 1.................and somehow he managed to get more votes in Boston than the total number of people and doxies living in Boston...................... We shall see. "Be afraid..........be very afraid...."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is a good sign for the Democrats



> *Voter turnouts show Dems 'energized and angry *
> Andrea Stone and Susan Page, USA TODAY
> 
> MANCHESTER, N.H. — Democrats' record turnout in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, following similarly heavy attendance at the Iowa caucuses last week, shows that the party is organized and motivated to oust President Bush next fall, Democratic and Republican political operatives say.
> ...


Rigging elections and tampering have a long history in the US - there is a hilarious section in Michener's Texas about one late reporting county that always seemed to have just the right amount of votes to swing the election the direction the "bosses" wanted. ......
Adding computers to the mix!!!! Tammany Hall would just love it.









The type of disenfranchisement issues shown by the appeals to the Senate in F9/11 I found very disturbing. It reminded me in reverse of the hammering indictments laid down at the end fo "Z".

The polarity of this election is inducement to more distortions.  

Wow we thought WE had a "democratic deficit".
Just came across this.

Rigging Elections - The hidden scandal of redistricting 

.......partial


> But *even with nonpartisan redistricting, the number of competitive districts around the nation would only rise from today's dismal one in ten seats to perhaps one in six – and still do little to boost women and racial minorities.* What we ultimately must do is take on our exclusive reliance on winner-take-all elections. Winner-take-all allows one side to represent everyone with a simple majority of the vote. Most enduring democracies have rejected that model in favor of systems that would ensure a majority of voters elect a majority of seats, but also represent political minorities.
> 
> One example consistent with American traditions comes from Illinois. For more than a century Illinois voters elected their state legislature with a full-representation voting method called cumulative voting, with candidates running in bigger districts that each had three representatives. Lowering the victory threshold for candidates from 50 percent to 25 percent didn't overturn the two-party system but it broadened representation within the parties, promoted more bipartisan policy and elected more women and racial minorities.


Only one in 10 seats is competitive  and here I thought we had problems.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G this should hearten you.

A couple of thoughts on the film from the NY Times site today - Republicans too. Leave it to NY Times readers to take a look even if they THINK they don't agree with MM.



> *  A Republican Disgusted with Bush, June 27, 2004
> *
> Going into the film, I was a Bush supporter. After seeing the film, and spending a couple of days of honest contemplation about the content, I view Bush as an absolute disgrace to this country.
> 
> ...


There are lots more.
Good to see American points of view. NY Times Movies F/9/11


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is a Polish review of Fahrenheit 9/11:

<blockquote>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3923385.stm

Gazeta Wyborcza reviewer Jacek Szczerba called the film a "foul pamphlet".

He said it was too biased to be called a documentary and was similar to work by Nazi propaganda director Leni Riefenstahl.

But politicians opposed to Poland's involvement in the US-led occupation of Iraq have urged people to see the film.

"In criticising Moore, I have to admit that he has certain abilities - Leni Riefenstahl had them too," Mr Szczerba said in his review.

"Michael Moore will not convince Poles with his film," the Rzeczpospolita newspaper said in its review.

"People are very sensitive to aggressive propaganda, especially when it pretends to be an objective documentary or a work of art."

The Polish government has supported the US-led operations in Iraq, and the Poles are in charge of a 6,200-strong force in southern Iraq. More than 2,000 Polish troops are currently serving in Iraq.

"The film contained some propaganda, but there was also a lot of truth in it," Pole Elzbieta Karwinska, 58, said after seeing the film.

"But I see no direct connection between the film and the Polish army in Iraq. I think that Poland is in Iraq for completely different reasons," she said.

This week, an Australian government minister described Moore as "the quintessential ugly American", after the film maker criticised the Australian prime minister's support of US President George Bush, saying: "What is John Howard doing in bed with an idiot?".
</blockquote>

Side note: some people seem to think I am having trouble quitting this thread. Maybe that's true, but I'm not about to launch back into debate. I will keep posting relevant links, though, because at least that way the thread wont fill up with only one side of the story. Because really, what good is only reading the point of view you agree with?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

I saw the movie last night. Well constructed, very biased, but thought- provoking for sure. It certainly has the potential to be a hot potato for Bush, with the doubtfulness of many Americans and the election just around the corner. Time will bear out the truth and consequences.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Google bombed!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That bothers me about Google in combination with the "buy a spot".
I'm using Vrooosh these days as an alternative from time to time.
http://www.vroosh.com/canada.html

Just as a control on Google-spin.








Search engine as propaganda tool. 

Mind you BECAUSE of the google-bombed discussion it shows up high on the Vroooosh engine as well. 
So that would be Google-spin collateral damage I guess.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Michael Moore is laughing all the way to the bank. F9/11 has pulled in over US$103 million to date.

His comment that this is more about entertainment than politics runs pretty hollow...... The funny thing is that Bush is an emporer without clothes. All it needs is for Americans to open their eyes and see what a con-artist he is. Bill Clinton also shared the charm and ability to lie without blinking, but at least you felt you were being conned by a sentient being.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bush as emperor seems to be "phrase of the day"

Toronto Star letter today from a Yank who appreciates Toronto and Canada.......just as we are.



> *Toronto's just fine the way it is now*
> 
> Panhandlers hurt tourism
> 
> ...


I'd write her a thank you note if I could.  

••••

I also noticed Kerry is actually appealing to the Democratic convention to cool the rhetoric on all things Bush. Guess he figures there's enough out there already and wants to emphasize the positive aspects of his platform.

Good for him.









This is slightly off the F9/11 topic but is a terrific look back over the US elections - long but worth the read if you like to see historical foundations of current events.



> *The one that got away*
> 
> In 1972, when George McGovern ran against a wartime Republican president, young future candidates like John Kerry campaigned with him. On the eve of this year's Democratic convention, he shares his perspective with DOMINIC PATTEN
> 
> ...


lots more.... 

It will be interesting to see how history treats MM.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*US$103 million to date.*

Continual tracking of Fahrenheit 9/11's box office take.

Domestic Total as of Jul. 25, 2004: $103,356,000 (Estimate)

Box Office Mojo updates pretty much every day, so you can check back there often to see how much it's making.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think history will be rather harsh with Michael Moore....

Heck, it's already happenning. 
















I count several unrepentant lefties amongst my closest friends. Bush-haters, all. (my very best friend for the past thirty four years ALWAYS votes NDP...but will hold his nose and vote Liberal on occasion. Anything to keep the dreaded Conservative hordes from the halls of power. He thinks of the US Republican Party the same way that Ralph Nader thinks of General Motors. Or Madonna thinks of celibacy. POO-YUKKK!!).

But..oddly enough...none of these aforementioned unrepentant lefties seems to be a great admirer of Michael Moore's current work. They were all very loud cheerleaders in his early days, but have gone strangely silent about his latest films. Especially now that the fact checkers have begun to tear Moore's stuff apart at the molecular level and expose him for what he really is.

ALL of them have seen the latest Michael Moore film and ALL have commented that "Farenheit 911 was somewhat over the top".....one of them actually walked out of the theatre while the "documentary" was still in progress.

I guess I'll just have to add this to the many subjects that are now "taboo" when we all get together for our weekly night out at the bar.

Some of the others that are not terribly popular with my "social justice" buddies these days are:

-The former Soviet Union.

-China's recent embrace of total capitalism.

-The rapid shift away from socialist principles in Europe.

-The recent inclusion of many of the former Soviet Bloc countries in NATO.

-ANY mention of ANY Kennedy family member, or their many problems and personal failings. (BIG no-no).

-Any mention of former President Carter's total failure as a President.(They prefer to dwell on his outstanding record as an ex-President instead. Can't say I'd blame them for that.)

-ANY mention of former President Clinton's impeachment, or the blatant selling of political favors for big money (pardons for criminals) by both he and Hillary at the very end of their tattered reign.

Oh...and Fidel Castro is now off the list as well. We used to have very heated and very enjoyable discussions about the pros and cons of Fidel and his "revolution"...but, these days they don't seem to want to talk about THAT, either.

(Probably because the old tyrant is now throwing anyone who dares to speak out against his despotic rule into jail for a twenty year stretch. Including a blind human rights lawyer, no less.) Even long time allies like Mexico and Peru are abandoning Fidel these days. While the Cuban people slowly starve to death and flee his social revolution by the tens of thousands in anything that will float. (How times have changed!)

Yep...there's a long list of subjects that I dare not bring up when I get together with my left-leaning buddies during our weekly pub night.

Michael Moore and his "documentaries" is just the latest addition to the list.  

Instead, we usually talk about mundane things like cars and girls and boats and fishing. In days past, we _USED_ to discuss global politics and macro economics and openly speculate on which system would end up as the dominate one on planet earth...but this has become a terrible minefield for some of these guys who guessed wrong. And they don't care to be reminded of it.

So we don't mention it, nowadays.

It's the best way to stay best friends, after all.  

[ July 28, 2004, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...anybody who is loudly backing Michael Moore right now might just want to step back and re-read what I've written in the previous post. Just as a guide and as a bit of advice from someone who was a bit of a lefty in an earlier life, and who still has some left-leaning buddies. Who he still has high regard for. And who doesn't care to embarass his good friends with a bunch of nasty facts, after the fact, in order to make them feel bad about themselves.

Have a good hard look at Michael Moore...look at where he has been and what he has said and where he seems to be going, BEFORE you hitch your wagon to his shaky horse. 

It might just save you some serious embarassment in the future when you get together with your buddies over a couple of beers, and begin to discuss how the world REALLY works, a few years down the road.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is a reaction to F911 from a soldier currently stationed in the middle east.
<blockquote>http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/07/fahrenheit-911-and-its-impact-on.html
<blockquote>Army Spc. Joe Roche has perhaps the harshest words yet for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, describing its impact on the morale of our troops deployed overseas as "devastating."
<blockquote>Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing is around. The impact is devastating.

Here we are, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore's film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed. Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has.

[...]

Mostly the comments are absolute shock at the close connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. "Bush looks really really REALLY corrupt in this film. I just don't know what to think anymore," is a common comment to hear. Some of these soldiers are darn right ashamed tonight to be American soldiers, to have been apart of this whole mission in Iraq, and are angry over all that Moore has presented in his film.

We know this is all based on Moore's lies and deceptions. But we, I'm afraid, are a minority. Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore's work.

What these good yet impressionable soldiers don't realize is that twisting reality and manipulating the truth is something lawyers do every day in court for their clients. OJ Simpson, so clearly guilty in the ghastly murders, was able to get off because his lawyer team completely confused the issue. Now today, in typical fashion, Moore is doing the very same thing in this film. This is, frankly, the nature of political debate in a democracy -- especially when extremism is allowed to go unchecked.

[...]

I sometimes want to be mad at my fellow soldiers for being susceptible to Moore's distortions, but I can't really blame them. These are good Americans, who have volunteered to serve our country. Nothing says they all have to be experts in Middle Eastern issues and history and politics to serve. That would be silly. ...But this is, of course, the vulnerability that Moore has exploited.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

There are people that would contend that showing F911 to the troops would be as demoralizing as showing Kerry's anti-Vietnam talks to American POWs was in the 1970s. It would appear that this concern is valid, even if only on a small scale at this point.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As I may have mentioned a few times in the past...Michael Moore is a VERY shaky horse to be hitching your wagon to. Especially if you are not right up to speed with all of the REAL facts.

He is a clever manipulator, no doubt about it...and he has made himself filthy rich while doing it. No doubt about THAT, either.

Enjoy his films for their entertainment value...but don't take what he says as fact until you go out and check every bit of it for yourself. 

And I mean EVERY SINGLE THING HE SAYS. I kid you NOT!

Quote Michael Moore and his "facts" in conversation with others if you care to.

But be prepared to be terribly embarassed about it a few years down the road. Be prepared to look like a total idiot for believing him and taking him for his word on this stuff, without checking if it's for real or not. 

Don't say I didn't warn you.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is a transcript of the Michael Moore interview from The O'Reilly Factor. It makes an interesting read.

http://drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

One thing (well, two things) I'd like to point out:

<blockquote>
M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O: I would sacrifice myself—

M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
</blockquote>

If you ask any parent if they'd be willing to sacrifice their children the answer is going to be no. The question is silly. Parents aren't sacrificing their kids in Iraq, every soldier there joined the military by their own choice.

Does this make the loss of American soldiers any less hard to bear? No, but Moore is framing the question to make it seem even harder than it already is.

Anyways, the whole thing is worth reading.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Noboy...and I mean NOBODY...ever wants their children to go off to war and die.

Or to come home horribly mutilated. This is a no-brainer.

Nobody wants to see their son...who enlisted in the Marines...come home witout his legs. Or in a body bag.

But...at the very same time...we ALSO don't want to see our safe and largely non-violent modern world torn apart by a violent force from outside.

Nobody wants to see their 60 year old Uncle or their four year old daughter, who DIDN'T freely enlist in the military, horribly mutilated or killed while on a peaceful trip to the mall. Or on a plane ride to visit a relative.

And this is precisely what we are looking at from the radical terrorists who have corrupted a peaceful religion for their own evil ends. And who will stop at nothing to kill as many innnocents as they can. In any WAY that they can. In any foreign land where life is better, and less cruel than in the middle east (that would be MOST of them by the way...with Canada and the USA at the top of the list)

We have to stop it. We have no choice. None at all.

Soldiers will die while we use the forces we have to stop this from spreading to the rest of our peaceful modern world. 

It's a terrible thing, but they knew exactly what what they were getting into when they enlisted for this duty. NONE are reluctant draftees.

Most are young, with their whole future ahead of them.

Sadly, many will have that future altered terribly. Or ended totally.

Millions of similar young people died in the World Wars that dominated the twentieth century. Tens of thousands more young people died in some of the lesser conflicts of that period. Along with several hundred thousand innocent civilians.

So far...the current middle eastern conflict has claimed only six hundred odd young soldiers. And the positive results are already being felt all across the region.

We should salute these brave people and never forget a single one of their names.

EVER.

They have made a difference. A big one

More than most of us will EVER make, in our common experience...no matter how long we will ever live.

In any measure of any previous conflict, this would be considered a major success...with a very small loss of life amongst committed miltary personnell.

The alternative may have been (likely WOULD have been) tens of thousands of people...innocent and military...dead or maimed. Perhaps even millions, had some of the antagonists in the area gained the terrible weaponry that they were actively shopping for. And used it on non-combatant civilian populations, as some of them have done in the very recent past.

Maybe we should think about _THAT_ when we look at what has happened in this region over the past year.

Or when we look at what has transpired in most of the so-called civilised countries (especially in Europe) over the past century. And when we count up the dead from those many conflicts.


Think about it.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

It helps to get some facts straight if you want to base your reasoning on something other than rhetoric.  

A. _In any foreign land where life is better, and less cruel than in the middle east (that would be MOST of them by the way...with Canada and the USA at the top of the list) _

I believe in the latest UN Development Program report just released a couple of weeks ago..Canada was fourth and US was eighth. I don't believe this qualifies as "top of the list".

B. _peaceful modern world_

Hrmm...a bit of an exaggeration there.

C. _ So far...the current middle eastern conflict has claimed only six hundred odd young soldiers. _

Wrong wrong wrong. Your own asssertion of the number of dead Coalition soldiers in Iraq does them a disservice. There are now over 1000 dead (1025 according to the WSJ) since the start of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

D. _And the positive results are already being felt all across the region._

Positive results? Rhetoric. (And don't you dare bring up Libya...that disarmament program was well underway BEFORE the invasion.)

E. _In any measure of any previous conflict, this would be considered a major success...with a very small loss of life amongst committed miltary personnell. _

Did you bother counting the dead Iraqi soldiers or civilians?

F. _The alternative may have been (likely WOULD have been) tens of thousands of people...innocent and military...dead or maimed._

Well, at least you can count the Iraqi civilians here. Oh wait...you really can't count these...the American occupation authorities no longer allow it.

G. _Perhaps even millions, had some of the antagonists in the area gained the terrible weaponry that they were actively shopping for. And used it on non-combatant civilian populations, as some of them have done in the very recent past._

Who are you referring to? Terrorists? Or Saddam? Where would the terrorists get nukes from? BTW, I don't consider chemical or biological weapons to be true WMDs. No one would be stupid enough to give them to terrorists and the Iraqis patently don't have any. Most of the time, what you write seems to be "The Bogeyman is coming the bogeyman is coming!"
BTW, you may be interested to know that the US took Iraq off its list of states that sponsored terrorism years ago in order to give Saddam aid. Gotta love geopolitics.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

perhaps building a wall, errr, barrier, i mean fence would be better policy

how do you think that idea will shape up in a few years?
berlin's wall fell
others are building walls

UN (overwhelmingly) says wall should come down, but UN is told to mind their own business

go figure


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So...Ironmac..

I take it that you would prefer that a pschopathic dictator and his vermin offspring were still in charge of the second richest oil reserves on the planet.

You know...the same ones who have used weapons of mass destruction several times during the past decade and were almost single-handedly keeping Kim Jong Il alive and in power in North Korea by buying up all of their nasty weaponry?

The same ones who corrupted key members of the United Nations and therefore prevented that formerly august body from ever dealing with some of the worst human rights abuses on the planet...like Rwanda, the current genocide in the Sudan and, of course, all of the excesses of their own regime in the former Baathist state of Iraq.

What's that? You say that Saddam was a really bad guy? And you agree...along with pretty much everyone else, that he simply HAD to go?

Then please enlighten all of us as to how you would have accomplished that in the current timeframe. Tell us how you would have turned Iraq into a self-determining country at this particular point in time. One that no longer sports a terrible dictator who regularly made war with all of his neighbors (and who is now in jail awaiting trial for his many crimes BTW).

Or...would you really rather he was still running the show over there right now? Would we all be better off if Saddam was still living in one of his forty or so luxury palaces and signing death warrants for anyone who was questioning his absolute power?

And shopping the world for weapons while paying off the top officials at the UN so that they would vote to NOT remove him from power by force of arms?

Please explain. Lots of people are listening and eagerly awaiting your well thought out reply.

Trust me on this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt said: "but don't take what he says as fact until you go out and check every bit of it for yourself. And I mean EVERY SINGLE THING HE SAYS. I kid you NOT!"

Wise words - which apply equally to Moore and Bush. The difference is that Moore fills his bank account, Bush fills body bags.

And, as if anyone needs reminding, Moore isn't exactly the sole source/presenter for the disasterous actions in the White House.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

It's interesting how you don't even try refuting what I've posted.  

Let's have a little bit of fun while we look at some more of your statements, first.

A. _I take it that you would prefer that a pschopathic dictator and his vermin offspring were still in charge of the second richest oil reserves on the planet._

It's all about the oil isn't it? hehehe Whoa, what's this about letting him be in charge? Well, I believe that Saddam took power in 1978 or so...he attacked Iran and Kuwait (this might have been justifiable)...and massacred a few of his people. During all of that time, did the US do anything about it? NO. So, obviously it seems that they did prefer that he was in charge of the second richest oil reserves on the planet.

B. _ the same ones who have used weapons of mass destruction several times during the past decade _

You're misusing the term WMD. But, let's look at this "shocking" use of chemical weapons. I'm not going to sidetrack as to where he got the raw materials for the stuff (of course, we're talking about the US). But, here's an idea:

This may sound a bit harsh but what's the difference between using chemical weapons and others such as napalm or landmines?

C. _almost single-handedly keeping Kim Jong Il alive and in power in North Korea by buying up all of their nasty weaponry?_

Wrong wrong wrong...North Korea, up until the late 1970s was doing pretty well for itself. And, you are forgetting that other countries besides Iraq were buying Scuds and other weaponry from North Korea.

D. _The same ones who corrupted key members of the United Nations and therefore prevented that formerly august body from ever dealing with some of the worst human rights abuses on the planet_

Are you saying that Iraq co-opted the UN and is responsible for all those abuses? Prove it.

E. _You say that Saddam was a really bad guy? And you agree...along with pretty much everyone else, that he simply HAD to go?_

I didn't say that and neither did the US say it for...oh...almost 28 years.

F. _a terrible dictator who regularly made war with all of his neighbors _

He conducted only two wars. One against Iran and he was supported by the Americans here. And the Kuwaiti invasion, where he may have had just cause and the American ambassador may have been vague in how she worded Washington's potential reaction.

As to what should have been done? I'm tempted to say that he should have been left in place. It's evident that you can't impose a Western ideal of what Iraq's society should be like. At the same time, sanctions were only hurting the people.

So:
- I would simply have left him to drop dead of old age or be assassinated eventually. 
- Make sure that he's incapable of acquiring nuclear weapons. 
- Open up trade with the country. 

I know that you're going to try to nail me on the human rights angle but look at it this way...the West didn't care before did it? If it did, then, it would have done something years ago and we'd be in virtually every country that you can name.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

macspectrum...I keep thinking that the Israelis are putting themselves into their own ghetto.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I take it that you would prefer that a pschopathic dictator and his vermin offspring were still in charge of the second richest oil reserves on the planet.*

Ok, I am getting tired of pointing this out to you Macnutt, so read carefully.

Being against this war != (does not equal) being a supporter of Saddam Hussein.

It is also entirely possible to think that this war was a good idea, but executed incredibly poorly, politically speaking.

Being against one thing does not automagically mean you are in support of another unless you buy into all that "you're with us or against us" rhetoric.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey MacNutt - perhaps you could speculate on why 
General Shalikashvili - became a newly minted Democrat.???

••••••••••

General WHO you say........



> John M. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland, on 27 June 1936, the "grandson of a tsarist general and the son of a Polish army officer. Shalikashvili and his mother fled Poland in 1944 and settled in Germany. He immigrated to the U.S. with his family in 1952, when he was 16, and settled in Elmwood, IL."[1]
> 
> Shalikashvili is a member of the Board of United Defense Industries.[2] He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[3] In May 2000, he was elected to the Board of Directors (term expires 2003) at Boeing and selected to serve on the Audit and Finance Committee. He also serves on the boards of Frank Russell Trust Company, L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.[4], and Plug Power Inc..[5].
> 
> ...


You think maybe he knows a bit more than we do.
You think his judgement on Bush and Co might be a bit "better informed"

oh yeah








him too.... Gen Wesley Clark 


and the round dozen Generals and Admirals that showed up tonight in Boston.

Fools all I suppose.............

Now Gerry, sit down across from these guys and lets hear in your own immortal words how foolish and blind they are to disagree with the current CinC and his glorious ( at least in your mind ) ride across the planet.

•••••

I DO hope America heeds those experienced military leaders who VALUE multilateral approachs to the problems confronting the world.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My question reamins unanswered. Just as it has been so for over a year since I first asked it.

Allow me to refresh your short-term memories:

Saddam was a horrible despot. We all agree about THAT. He was the ONLY modern "leader" of ANY country on this planet to use weapons of mass destruction in the past half century. And he used them on his own people, no less. More than once.

This same man was sitting on top of the second richest bundle of oil wealth on the whole planet while shopping around for other weapons to do even more destruction. And letting his people starve to death while he built dozens of lavish palaces in his own honour.

And his vermin offspring looked to be the inheritors of this massive power. They were even worse that HE was....if that's even concieveable

He was hated by the vast majority of his own population and by pretty much everyone in the region. he was...head and shoulders...vastly worse and far more capable of widespread mayhem than any of his neighboring middle eastern despots. Or any of the other tyrannical despots on the planet, when you stop to think about it.

So..the question remains:

If you are personally offended by they manner that this nasty piece of work was removed from his position of power...or have chosen to disregard the wild cheering crowds of Iraqis who were busily hauling down his many self-erected statues...

Or the fact that his two despicable sons are now worm food instead of princes in waiting...

The, I just gotta ask...

Would you PREFER he was still in charge of Iraq? If so...why?

If not...then HOW would you have made this important and positive change in the current timeframe?

These are the only two choices, after all.

We await your carefully considered replies.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*My question reamins unanswered*

http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002311;p=9#000132

*HOW would you have made this important and positive change in the current timeframe? These are the only two choices, after all.*

There are only two choices? Black and white, yes or no? War in Iraq or Saddam in power? There's more than one way to skin a cat. 

Also, whether this change in the middle east is positive is yet to be seen.

But, for a start, the US could have:

Gained wide international support.
Given the Iraqis a more positive, active role in the rebuilding and re-shaping of the nation.
Double checked the evidence they used to justify their invasion.

This is all assuming that the war was even necessary.

Oh, and remember what I said here, too. It's important.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I've been scanning over an HTML version of the 9/11 commission report exectuve summary. A couple of things I noticed.

One:
<blockquote>Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas. Numerous precautions were taken overseas.</blockquote>

In other words, Bush and Co were never warned about any specific threat to US soil, and took preventative measures where information indicated it was necessary.

Two:
<blockquote>To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/ 11 attacks. Al Qaeda had many sources of funding and a pre-9/ 11 annual budget estimated at $30 million. If a particular source of funds had dried up, al Qaeda could easily have found enough money elsewhere to fund the attack.</blockquote>

In other words, there is no proof that the Saudi government in any way funded the 9/11 attack.

Doesn't this kind of poke big holes in parts of the main premise of F9/11?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

In furtherance of this point<a/>, reading from <a href="http://9-11commission.gov/">the full text of the 9/11 commission report (downloadable PDF), see page 574, sections 27 and 28.

<blockquote>[The State Dept.] co-ordinated with the FBI and FAA to allow screening by the FBI of flights with Saudi nationals on board. There is no evidence that State tried to limit the screening.

[...]

The FBI effectively approved the the Saudi flights at the level of a section chief. having an opportunity to check the Saudis was useful to the FBI. This was because the US Government did not, and does not, routinely runchecks on foreigners who are _leaving_ the United States. The Procedure was convenient to the FBI, as the Saudis who wished to leave this was would gather and present themselves for record checks and interviews, an opportunity that would not be available if they simply left on regularly scheduled commercial flights.

[...]

the so-called Bin Laden flight departed the United States on Sept. 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Laden. Screening of this flight was directed by an FBI agent in the Baltimore Field Office who was also a pilot. This agent, coordinating with FBI headquarters, send a electronic communication to each of the field offices through which the Bin Laden flight was scheduled to pass, including the proposed flight manifest and directig what screening should occur. He also monitored the flight as it moved around the country --from St. Louis to Los Angeles to Orlando to Washington Dulles, and to Boston Logan-- correcting for any changes in itinerary to make sure there was no lapse in FBI screening at these locations. Again, each of the airports through which the Bin Laden flight passed was open, and no special restrictions were lifted to accommodate its passage.

[...]

The Bin Laden flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with the policies set by the FBI headquarters and coordinating through working level interagency processes. Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 passengers on the Bin Laden flight were interviewed byt he FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Laden or knew anything about terrorist activity.

[...]

Long before 9/11 the FBI was following members of the Bin Laden family in the US closely. Two of the passengers on this flight had been the subjects of preliminary investigations by the FBI, but noth their cases has been closed in 1999 and 2001, respectively, because the FBI had uncovered no derogatory information on either person linking them to terrorist activity.</blockquote>

So, in other words, the Bin Laden family was:
-Not in the air before airspace was opened up.
-Properly screened by the authorities before leaving
-Not linked to terrorist activities
-not given any special treatment, except to be profiled more closely.

This further ruins the point of F9/11, does it not?

[edit: fixed link, fixed some spelling]

[ July 30, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Allow me to have a critical look at some of MacNutt's points:



> Allow me to refresh your short-term memories:
> 
> Saddam was a horrible despot. We all agree about THAT. He was the ONLY modern "leader" of ANY country on this planet to use weapons of mass destruction in the past half century. And he used them on his own people, no less. More than once.
> 
> ...


A. Horrible despot. Yes...but I could probably name a half dozen others off the top of my head that would qualify. I don't see the US moving in on them. Oh wait...most of them are the US' friends.

B. Dismissing your characterization of chemical weapons as WMDs so it is invalid as a charge against Saddam.

C. His people weren't starving to death until sanctions were put in place. Actually, how many actually starved to death???

D. If every bad parent were to be put in prison...

E. Hated by the majority of his neighbors and capable of widespread mayhem? Hrmmm...judging by some international polls...you're talking about Bush!  

More of that "the bogeyman is coming the bogeyman is coming" syndrome.


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

not sure if this reply belongs here - but i think in a way it may fit in;

From The 19 July 2004 Issue of The New Republic:

"Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda. 

<snip>

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston."

Link to full copy of article: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0708-11.htm

Breaking news today:
"Pakistan says it has arrested a top Tanzanian al-Qaeda suspect, who has a $25m bounty on his head. 
The suspect was someone "most-wanted internationally," said Pakistan Interior Minister Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat, quoted by Reuters news agency. Mr Hayat told CNN television on Thursday the suspect had been captured during a raid in central Pakistan. The suspect is alleged to have been involved in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in East Africa."

Link to story: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3938133.stm

And tonight John Kerry makes his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.

But I'm sure it's all just a coincidence…


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Bounty hunting as poltical tactic".....sigh.

Who was it complaining about "manipulating elections" with violent acts??

Louis L'Amour would have a ball writing up the *"Ride of George W." *

You think maybe the shrub grew up on these given his vocabulary....or lack thereof and general "approach" ??
























[ July 30, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Again and STILL...my question remains unanswered.

This is how it's been for almost a year now.  

Saddam was a despot. No question about this simple fact. He was, by far, the WORST despot on the planet earth, if measured by how many of his own people he murdered...in so many terrible ways.

He was the only despot who has used Weapons of mass destruction in recent times (YES...chemical weapons ARE classified as weapons of mass destruction).

And he used these terrible weapons on his OWN people, no less.

And yes, the recent revelations about the bin Ladens totally refute much of what was presented as "fact" in Michael Moore's most recent film. Big Surprise.

So...once again my ever-present question remains still un-answered:

"Would you prefer that Saddam was still in power?"

"If not...then HOW exactly, would you have removed him in this current timeframe?"

I anxiously await your carefully considered replies.

(But am also prepared to deal with your carefully constructed avoidances of the main question. I've had quite a bit of practice at this by now, after all.) 









Fly at it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Democracies are imperfect. We as humanity have no perfected world body to, charge, prosecute and provide redress against sovereign powers who mistreat their citizens. We have some bodies to deal with them when they go beyond their borders.

What we have, had defanged Saddam sufficiently without breaching sovereign territory - a consideration you choose to ignore repeatedly.

Instead the US put forth it's own agenda in a manner that alienated it's allies and failed radically to take into account US and British historical alienation in the region.

You want simple answers for complex questions. Perhaps it's a reflection of your mind.  

Vigilanteism is not justice and imperils what world common trust we have.
The US populace is waking up to the nature of the decision to go to war in Iraq and it's consequences........are you??


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, you have a short or selective memory. There have been numerous considered replies to your challenges of what to do with Saddam. I don't remember anyone supporting his right to oppress his people, but there have also been few who believe the actual course of action taken by the White House was correct or wise. I cannot be bothered to seek the various posts as they were multiple and you have a singular inability to back up your own hearsay with anything stronger than "Trust me". Credibility is earned not assumed.

Given that Hussein was in place for 20-odd years, the precipitation of the events of the invasion were as synthetic as the evidence for WMDs. He needed toppling. Economic sanctions were abused (due to corruption inside Iraq and outside) but the no-fly zones were clearly effective in constraining his ambitions (coupled with the continuous probings of the UN weapons inspectors). So why not gradually expand that community of inspectors to act not just as monitors of armaments but of human rights? The task would be to document abuses to build a case against Hussein in the ICC. The world could then demand his surrender to face charges. If he refused, action could be directed AT HIM, not the people of Iraq. Moreover, this approach is transportable and provides an escalating series of events that, unless complied with, lead to inevitable consequences. The approach might also cost less than $150 billion.

But such scenarios are unlikely to appeal to the chicken hawks of the world who are more than willing to send other peoples kids off to do their dirty work.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Remember this guy - the world sat around for 8 years while he ATE his citizens.
Took his neighbor nation Tanzania ( with I imagine lots of tacit help ) to chase the guy out and where does he go for asylum........Saudi Arabia and even there causes trouble but ends up dying in bed









The world mechanisms are not in place and are further out of place now thanks to cowboy George.  

Trade, aid, respect, steady pressure for human rights improvements, tying aid to reform and multilateral pressure are the tools of sovereign nations dealing with each other if we want a peaceful planet.

"Course it could be argued some vested arms interests don't.
50% of all the weapons in all the conflicts are US made.

Can we say * conflict*.........of interest, big time.

Sort of like the local cop shop doling out handguns out the back door then begging for money to fight the gun violence.
Do we really want THIS cop as our ONLY world cop?????

Let alone judge, jury and executioner????  

The US doesn't even abide by it's own agreements with it's closest neighbors or with the world agreements it's already signed off on.
You think smaller nations are not afraid of the same erratic, irresponsible application of policy??

Even very vulnerable Mexico recognised how wrong Bush was. This was the guy "blessed" by an invitation to the "THE RANCH"  

The question that needs asking and that no one on the planet knows the definitive answer to is how to extricate the US without leaving the power vacuum that wiser heads predicted would result.

That Doctors without Borders are leaving Afghanistan is a sign of a hugely deteriorating situation there and the Sudan is about to blow up big time straining world resources for conflict resolution even further.

A sad state, a dangerous state for the planet.  
No easy answer.

Hoping the loony loses the Whitehouse is a start......even that is a ways off.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt...some of us have bothered giving you replies but you don't seem to answer any questions nor do you discuss points. With you, it's all rhetoric and "the bogeyman is coming the bogeyman is coming". As far as I'm concerned, you're like a spilled bottle of ink...dark and nasty looking but only a millimeter deep.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Enlightened self interest...??









Time for a change.........go Kerry.



> *Baghdad Fire Department T-Shirts!*
> 
> Check out just the most obvious pork salted into the President's $87 billion request for Iraqi military operations and "reconstruction" efforts.
> 
> ...





> * Invading and Occupying Iraq: The Impact on Your State*
> 
> NPP offers a state-by-state breakdown of how President Bush's requested $87 billion in additional war spending could be spent instead to create more jobs and meet community needs at the same time. This Factsheet also provides a graphic illustration of current federal spending priorities, comparing the total amount of war-related spending with spending on basic needs such as food and nutrition, the environment, housing, education, the environment and veterans' benefits.


http://www.nationalpriorities.org/issues/military/iraq/factsheet03/index.html

••••••

Decided I'd check out the Iraq firehall references at DNC......now I know.  

Wisdom?????....didn't somebody say something about wisdom lately........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*F/11/2 the Sequel*

That would be Florida November 2nd



> Aug. 1, 2004. 01:00 AM
> *Is Florida facing a new polling fiasco?*
> 
> LINDA MCQUAIG
> ...


MM ...your sequel is calling......


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Does anyone have anything to say about this:

http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002311;p=10#000138
http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002311;p=10#000139

I just noticed that no one responded to the thought that the 9/11 commission poked a bunch of holes one of the main premises of F911.

Also, Macnutt keeps asking:

*"Would you prefer that Saddam was still in power?"*

Please read here (again):
http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002311;p=9#000134
and here:
http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002311;p=10#000137

If you can't infer an answer from those, please let me know.

Why don't you try rebutting some of the points made from others now?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hi PosterBoy,

In the movie, Moore shows a flight listing for about 20 or so of the bin Laden family with dates of September 13/14. I don't know where it was sourced. Personally, I didn't find the evacuation particularly newsworthy given that the family is rich and presumably "uncomfortable" that they share their name with the most evil terrorist on the planet. Moore makes a big deal about this in his book, "Dude, Where's My Country".

Debunking Moore is a sport but the various websites typically fall short of the mark, much like defence attornies scoring the odd point about the bible classes their murderer client attended while in 5th grade. Moore is a scatter gun and creates a pastiche from facts and extrapolations. His most powerful footage is not when in his investigative mode, but when he simply lets people speak for themselves (as was also true for BfC - Heston interview, interview of a punk in a pool room). The shots of the Marine recruiting officers should send a shiver down every mothers back (not counting Barbara Bush).

It's interesting in watching the right-wing media responses to the Democrat convention. A new term that has emerged: "neo-Liberal". This is a not-so-subtle attempt to deflect the effectiveness of the "neo-Con" label which was appropriately applied to select members of the White House inner circle who essentially self-labelled themselves.

Whether one takes Moore literally or figuratively, his message is not being ignored and so he has been successful. One may argue over his methods, but I find many of the arguments are aimed at him, rather than his overall message (deriding him for being rich, crawling backwards, etc). In that context, he has won the debate by keeping it alive.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

"Neo-Liberal" is not a new term - it's been used for at least 20 years to describe fanatical free-market globalized economic policies and the wankers who promote them.

FYI
M

[ August 02, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: CubaMark ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's new when applied by the Republicans to the Democrats - who, as far as I know, are hardly radical free-marketeers (some of 'em may be wankers)


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

> Does anyone have anything to say about this:
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002311;p=10#000138
> http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002311;p=10#000139
> ...





> I've been scanning over an HTML version of the 9/11 commission report exectuve summary. A couple of things I noticed.
> 
> One:
> Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas. Numerous precautions were taken overseas.
> ...


here is what i have found about your first query:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040410/325/eqrzp.html


*It told the president of desires by bin Laden to "bring the fighting to America" dating to 1997 and that he wanted to retaliate "in Washington" over the 1998 cruise missile strikes against his base in Afghanistan.*


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

even more information on the information passsed onto the US govt from many different countries all warning of a possible attack from the sky:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"Debunking Michael Moore" is hardly necessary these days. Pretty much everyone who is not seriously challenged in a leftish ideological sense has written him off as a silly clown, these days. 

-Yes, he calls some attention to whatever cause he seems to be taking up this week.

-NO he does not lend any credibility to his cause. In fact, he diminishes the cred by lying and altering(or omitting) the actual facts.

Which makes pretty much EVERYONE who is a thinking sentient being sit up on their hind legs and ask, rather pointedly:

"If Michael Moore has such pertinent points to make...then WHY the heck does he need to lie so openly in order to make them?? WHY does he not simply use the facts at hand to make his point??"

Why indeed?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Shoot the messenger repeatedly Macnutt, the message is still getting through loud and clear.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_NO he does not lend any credibility to his cause. In fact, he diminishes the cred by lying and altering(or omitting) the actual facts._























Now consider the source of THAT statement.







 

Maybe he's been up at SSI drinking the water......ya think.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I finaly watched the movie over the weekend. It was good for the most part but I still think he goes a bit over board in some areas. The Fifth Estate had some of the same material as 9/11 did. My father in Law told me that they may sue him because of his comments during the election. What about free speech? I guess you can almost say anything you want. I dont think the conservatives lost because of Moore. I dont think Bush will either win or loose because of him either. 

I found this link, dont know how valid it is though. 

http://www.chargemoore.com/


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's valid and gives the disgruntled Tories something to do while the minority government hangs together (the other occupation is trying to invent charisma pills). This law is assinine and way overdue for repeal. That said, no one has ever been charged under it so it's a rather pathetic tool. Civil libertarians would demand its repeal if it ever was used in court.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt mused;


> -NO he does not lend any credibility to his cause. In fact, he diminishes the cred by lying and altering(or omitting) the actual facts.


i, for one, wholeheartedly agree with your analysis of Bush and his band of not-so-merry men


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Good one Macspectrum!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Whether one takes Moore literally or figuratively, his message is not being ignored and so he has been successful.*

This, at least, may be true. Love him or hate him, he gets quite a bit of attention, these days.

*One may argue over his methods, but I find many of the arguments are aimed at him, rather than his overall message (deriding him for being rich, crawling backwards, etc). In that context, he has won the debate by keeping it alive.*

While I won't say that I've never levelled an argument at him but I will say that a lot of arguments are levelled at him because he has, in many cases, essentially inserted himself into (and some may argue even become) his message. Separating one from the other is difficult at time.

Personally, I like to _try_ to keep them separate, but it's hard to sometimes. To use an example, the reason that many deride him for being rich. It's not so much that he's rich that's the problem, the problem is that he is rich _and_ is constantly deriding republicans (and others) for being rich. One of the people at MooreWatch.com recently explained this, too. (note: MooreWatch is fairly one sided, but there is some good articles there occasionally)

Personally, I could care less if he crawled backwards until he was 20. That argument is just stupid.

With my previous posts, I am not trying to deride Moore at all, but a big part of his movie. Moore posits that the bin Ladens got special treatment, when really they didn't. Moore posits that the Saudi government had something to do with the 9/11 attack, when really they didn't and Moore posits that Bush and Co. had specific information about the attack, when really they didn't.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Depmode101,

from the first article that you linked:
<blockquote>White House officials were quick to say after the document's evening release that the August 6, 2001, memo did not warn of the September 11 attacks and that although it referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons.</blockquote>

And again from the 9/11 Commission's executive brief:
<blockquote>Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas. Numerous precautions were taken overseas.</blockquote>

In other words, I am not convinced that anyone could have anticipated that kind of attack. I won't argue that airport security wasn't a joke (hell, it largely still is), but what, really, would you suggest they have done differently than increase security where the information told them the threat was?


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

> White House officials were quick to say after the document's evening release that the August 6, 2001, memo did not warn of the September 11 attacks and that although it referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons.


this is from the second link that i submitted:



> In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]


This thread has gone on for over 160 posts, and one thing i have learned is that when people are stuck with their opinion, not much changes, regardless of replys or information shared.

im just waiting for the US govt to announce the capture of "terrorists" in the US behind the current threat - right in time to boost up votes for GW before the big election.


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

on a side note - anyone else notice that
Fahrenheit is spelled incorrectly in the thread title.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The "current threat" being based on intelligence from 2000.

Moore has a point in revealing the close ties between the bin Laden's and the Bush family (including the carlyle Group connections). Whether there was "conflict of interest" or not, these revelations give one pause for questioning the immediate reactions of the White House and underscore some of the deep reservations about motivations that have been shared by various insiders in the White House. Moore is playing the association game and speculates beyond the facts. Seeing as its rather difficult to find any hard and fast facts in this sphere, that's not exactly unusual.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

depmode101,

I would agree that people's opinions rarely change. Which am I supposed to believe then? The 9/11 commission, or the articles that you cited? Questions remain: did the information make it to the CIA? Did the information make it from the CIA to the president? Why couldn't different agencies co-ordinate better before the patriot act was passed?

As to this current threat being politically motivated, it's hard not to think that way, isn't it?

The problem is the "what if" factor. What if there is a real threat? It's certainly not something you'd want to ignore. Then again, telling the public where the targets are is just dumb because the terrorists, if they're real this time, will just change their target.

Of course, the timing of this threat coupled with the previous inquiries made into the possibility of postponing elections makes a lot of conclusions easy to make, doesn't it?

jwoodget,

The problem with connecting Bush to the bin laden's via the Carlyle group is that nearly everyone in Washington is connected to the Carlyle group. Another problem is that Moore's evidence is so circumstantial that it doesn't make sense.

Take, for example, Moore's theory about the Afghani War being motivated by the want to build a pipeline in Afghanistan. He says:

<blockquote>was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997 while George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney: Halliburton.</blockquote>

The problem is that Unocal stated they had no interest in the pipeline deal in 2002[1] and Bush didn't have anything to do with the meeting. Haliburton did win a contract to provide drilling services on the Caspian Sea, but that was in 2002 (after Unocal was out of the pipeline deal), and the contract was with a completely different company[2].

The association game is an interesting one, hell, I think everyone's played it before even if only in jest. The problem is that his associations don't make sense if you place them in context.

[1] http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm
[2] http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2002/hesnws_061702.jsp


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

PosterBoy,

I agree to a point in that in the social circles that the Bush family (and other politicians) travel, there are enrmous connectivities. That said, the Carlyle Group is hardly in bed with everyone and James T Baker is presumably somewhat selective in the clients he chooses to represent. Playing defense counsel for the bin Ladens and Saudi royal family against the 9/11 victims lawsuits is one role he apparently couldn't refuse.....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*the Carlyle Group is hardly in bed with everyone*

No, but they are in bed with Clinton (the man who was president when the Taliban came to Houston. Would it not make sense that Maybe Clinton was in on it? I believe I read somewhere that Jimmy Carter actually met with the Taliban, what about him?

The Carlyle Group also fairly recently bought a large share in the Loews cinema chain, so Michael Moore is associated with the Carlyle Group too. In fact, if you wanted to think as Moore does, you could say that whenever someone sees F911 in a Loews theatre, you're supporting the Carlyle Group, which is supporting the Bush and Bin Laden families. Seems ridiculous, right? But not really any more so than the connections Moore himself makes.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Conspiracy theories...... There is a lot more than co-investments between the Bush family and the bin Ladens. Perhaps not surprising given the mutual oil interests but its somewhere between embarrassment and conflict of interest. Not that that has ever gotten in the way of most politicians.

Talking of which, I'm sorry I won't be in town tomorrow to line up to have Bill Clintons signature on a copy of his memoires. There again, the line will likely be 2 miles long.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Seems ridiculous, right? But not really any more so than the connections Moore himself makes.


Moore is not a credible film maker.

He thrives on innuendo, gossip and hearsay.

That should be enough to make anyone leery of his work.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc, that is disingenuous since Moore backs up his claims in his books with annotated references and has provided similar references for his films via his web site. He may exaggerate and extrapolate but his core theses are factual. It's his interpretation of the facts that are arguable.

For a really good one-sided laugh, check out Blogsforbush. This explains everything.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> It's his interpretation of the facts that are arguable.


And THAT is why:

Moore is not a credible film maker.

He thrives on innuendo, gossip and hearsay.

It should be enough to make anyone leery of his work.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now "innuendo and gossip" eh ........coming from someone who hasn't seen F 9/11 that strikes me as rather ........... how to put it politely.......


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Hmm. Seems like Moore is starting to expand his resumé, seems he's added PhotoShop to his bag o' tricks.  

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Breaking_News_US/0,4294,4375123,00.html 



> BLOOMINGTON, Ill. (AP) - Filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-basing documentary ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' has apparently upset more than Republicans. The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington said Friday it sent a letter to Moore and the film's distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking for an apology for using what it said was a doctored front page in his movie.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Now "innuendo and gossip" eh ........coming from someone who hasn't seen F 9/11 that strikes me as rather ........... how to put it politely.......


One does not have to stand in bulls**t to smell it nearby.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> One does not have to stand in bulls**t to smell it nearby.


bush and his crap loaded cronies have laid down more bulls**t than a 1,000 acre Alberta cattle ranch
ralphie boy klein does have and oderous air about him too
stephen harper "don't smell too good" either


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

It's refreshing to see people applaud the unethical behavior of one person by comparing the behavior of another.







I guess some people are content with that way of thinking.

_It's *okay* Michael Moore has presented manipulated and manufactured information to the general public (countless times) "as the truth" -- at least he didn't *(insert action or event)*, like *(insert name)* did!_

How asinine.

[edit: fixed tags]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Be sure to let us know when Moore signs a bill for another $25 billion for Iraq as George W. Bush did today.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yawn. Same ol' sh*te. Seems to me, it's believed if you don't like Moore's code of ethics, you're automatically pro-Bush.









Between this and the Columbine thread, pro-Moore zealots have yet to offer one piece of fact to rebut any of the Moore debunking that has been discussed in great detail. Just a whole lotta meandering posts with links to opinion pieces, and irrelevant comparisons that don't contribute any substance to the thread.

Seems like Posterboy is in a league of his own... I've yet to see a well written response. Just the standard mantra: "At least Michael Moore didn't..."

It's getting a bit predictable.

Let me know when Moore gets the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

PosterBoy has linked to various anti-Moore web sites that claim to debunk some of Moores' facts. Here are some of them:

www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
www.moorewatch.com
www.bowlingfortruth.com
www.moorelies.com

On the other side of the tracks we have:

www.michaelmoore.com (note this page)
www.wmdthemovie.com
www.HalliburtonWatch.org

You's takes you's pick. Meanwhile..... There's also a Globe and Mail story today (can't find it on-line) about how Moores film simply reinforces opinions rather than changing them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Too bad you (and most Moore zealots here) don't actually bother to read them -- you'd know that the majority of them (with the exception of Moore Hates America, I believe) they provide sources for each and every one of their claims -- you know, _facts_.







You can actually read their sources for yourselves. But that would be too much work and would require an open mind since one couldn't _ever_ question Michael Moore's methods _and_ dislike everything Bush and his posse stands for.

Again, nothing new. I suppose we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good time, right? But, let's see... someone will post how anti-Moore those sites, in some bizarre logic, negates any real reason to dislike Moore... because it's okay for Moore to point out what an ass Bush is (by distoring and manipulating his facts), as opposed to a person who thinks Moore is an ass (by providing documented proof directly linked or referenced to the source). Oh, but that would be irrelevant anyway because Moore didn't kill people.  

Sounds like fun to me.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Be sure to let us know when Moore signs a bill for another $25 billion for Iraq as George W. Bush did today.


or when Moore sends people to their deaths by either bombing them or telling them to kill other people

BushCo. represents what is wrong with amerika
rich people expect poor people to die so that they can become even more rich people
"haves and have mores" was the quote from Bush

give less and less people, more and more of the wealth and you have a recipe for revolution

see - Chinese boxer revolt, u.s. war of independance, russian revolution, french revolution

rich people would be safer for a longer period of time when more people belong the, now shrinking, middle class

the middle class is actually the buffer zone that stands between the rich and possible revolution
current amerikan monetary and foreign policy is very short sighted and only supports the "quick buck"

history will judge the period in u.s. history as a very scary time
a time when fascism raised its ugly head and almost took over for a long time


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> bush and his crap loaded cronies have laid down more bulls**t than a 1,000 acre Alberta cattle ranch
> ralphie boy klein does have and oderous air about him too
> stephen harper "don't smell too good" either





> history will judge the period


Once a poster learns to use proper punctuation and utilize capitalization in posts, and further learns to spell America without a "k", and stops involving others not mentioned in the original posts, perhaps their posts will be taken seriously? 

Either that, or be "judged" by the period that is part of the missing punctuation?

Perhaps until then, these posts should be in the same league as MM's drivel, as in "not credible"?

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nu-clear
sublibinimal

- george bush


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> nu-clear
> sublibinimal
> 
> - george bush


You just don't get it, do you?

I never mentioned Bush and you do the same thing again?

typical macspectrum?

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> You just don't get it, do you?


i absolutely "get it"
please discount bush's "posts" for the same reasons you discount my posts

Punctuation does not a well written post make.

Usage of "Amerika" has been pointed out to you before. I'm not going to waste more time on your edification on that issue. 
Perhaps it is you that doesn't "get it."

Guess that journalistic "school of hard knocks" ain't what it's cracked up to be.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A few thoughts on PosterBoy's posts on this subject.

(For what it's worth)

His well thought out criticisms of Michael Moore's "content" are really quite valid. And are shared by many tens of millions of people on this continent, by the way.

(which might be why Moore hasn't yet been able to influence a major election...despite all his much-vaunted grass-roots "Popularity"...and, in fact, Moore's loudly endorsed Democratic Party choice for the leader was largely ignored by the majority of Democratic voters. To the point of not winning a SINGLE Democratic primary. Not even ONE.)

Interesting, eh?

And I also must applaud PosterBoys' even-handed take on this controversial subject.

While tending to lean toward the leftish view on all of this, even HE is now rather vocal in his questions about the redoubtable Mr. Moore and the validity of his films. (otherwise thought of as "factual documentaries" by an ever shrinking number of the still-unrepentant faithful)

Note to PB:

Keep on thinking and investigating. Keep on telling all of us what you have found to be true and what you have found to be a steaming stack of Sh*t.

I...for one...will be listening. VERY closely, when you choose to speak. 

No matter what you come up with. 

After two years, or thereabouts, of demonstrating rather good judgement, on your part, on a number of different subjects...you now have my full attention.

You give me some real hope for the next generation. 

And for their (your) ability to figure out what is real...and what is NOT. 

Now, we of the older generation can sit back and relax a bit...knowing that the world is in capable hands. It's quite a relief, really.

It's a "good thing".

Trust me on this.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*stroke stroke* *kissy kissy*


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Yep, you've tried that one before too. Doesn't wash with me. I liken it to you calling our country Kanada, and that sucks.


when a prospective PM has a brother that is premier of a province that justg happens to not allow people to vote because of a computer error
AND
when CSIS starts LEGALLY tracking which books I buy
AND
when right to legal counsel is denied "just because"

Kanada would be appropriate



> God forbid we might one day need the assistance of our neighbours to the south.


you mean like smuggling citizens out of Iran?
allowing planes and thousands of citizens to land and be housed and fed with nary a thank you?
killing our brave soldiers and then allowing the murderers to walk free?
taxing our lumber products in direct violation to a signed trade agreement?

Canada is a country that always tries mediation almost to a fault
shoot first and ask questions later is not our credo


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I...for one...will be listening. VERY closely, when you choose to speak.
> 
> No matter what you come up with.
> 
> After two years, or thereabouts, of demonstrating rather good judgement, on your part, on a number of different subjects...you now have my full attention.


my god you're ridiculous


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Usage of "Amerika" has been pointed out to you before. I'm not going to waste more time on your edification on that issue.


Yep, you've tried that one before too. Doesn't wash with me. I liken it to you calling our country Kanada, and that sucks.

God forbid we might one day need the assistance of our neighbours to the south.

I for one, would be ashamed to have them know of some views posted here.

If Americans thought as poorly of us, as some here do of them, Canadians should be hanging their heads in shame.

Bashing them may be sport to some, but it is repulsive. I have too many friends and relatives across the border to side with the destructive anti-American views posted here.

Cheers


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

sinc - your criticisms of macspectrum's grammar are off topic.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*But that would be too much work and would require an open mind since one couldn't ever question Michael Moore's methods and dislike everything Bush and his posse stands for.
*

Yes, people assume this all the time, that just because I question Moore it means that I am a die-hard Bush supporter. It's annoying, to say the least.

Here is an interesting article from the Toronto Sun:
<blockquote>http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Lorrie_Goldstein/2004/08/05/569179.html

OKAY, WHO stole Michael Moore's brain? Why has one of the American left's most brilliant polemicists and satirists started cozying up to the Democratic party, which, if his past writings are to be believed, he loathes almost as much as the Republicans?

Why is the anti-war creator of Fahrenheit 9/11 ignoring the fact that on Iraq, the policies of Democratic nominee John Kerry are virtually identical to those of Republican President George Bush?

Why is Moore downplaying the fact Kerry's entire political career, and his life of super-rich, ultra-privilege, are emblematic of the "stupid white men" he so famously skewered in his best-selling book of the same name?

Moore, who spent last week in Boston for the Democratic convention, says on his Web site that he isn't endorsing Kerry, but rather the movement to oust Bush. However, his public statements about Kerry have been generally positive and he's giving the Democrats a free ride compared to his past diatribes against the party. And that simply isn't Moore at his irascible, unpredictable, populist best, when he denounces elitism and hypocrisy no matter where he sees it on the political spectrum.

[...]

So where is the Moore of old, firing in all directions at hypocrisy and political cant wherever he sees it, regardless of whether it's Democratic or Republican? Perhaps Moore feels it's so important to get rid of Bush -- whom he has always argued is worse than any of his Democratic opponents -- that he's willing to overlook what for him, especially, must be Kerry's many faults.

[...]

[In "Dude, Where's My Country"] Moore calls for an America where people, regardless of their political stripe, talk to each other instead of at each other.

Where he advises those on the left to treat conservatives with the same respect with which they want to be treated, acknowledging that conservatives have good qualities and sound political arguments to make. And where, Moore writes, those who share his world view must be prepared to ''admit that the left has made mistakes.'' Where's that guy now? Missing in action, apparently. 
</blockquote>

My personal opinion? Moore doesn't want to sink Kerry's chances. So he can't come out against Kerry, but he also can't come out in support of Kerry (remember, Clark took a nosedive in the polls overnight after Moore came out for him) either.

It's a double standard. Personally, though, I'd prefer Kerry win, so Moore keeping out of his campaign is a good thing in my book.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Moore is the "religious right" but on the opposite spectrum.

Both sides are fighting for the middle swing vote and want to keep the rabble rousers out of view.

Moore is a good offset to the ubiquitous "talk radio" that the Neo-Cons dominate but the Dems don't want hm front and centre.

Kerry needs moderates - he's got the Democratic left and THEY are fired up as the Rev. Sharpton so eloquently demonstrated in his "off the agenda" speech. Kerry wants the middle - his own speech and the "military show" could have been almost any Republican campaign.

American direction swings on a small constituency. The Bush Kerry campaigns have been within a few miles of each other many times recently as the middle swing states are so critical.

Moore is simply one loud voice offsetting hundreds of right wing radio shows who propagate their own and the Republican/NeoCon agenda with as much or more slant and innuendo.

They don't pretend to be PBS, neither does MM.

Moore staying out of the campaign IS likely good for Kerry but I wouldn't bet on Moore staying out of Kerry's face if he wins.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Thought for the evening.

Moore, in interviews and his movie, has been talking about how Bush has sent the children of America to Iraq, how they've been sent into danger zones and possibly to their death. How come no one has pointed out that Moore sent a group of children into the war zone, too?

Remember, the footage in Iraq was taken not by him, but by a film crew he sent there. Granted, they were non-combatants, but they were still in a war zone, in harms way, and in danger of being killed.

Just a thought.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The fourth estate has a long and honourable history of filming war.
They have none that I know of of starting one.

Trudeau went in of his own accord. They go as observers not instigators and there's a world of difference.



> Moore revealed he had smuggled three camera crews into Iraq to film disillusioned US soldiers for his new documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.


Kinda hard to "smuggle" MM himself anywhere these days.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

At least Geraldo _tried_ to make it look like he went to the Middle East.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now THAT makes my head spin. Fake war front reporting


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

For a different view on Michael Moore, read this column. 

Cheers


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

I'm not sure how "different" that is. That about sums it up for me. I think a lot of the support Kerry is getting from "the left" (as some here like to refer to anyone who may be concerned about fraudulent, senseless warmongering and other forms of sociopathic behaviour) and from traditionally non-partisan but highly visible groups and individuals... is simply due to the urgency felt to do what is legally necessary to clear the Bush cabal out of the whitehouse. Bush's greatest success has been to unite so many disperate peoples - in opposition to him, his policies, and unfortunately for Americans, his country.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Why is Moore downplaying the fact Kerry's entire political career, and his life of super-rich, ultra-privilege, are emblematic of the "stupid white men" he so famously skewered in his best-selling book of the same name?


Why.??? Kerry is by far the lesser of two evils and the only type able to get elected in the US ARE the super rich.









You can bet once the election is over MM will be continuing his "pointed embarrassing questions" about inequities in the US society and "system".

It's not like he's alone



> *Correcting the dislocations of unbridled capitalism:
> stopping the use of assets at the expense of people and comparing apples with oranges*
> Nipawin - Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - by: Mario deSantis
> 
> ...


http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/desantisArticles/2002_600/desantis666/unbridledcapitalism.html 

But under the existing structure the change in government must come first then the pressure for THAT government to actually live up to it's democratic ideals.

The current "have and have mores'" in the Republican camp have no interest in making those changes.

With the Dems and their history as with FDR - things can change. Like the Prince said, you have to BE in power to exercise it.

Hence http://moveon.org/front/ etc. 

Grassroots



> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004
> From: Eli Pariser, MoveOn PAC
> Subject: This is it: Help Launch Huge New Plan for Victory
> 
> ...


Harry S. would be proud.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

"Stupid White Men" and "Dude Where's My Country" are currently #1 and 3 in the Canadian best seller lists (paperback, non-fiction). They've been on the charts for ages and his two films continue to draw in viewers. Clinton's memoirs are also high in the charts and his reception in Toronto last week was off the charts. A significant majority of Canadians have greater affinity for Kerry over Bush (between 70-80% depending on the polls). But that's Canada and we are irrelevant.

In talking to friends in the US (mainly scientists - not representative and largely Democrats), they believe the election will be very close - too close to call by a long shot. Bush is appealing to base instincts and has an incredibly well-oiled (pun intended) machine. If this came down to logic, Bush would be in major trouble, but its not. The election could tip on any one of many points/events. A terrorist attack would most likely strengthen Bush in spite of it being a direct demonstration that he is no better at protectiing Americans now than in 2001.

Kerry needs to engage Bush personally. Bush's handlers avoid all efforts to get to the man. If allowed to speak spontaneously, his ignorance and arrogance quickly surface.

[edit - typos]

[ August 08, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: used to be jwoodget ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*The fourth estate has a long and honourable history of filming war.
They have none that I know of of starting one.*

This is true, but the reporters of the fourth estate also don't have a history of sending someone else to film it for them. The reporter goes to the story; Michael Moore (not so much a reporter as a spinster) sent a group of someone else's kids to Iraq.

But I guess it's ok to put someone else's kids in a war zone as long as you didn't create the war zone?


[I know they aren't really kids, I'm just trying to illustrate the point.]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) Smuggling in a video crew to do work they know about is different than Moore trying to go.

b) They were not ordered to go by their Commander in Chief who if they refuse will mean imprisonment and loss of "life as they know it".

What do you think this guy's life is like???



> Marine Conscientious Objector Refuses Duty
> 
> Reservist Surrenders To Military Authorities
> 
> ...


http://kcal9.com/iraq/iraq_story_091192452.html 

I have friends who did the same thing over Vietnam......with disatrous consequences to their families and careers but they are still alive.

MM can ask, not order.
Many would volunteer if they thought it would help end a war which in their minds was unjust.

It's not a comparison that works well.

Moore is an entertainer with a message.

Bush is head of the planet's lone and by far and away most heavily armed Superpower which is currently showing questionable judgement as to the direction the maintenance of it's empire is heading and it's policies towards other sovereign nations.

Moore just illumines with humour and satire what other nations and US nationals also feel. He's one voice - a loud one and provocative in his approach.

Mark Twain did the same.
Swift in his time. Gullivers Travels is NOT a kids book.
How different are these??
























Moore's success is measured by those who are willing to fork out their dollars to be entertained. By that measure he's done very well.

The questions he poses beyond the entertainment values are in part to be answered by both the politicians and the American people.
Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

I finally got around to seeing the movie this past holiday Monday. It was a cheap seat matinee in Downtown Toronto. The theater was almost full.

I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was very well organized. Much better than Roger and Me (but I still liked that one too). Many segments were "startling" to say the least. There was also the typical Moore humour that we have come to expect. He handled the World Trade Tower bombings very well without resorting to the usual gore.

There is no question that this movie comes with a "point of view", but isn't that true of all movies?
I loved the scene with Bush and his two bimbo daughters right after asking congressmen if they would encourage their children to join up to fight in Iraq. The only shooters the Bush girls will be facing are in the bar.

I'll rate it a 9 out of 10.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*MM can ask, not order. Many would volunteer if they thought it would help end a war which in their minds was unjust.*

Every single soldier in Iraq is a volunteer. They can be ordered to go, but they joined the military of their own volition. If they didn't know the responsibilities before hand, well, maybe some of them really are kids.

Why is it such a stretch to realize that Moore put people in danger also?

*Moore just illumines with humour and satire....*

...and conjecture and loose associations and omissions and circumstantial evidence and generally poor information which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

But we've been over this already.

*How different are these [books: Brave New World, Lord of the Flies, etc]?*

For starters, they are allegorical whereas Moore claims to be factual. 

*He handled the World Trade Tower bombings very well without resorting to the usual gore.*

Interesting thing, you know the portion of the film where the screen goes black and all you hear is the sound of the planes hitting the buildings? He ripped that off from another documentary about the Sept. 11th attacks.

Great artists steal, indeed.


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

> Every single soldier in Iraq is a volunteer. They can be ordered to go, but they joined the military of their own volition.


i think that joining up for the reserves/army because you want to protect your nation is one thing - but then having to fight a war that you dont agree with is pretty much being forced upon them.




> Marine Conscientious Objector Refuses Duty
> 
> Reservist Surrenders To Military Authorities
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> joining up for the reserves/army because you want to protect your nation is one thing


unfortunately economic condidtions sometimes make the military a viable career option for those without options

interesting in MM's film that only one congressman/senator had a son/daughter serving in Iraq

i think the idea put forth of a mandatory draft, without exceptions for "well to do" perhaps would make those in power less thirsty for the blood of war


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

> unfortunately economic condidtions sometimes make the military a viable career option for those without options


i totally agree with you



> "I would favor a draft for the children of those people (congress children), because I'll tell you what, if their kids had to go and die in this war, we'd have -- we wouldn't have any wars," Moore said. "Unless it was in the true self-defense of this country. And that's not what this war is about."


i was also wondering what stance the white house had on the 9/11 movie and found this:



> "I can speak for myself and I can speak for the President, and I can assure you that neither of us have seen ['Fahrenheit']," said White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett. "We don't have a lot of free time these days and when we do have free time to see a good fiction movie, we'll pick 'Shrek' or some other enjoy[able] feature like that.
> 
> "Mr. Moore has every right to produce and show movies that express his very radical views. He's outside of the mainstream. ... This is a film that doesn't require us to actually view it to know it's filled with factual inaccuracies."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*interesting in MM's film that only one congressman/senator had a son/daughter serving in Iraq*

He only mentions congress, not the senate, but that aside here are a few things to remember:

- Not every member of congress has children
- 7 members of congress have a son or daughter enlisted in the military
- ~30 percent of the members of congress have a military background (which admittedly, is down from previous decades)
- Members of congress have nephews and nieces as well, some of which are in the military

If anything, the members of congress and their families are over-represented in the military compared to the general population.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> If anything, the members of congress and their families are over-represented in the military compared to the general population.


but NOT over-represented in Iraq and therefore NOT overe-represendted in the death toll
therein lies (no pun intended) the point

add to that the fact that the congress/senate were the ones that supported the decision to go to war 
john and jill six pack had no say in the matter

the images of star spangled banner draped coffins during the Vietnam war helped shock Americans into understanding the reality of war - people die

the current administration prevented photos of those "transit tubes" being taken
so much for "freedom of the press"
the press also went along with that without much cajoling

it goes back to money
those that have it, want more of it and usually at the expense of those that don't have it


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB - Such a stretch????
Comparing a video team who has knowledge of where and why they are going and can quit or leave at any time is in no way shape or form comparable to a soldier or especially a reservist who signed up without knowing the destination or cause and has NO CHOICE other than disgrace or criminal prosecution if he wants to get out or does not agree with his SUPREME COMMANDER.

Are you trying to discredit the messenger, the message, or the medium???

Moore is a loud propagandist with a message. This is not new.

The message is pretty straightforward and very obvious as to it's slant. Satire, bathos and humour make it entertaining and provocative, people vote with their dollars to see it.

The medium he chose was film on a national scale with professional production values.

The current regime seems seriously uncomfortable with criticism.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*Mr. Moore has every right to produce and show movies that express his very radical views. He's outside of the mainstream. ... This is a film that doesn't require us to actually view it to know it's filled with factual inaccuracies.*

Mr. Bush has every right to wage wars that enforce his very radical views. Iraq is outside of the mainstream. It is a country that doesn't require us to actually have evidence to know it's filled with terrorists and WMDs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_ "He's outside of the mainstream"_

That "silent majority mainstream" dontja just know that always seems not to vote for the "right guy" 









Sure a lot of people lining up to see the "radicals" work.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*but NOT over-represented in Iraq*

Yes, last I heard there was still only one child of congress actually in Iraq, but there was also at least one in Afghanistan and the other 5 are either deployed somewhere else or waiting to be called up for service.

Iraq may be the only war zone at the moment, but it s far from the only place a soldier is in danger.

*Such a stretch????*

Did Michael Moore, or did he not, put people in danger by sending them to Iraq to gather footage for him?

If he's so right that all the soldiers in Iraq are mere children, how can he justify sending even a few more? Wouldn't his message be easier to receive if he had gone himself?

Do you think that the soldiers there would have greeted him with open arms or would they have shunned him?

*Comparing a video team who has knowledge of where and why they are going [is not] comparable to a soldier or especially a reservist who signed up without knowing the destination or cause and has NO CHOICE*

Every soldier in Iraq had a choice; they are all volunteers. They chose to be in the military, and therefore would be informed of the responsibilities and dangers of of _being_ in the military. Common sense dictates that if you sign up for military service you should expect to be deployed somewhere and be put in harms way.

*Are you trying to discredit the messenger, the message, or the medium???*

If you don't know by now, maybe you should pay more attention?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

posterboy baited;


> If you don't know by now, maybe you should pay more attention?


if you don't know the difference between soldiers being sent off to an illegal war and reporters trying to understand the truth at such war, then you should pay more attention to your reading and comprehension skills

[ August 09, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*if you don't know the difference between soldiers being sent off to an illegal war and reporters trying to understand the truth at such war, then you should pay more attention to your reading and comprehension skills*

Way to state things out of context and avoid the point entirely. Good job there, sport.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB - you've self admittedly been flogging a dead horse.

Your argument about a news team versus soldiers is specious in the extreme and it SHOULD be easy simply to say ..."well perhaps that's not a good example".
It's not.

Clarifying just what expired equine you persist in flogging perhaps is a good exercise.

You would appear not to like Moore, his methods or his message.
Fine.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Listen and weep... or laugh. Or both.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

even the audience started laughing
the village idiot is king
OR
he is king of the village idiots

take your pick

and this is a man that 40+% of Americans want to retain as president?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*and this is a man that 40+% of Americans want to retain as president?*

One American put it thusly to me:

It's easier to respect Bush, who stands for _something_, rather than Kerry, who stands for _everything_.

There is also the fear that Kerry really is at the extreme left and not the moderate centre that he purports to be at.

I don't necessarily agree with the former, but I can understand the latter.

*you've self admittedly been flogging a dead horse.*

Actually, I said that we've been beating it. I ask a question, you wont answer it. And around and around we go.

Why can't you answer this new question, exactly?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Michael moore recently posted this one his website:

<blockquote>http://www.michaelmoore.com/petitions/peacepledge/index.php

*YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR YOU ARE FIRED!*
Take the pledge and let the Democrats in Congress hear you.

_"I pledge to never vote again for any Democratic candidate for public office who has voted in favor of George Bush's war in Iraq."_

We call on the Democrats in Congress to oppose a war on Iraq, to vote "No" to Bush's war cries. We pledge to never again vote for any Democratic member of Congress who supports George W. Bush's war against Iraq. To the Democrats in Congress, we give you fair warning: You are either with us, or you are fired.
</blockquote>

It's only interesting because Moore hs already pledged to support the Democrat with the best chance of defeating Bush, and that Democrat, John Kerry, voted in favour of the War in Iraq, and has said he'd do it again.

I'll leave you to your own conclusions.


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

posterboy


> Why can't you answer this new question, exactly?


what question are you referring to now?

by the way - the video team that MM used for 9/11 were freelance workers that were stationed in iraq already - 
he didnt send them there - they were already there.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ditto and why are you asking it since the poor nag has expired.
















Mr. Ed is watching.........


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*he didnt send them there - they were already there*

Interesting. I had read otherwise. Still, it could be argued that having them go into the warzone for him is still him putting them in danger.

*why are you asking it since the poor nag has expired*

Your unwillingness to answer is not equal to the topic expiring, except in that the discussion gets repetitive.


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

michael moore interview on MSNBC regarding iraq footage:


> Lauer: "There's a disturbing sequence in the film that shows U.S. soldiers, casualties, it has interviews with U.S. soldiers in battle. How did you get that footage?"
> 
> Moore: "From a variety of sources. I also made arrangements with freelancers who were already embedded"





> Still, it could be argued that having them go into the warzone for him is still him putting them in danger.


thats what these freelance workers choose to do.
he didnt just grab two kids off the street and throw them into iraq.

any outstanding questions?


.....sorry for beating that horse.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Answer what?? News teams in danger.???
Yep sometimes they do and you can be damn sure they got "danger pay". People go fight oil fires and fireman go into danger all the time, nurses go into infectious rooms all the time.
If you are continuing that line of news team/soldier sorry but it's totally off base.








They can leave, quit any time they want.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*thats what these freelance workers choose to do.
he didnt just grab two kids off the street and throw them into iraq.*

This is true, but it's not like the Army does that either. Even if he had sent them from state-side, I would have assumed they had some kind of war zone experience/training, but that really wasn't the point.

These freelancers chose to be in Iraq.
The soldiers of the US Army chose to be soldiers and were deployed to Iraq.

They are both groups in danger, yes?
Moore, by paying the former to shoot footage for him, put one of those in danger, yes?
Just because a soldier can't quit, doesn't mean he wants to quit.

I just watched most of F911 again last night. One problem I noticed, actually pointed out in another article I posted in this thread earlier, is that Moore can't seem to decide how to portray the soldiers. In one segment they are baby-killing monsters pumped up by heavy metal music, running their tanks through the streets. In another they are forlorn, homesick boys wondering what they are doing in Iraq. The two images don't really jive that well.

Does anyone have anything to add about Moore supporting/not supporting Kerry?


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

"I just watched most of F911 again last night. One problem I noticed, actually pointed out in another article I posted in this thread earlier, is that Moore can't seem to decide how to portray the soldiers. In one segment they are baby-killing monsters pumped up by heavy metal music, running their tanks through the streets. In another they are forlorn, homesick boys wondering what they are doing in Iraq. The two images don't really jive that well."

I got the impression that the image MM was trying to portray was the fact that these are generally uneducated kids who through lack of education and lack of life experience don't really appreciate or understand how and why their government has sent them to Iraq. 

It made perfect sense to me. It shows quite obviously how in a democratic society it is the rich and powerful who are free to abuse the poor and stupid.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I got the impression that the image MM was trying to portray was the fact that these are generally uneducated kids who through lack of education and lack of life experience don't really appreciate or understand how and why their government has sent them to Iraq. *

That is the impression I got also, from the second segment where the homesick kids are saying they don't know why they are still there. It's a valid image, but it doesn't jive well with the previous image of the heavy metal listening adrenaline pumped tank drivers destroying Iraqi lives.

[Edit: Here is the pertinent quote from the article, which was written by a soldier who had been to the war and back.]
<blockquote>http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/NewsArticle.cfm?ID=1792

I also didn't appreciate the way U.S. servicemen were depicted in the film. The first time Moore shows servicemen on camera, they are bragging about the heavy metal they listen to in their tanks while they kill Iraqis. War provides "the ultimate rush," one young soldier claims. The second time Moore shows servicemen on camera, however, they are lamenting the way the war is being fought and sound as disillusioned as they do anxious to go home. As Jethro Tull plays on the tank's speaker system, one soldier rhetorically asks the camera, "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

The problem is, these two vignettes don't make sense when paired together. Are American soldiers merciless killing machines pumped up on the "XXX" soundtrack as they mow down Iraqi soldiers and civilians? Or are they scared kids from the heartland who resent U.S. policymakers and want nothing more than to come home alive?

Moore stumbles into a revelation here, albeit clumsily and unwittingly: Soldiers aren't so easily stereotyped. The reality is, they are complex, just like you and me, with both strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>

[ August 11, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*The problem is, these two vignettes don't make sense when paired together. Are American soldiers merciless killing machines pumped up on the "XXX" soundtrack as they mow down Iraqi soldiers and civilians? Or are they scared kids from the heartland who resent U.S. policymakers and want nothing more than to come home alive?*

That's not a dichotomy in Moore's filmmaking - that's the result of military training and the reality of participating in the insane chaos we call war.

These are young men (for the most part) with many normal values co-existing and competing with military conditioning that is designed to motivate them to de-humanize, kill and destroy. Add to that some groovy specialised equipment for making things go BOOM, horsepower to spare, a fair dose of testosterone and adrenaline... mix with periods of intense boredom and tedium, pile on a large scoop of mortal fear and you're bound to encounter some inconsistent or eratic behaviour and emotions.

[ August 11, 2004, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The cost to these kids they can't imagine and they are not told about it.

This is a very good over view

http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm

Soldiers trained to kill returning ot civilian life sometimes by reflex kill others - part of their survival training.

Britain had cases where a bar killing by an ex soldier were deemed to be "accidental" - he was trained to kill effortlessly and by reflex.

These reservists are not professional soldiers and their tour of duty is far over the "contracted time".
They are regular citizens with jobs and professions to try and go back to.

Part of the link above


> This psychological cost of war is most readily observable and measurable at the individual level. At the national level, a country at war can anticipate a small -- but statistically significant -- increase in the domestic murder rate, probably due to the glorification of violence and the resultant reduction in the level of "repression" of natural aggressive instincts which Freud held to be essential to the existence of civilization. At the group level, even the most elite unit is usually psychologically destroyed when between 50 and 60% casualties have been inflicted, and the integration of the individual into the group is so strong that this destruction often leads to depression and suicide. However, the nation (if not eliminated by the war) is generally resilient, and the group (if not destroyed) is inevitably disbanded. * But the individual who survives combat may well end up paying a profound psychological cost for a lifetime. The cumulative impact of these effects on hundreds of thousands of veterans is pervasive, with significant potential to have a profound effect on society at large.*


This is intensively compounded by the nature of war in Iraq where the "enemy" is not clearly defined in way of an opposing force and every area could contain concealed threats.

It's also compounded by questions regarding the validity of the engagement or the purpose of the mission.
Having a substantial portion of your home nation and a very large portion of the rest of the world against your mission is also a destructive element.

Moore's question "would you send your child to ....." would have been answered instantly and proudly YES by vast majority of Americans and especially politicians during WW II. Not now.

Even in Afghanistan the goals and justification were clear, the time lines were incredible.
They had a clear set of goals and they achieved them in remarkable time to the applause of the rest of the world generally.

The US did NOT follow through in nation building but that's another story and they aren't good at it but they needed to support further effort Canada was very right and justified in continuing effort in Afghanistan and NOT being drawn into the Iraqi conflict.

Here's an overview of the very successful ( from a military stand point) anit-Taliban effort.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom.htm

Canadian soldiers can come home ( and are right now) heads up and justifiably proud of their contribution.

Iraq??????............  
Half the population of 24 million is under 25 - a total powder keg

Sow the wind........


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm in accordance that such an ill-defined war is an extra strain on soldiers longterm mental health. However, any war will have this effect to varying degrees. The removal of Saddam was a valid action but the means of doing it and how it was pursued (with little valid justification except for Saddam's human rights violations) was inappropriate and unclear.

As for the psychological snippt you quoted Macdoc, I agree with the general idea but I'm made somewhat skeptical by the name dropping of Freud. Old Sigmund had a few interesting and valid ideas but much of what he did is now considered fringe psychology and educated conjecture better suited to literary theory than to the scientific field of psychology. (But perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No argument from me - I think Freud pulled a fast one on the world too and the article was a bit geared to academia - fill out the pages.
That said the gist is there and a quick search will find thousands more articles in horrifying detail.
Just look up Gen Romeo Dallard  

Returning Legions were kept far from Rome for good reason and not all poltiical.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Love Moore or hate him can we agree that he distorts his facts? The annoying thing is that he has many valid points and if someone else were to be as passionate as he they could present his strong documentary elements combined with a more balanced or fair-handed analysis. The result would be more powerful and would speak to more people. Moore puts spin on his work to sell it and ruffle Republican feathers. Some of his opponents do the same.

My annoyance stems from that his heart is in the right place but he abuses his self-proclaimed role as crusader for the people. Said role should require a fairer treatment of the facts. But I guess that's Moore for you and we learn to take him with a grain of salt.

A problem I find with this post is people are blending Moore's own views in with the views he's (re-)presenting. There is a subtle difference between Moore's politics and issues he represents. (This could be another discussion all together.)

What I mean is that just because certain people disapprove of Moore's approach to his subject doesn't mean that they (totally) disagree with some of his standpoints. If we fall victim to this mode of thinking then we are just like people I knew who lumped anyone who disagreed with Bush and his invasion of Iraq with someone who supports Saddam. Saddam was a monster but I will never approve of how Bush approached his war in Iraq or many of Bush's policies. Life and politics are not black and white, one or the other, Democrat or Republican. It is a human failing that we like to simplify matters to simple either/or binary pairs.

And as per usual my comment will probably go mostly unanswered. Oh well.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*That's not a dichotomy in Moore's filmmaking - that's the result of military training and the reality of participating in the insane chaos we call war.*

This is true; the problem is that Moore presents both without explication. But then, he's not talking about the soldiers, he's just using conflicting, unexplained images of them to further his "Bush is Bad" thesis.

*Love Moore or hate him can we agree that he distorts his facts?*

There is a new book out called "All the President's Spin", which is all about how Bush and Co. get away with their almost lies. I haven't read it yet, but it promises to be very interesting (and I've read it's pretty much non-ideological, also).

It has relevance here because Bush uses many of the same techniques that Moore does.

For example Bush might say "When Osama bin Laden attacked us on Sept. 11th, we know that Saddam celebrated", the masses will basically only hear "Osama, Sept. 11th, Saddam" and form a connection all on it's own.

Similarly, Moore says "The Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor" and people make the connection despite the fact that Bush had nothing to do with the Afghani's visit.

It's very interesting how one can state two unrelated facts and people will assume they are connected. Moore, indeed, is a master at this. 

*A problem I find with this post is people are blending Moore's own views in with the views he's (re-)presenting. There is a subtle difference between Moore's politics and issues he represents.*

Is there? One thing I might add is that it's hard to tell what Moore stands _for_ sometimes. Sometimes, it seems, he is just against things.

*It is a human failing that we like to simplify matters to simple either/or binary pairs.*

Truer words have not yet been spoken in this thread.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

[2x Post]

[ August 13, 2004, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Moore's lawyer has apparently responded to the Bloomington Pantagraph's complaints over how he edited a letter to the editor to make it look like a news story/headline.

<blockquote>http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/081204/new_20040812033.shtml

BLOOMINGTON -- The Pantagraph has received its first response from filmmaker Michael Moore about his "makeover" of a Pantagraph page in the hit movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Moore apparently is not going to say he's sorry or pay the newspaper's light-hearted, if not symbolic, request for $1 in compensatory damages.

But his company's lawyer was willing to spend 37 cents -- to send a letter suggesting Moore did little wrong.

New York-based lawyer Devereux Chatillon of the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal sent the letter to J. Casey Costigan, the Bloomington attorney representing the newspaper.

Citing several precedents, Chatillon suggested Moore was within his legal right to use a Pantagraph headline in the movie and that no "copyright infringement" occurred.

Further, the letter claims Moore did nothing "misleading" when the headline ("Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election") that originally appeared above a Dec. 5, 2001, letter to the editor was altered in both the font and size of the type for the movie and made to look like a news story from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of The Pantagraph.

[...]

Although offering no apology, the letter from Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date of The Pantagraph page flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph.)"

[...]

Repeated attempts over the past three weeks to reach Moore by telephone and e-mail have been unsuccessful.</blockquote>
[edit: added below]

Here's something interesting. Read this paragraph again:
<blockquote>Although offering no apology, the letter from Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date of The Pantagraph page flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph.)"</blockquote>
Then check out this quote from Moore himself:
<blockquote>
TAPPER: You declare in the film that Hussein's regime had never killed an American …

MOORE: That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly.

TAPPER: What is the quote exactly?

MOORE: "Murdered." The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I'd like you to point out one.</blockquote>

So, in essence, Moore does not like being inaccurately quoted by the media, but has no problem with _completely_ changing the face of a news paper (turning a letter to the editor from one day into a headline news story from another day) when it serves his purposes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> how Bush and Co. get away with their *almost lies.*


that's a joke, right?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

No, actually not. As strange as it may seem, Bush (and Moore, too) rarely actually outright lie. What they do do is string together some poor facts and let people come to their own erroneous conclusions.

It's not lying, but it is deceitful, which is just as bad.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Bush (and Moore, too) rarely actually outright lie.


i'm still waiting for WMD #1 to be found

does that mean that as long as they are looking bush cannot be accused of lying about WMD?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow I was listening to Mojo talk radio tonight by accident and came across their conspiracy show.  
Makes Moore look down right tame.

Wanna a look - google around this stuff



> U.S. CONCENTRATION CAMPS
> FEMA AND THE REX 84 PROGRAM
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread5240/pg1



> Does John Ashcroft's 'Camp Plan' Actually Exist?
> 
> by John Hawkins
> 
> ...


Lots of links here

http://rightwingnews.com/john/camp.php

Read on............as I said Moore looks tame.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macspectrum, I did say rarely, not never.

There is at least one story going around that they have, indeed, found WMDs[1].

They have found and evacuated materials that could have been used to make WMDs, too, but I can no longer find that article.

But I would point out that saying something based on poor information taken in good faith is not a lie. It's the not admitting they may have been wrong that bothers me.

[1]: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm (note: this story has changed since the first time I read it. Still, if it pans out... )


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Japan was vilified for making a pre-emptive strike to protect national interests and vital resources. Japan as a modern nation was totally dependent on the resources of it's acquisitions as the US is today ( oil ). The US threatened to interdict those resources and would use the Pacific fleet to do so. WMDs of the day.
Japan attacked to disable that fleet and the original plan saw them suing for peace quickly with the threat removed.
They got over confident.

The heart of the disgust at the US/British actions is that THEY did the same thing AND without the UN support.

Whatever cloud of justification ( all wars are "justified" by the aggressor) is thrown up does not change that huge shift in foreign policy by a president with a zero mandate.

Split hairs all you want but there was no outcry about Afghanistan and a huge one about Iraq. Moore is just one voice amongst billions.

The demographics of Iraq and the politics of the Middle East admit to no clear solution or path. Likely the only reason it's not a quagmire ala Vietnam is there is no depth of soldiers to send and a draft at this point.............I don't think so.

Kerry said it...... "a plan to win the peace" is critical.
The US can win any war it wants right now except the one to win the peace.  

I see no one has answered Bin Ladens letter.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Speaking of half-truths and hollow promises, what happened to the US's plan to leave Iraq in June? Obviously this meant just reducing their total number of troops and level of control. However, did either of these change in any significant way in the past three months?

PB I agree with your comments. You stated more accurately what I'd intended to say about Moore and his "stances" on subjects.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

PB, good comparison between Bush and Moore! Everyone should get a copy of "All the President's Spin" as it brings to light how Bush is conning the American public. His Spin Room makes Clinton's War Room look like a garden party.


----------

