PeterDavid.net

Well said Peter. Pretty much my reaction. I knew a lot already, but there was still so much I didn't know. And as you say, the pure facts are the most damning. I always felt that was one of Moore's strong points: he lets the people condemn themselves. He lets Bush' own words show him upt for what he is.

I mean, we have to go after Saddam because of his ties to Bin Laden (Which aren't there). We conquer the entire country of Iraq (killing more civilians than died at 9/11)all over that reason. Yet then Bush himself says he's not really 'spending much time on Bin Laden anymore". Not important. The guy WE KNOW did it. The REASON (according to him) that we're there!

Infuriating.... and yes the plight of the voters in Florida was heart wrenching. Not a single senator.

As for Moore as a documentary maker, he's always pretty upfront that his work shows his opinion. A few movie critics pointed that out too; he should be seen as an opinion columnist. As long as what he shows is the truth, I have no problem with that.

Especially considering that there's a legion of right-wing pundits out there who hurl propaganda at us on a daily basis!

(I love how he said to that interviewer that her network's news was propaganda too, and that they should've done their damn work and ask Bush the hard questions back then!)

Doesn't open over here for another couple of days. Still planning to see it though.

BTW - everyone should look at BushGame.com too. Despite the gratiuitous swearing, lots of good points made there.

Condoleeza Rice quote from Fahrenheit 9-11:
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

Condoleeza Rice quote with the rest of the words put back in:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Moore is a terrific editorial filmmaker-he has practically created a new genre, no small feat. But if you think you are getting THE TRUTH from his films...gulp. It would be like skipping the front page and relying just on Boondocks and Molly Ivans

But I was glad to see the sympathetic treatment given to Lila Lipscomb, a woman who lost her son in Iraq. It shows that Moore has, perhaps, moderated his stance of April 4th when he wrote "I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."

I dunno...if anyone was really blown away by the "revelations" in the film they must not be spending as much time reading the news as I do.

"It would be like skipping the front page and relying just on Boondocks "What do you mean ?Thats how i get all my news:)
Seriously ,i have not seen the movie yet but plan to.I have my own opinions and know most of the facts already (or at least think i do) but I want to see what he has to say.Dont expect revelations but it looks to be a good way to spend my movie money...I refuse to spend dough on
WHITE CHICKS:(
By the way ,anyone else find it interesting everytime we "find"WMDS they are either old and /or they are useless????

By the way has Huey Freeman already given the most embarrassing Black person awards ??(boondocks reference)I think the Wayans have won in a landslide:)

I actually saw White Chicks at the drive in (it was paired with Spiderman 2, so whoever it was who decides what movies to pair up must have been on crack that day.) I can honestly say I have seen worse movies in my life...but not many.

I'm porbalby in the miority on this one, being a liberal, but I find this film to be no interest to me at all. It's propaganda, and I consider porpaganda to be a tool unworthy of the honest. I would rather see (if you pardon teh expression) a fair and balanced expose, a las 60 Minutes, than a diatribe.

I also cannot stand Moore. My wife compared him to Rush Limbaugh, and I think she's right. His kind of "discourse" does nothing to advance the cause he claims to represent.

And I just don't think this will change anyone's mind. Who's going to see it? Not the diehard Republicans, and not the apathetic.

How cool it must have been to see Spiderman 2 at a Drive-In!

How unbelievably creepy it must have been to see the "white" Wayans "chicks" the size of Godzilla.

"How cool it must have been to see Spiderman 2 at a Drive-In!"

Yeah, but I'd rather see it on IMAX-- they start the films before it's totally dark and I was bitten by dozens of mosquitoes...and with no resulting superpowers, I might add.

Still, the drive-in experience is fun, especially when you have 13 members of the family there for the ride. I still have some trouble adjusting to seeing "real" movies at the drive in though--except for Kill Bill, I'd rather they were reserved for cheesy chop sockey flicks, the occasional Andy Milligan atrocity, and some Euro trash zombie effort. But that's just me.

"I actually saw White Chicks at the drive in (it was paired with Spiderman 2, so whoever it was who decides what movies to pair up must have been on crack that day.) I can honestly say I have seen worse movies in my life...but not many."

This wasn't in Connecticut, was it? Phil the Showkiller on Dan Patrick's ESPN Radio show said he went to a drive-in this weekend and saw S-M2 and White Chicks there.

Ok, put me in the "Apathetic" category (yeah, like that's a suprise).

Until now I have avoided commenting on the subject of Fahrenheit 9/11 in part because I won't be watching it until I can do so for free and in part because the whole thing seems pointless. That's not to say that I don't respect the opinions of PAD and my fellow posters on this blog. In fact, the discussions here tend to be far more thought out and seem to have some genuine value.

I say it's pointless because each of us has pretty much made up their minds. As far as my spending money to see it, well, I just don't like being preached at.

My opinion of Mr. Moore is also fairly low. Not because of where he stands on certain subjects, though. I'm certain that he and I would agree on as many things as we disagree on. My issue with Mr. Moore is that he tends to use part of a story or quote to make his point. Then he embelishes it. That kind of practice just doesn't fly with me. Further, knowing that Mr. Moore operates in such a manner requires me to question his motives.
Of course, that's just me. I am not and would not suggest that someone not see Mr. Moores film just because I don't trust him.

Afterthought:
Why do we have the nerve to act suprised anytime a political figure is caught in something shady?

Salutations,

Mitch

Actually, according to Moore, some Republicans have seen the film and find they cannot in good conscience vote for Bush again. I thought the movie was very powerful. There were a couple of places that tears streamed down my face. My Dad said he teared up in several places as well. The film is not just propaganda, although he admits he did not attempt to be fair. There are parts of the film that inform. Go and listen to the soldiers, so gung-ho at the start and then listen to what they say now. I am pretty well informed, but there were things in the movie that I did not know, mostly because the press seems to have given up on presenting all the facts to the American people. I recommend this to all. Go see it and make up your mind about the points he's making. I think this is the most important film of the year.

By the way, in this film he checked and rechecked facts. While his opinions are there, he did not play fast and loose this time to make his point. He didn't need to.

Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it's just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.

If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you're wrong.

PAD

Here is my post at mymac.com on this:

Well, spent twenty minutes in line waiting to buy tickets to the 7:25 Friday night showing of Fahrenheit 9/11, the new Michael Moore film that opened today.

I make no bones about my political bend. I will also be the first to tell you I am a huge Moore fan. I own Bowling, Roger and Me, and The Awful Truth (the series) on DVD, and have watched them all numerous times. That said, I knew Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a different Michael Moore film, unlike his other outings. I knew from early on that this was not a “Film Moore going in this door to sandbag some poor PR person”, and that this was a “message” film. I fully intended to judge this film on the films merits, not based on my political views, nor my enjoyment of Moore’s work in general.

All I can say is, WOW. I almost feel bad for Bush Co. This film is a brutal attack on this sitting President. Unfortunately for Bush, it is also an honest one.

Moore attempts to form a link between the Bin Ladden family and the Bush family, and while interesting, and possibly true, I think the connection is tenuous at best. It does go a long way, however, to laying the groundwork for the real message of this film: the inherent wrongness of our invasion of Iraq.

Fahrenheit 9/11 will do one of two things: make you hate Michael Moore for lying about your President, or make you pissed off and vow to vote him out of office. What I don’t think it will do is change the views of Bush supporters, but it may go a long way for those sitting on the fence. Personally, if I were a member of the Democratic Party, I would have had people outside this film handing out flyers. (I am not a member of any party.)

If you though Passion of the Christ was a powerful film, wait to you see this one. This is about the here and now, not about two thousand year old history. This is about American kids (most solders) dying in Iraq every day, and shows you (according to the film maker) why they are dying.

I won’t tell you that this film is 100% accurate in everything it shows of implies. I will leave you to judge that for yourself. I would ask you to go and watch the film; not to make more money for Michael Moore or the Weinstein brothers, but because this is an important film that will force you to think. Even if you are a Bush supporter, you should watch this film, not because I think you will be swayed on way or the other, but so you can hold an intelligent, more informed opinion on current world events.

This is not a “fun” movie to sit through. At times you will laugh. You will feel uncomfortable. You will get angry. And, unless you are completely devoid of basic human emotion, you will want to cry, or at least become chocked up. But one thing you will not be is bored.

Karen:
"By the way, in this film he checked and rechecked facts. While his opinions are there, he did not play fast and loose this time to make his point. He didn't need to."

Hi Karen.
The link below will take you to a site where a differing perspective is offered with source links to back up his position. I'm not attempting to start a fact war. It's just that you strike me as someone who will examine different points of view to solidify your position.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

PAD:
"Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it's just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.

If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you're wrong."

Hi PAD,
I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that some of that was directed at me. Please allow me to provide some clarification on my position.

First, I was unclear as to my viewing intention. I have every intention to see this film. I will not, however, go out of my way to do so. I'll be waiting for cable. As I stated earlier, that is not a political decision on my part.

Second, I am familiar with Mr. Moores prior works, in particular "Bowling for Columbine." His prior works provide a documented modus operandi: The use of partial facts to elicit a specific response. My comments are not about the content of "Fahrenheit 9/11" but rather they are a commentary on Mr. Moore's methodology, which I find to be disagreeable.

Again, I respect and value the opinions of Those Who Post Here. If we disagree on some subjects that does not lessen my respect for anyone. It just strengthens my belief that differing views can keep us honest with ourselves.

Footnote:
Please bear in mind that I have no interest in defending the action of President Bush. I think the man is an easily led automaton at best.

Salutations,

Mitch

Dammit!!

PAD, I forgot to ask about the word "fucumentary."

In the 'fuc-' part is that a soft U sound and a hard K sound you were evoking? This is just one of those things like irony that do not always transmit well through text.

Thanks,

Mitch

I work in a theatre up here in Ontario. I actually work at the only theatre in the city that doesn't have it playing. People are always coming up to me in box office and asking why we don't have it playing. I don't know the figures, but it has been doing very well up here. I have really been looking forward to seeing it.

To Bill and insideman and anybody else who doesn't know:

IT'S SPIDER-MAN. Normally, it's Spider-Man, but I needed to shout to get your attention.

The character has been around for over 40 years. Also, this is a comic book writers' site. That combination should make all of us want to spell the character name correctly.

To Bill and insideman and anybody else who doesn't know:

IT'S SPIDER-MAN. Normally, it's Spider-Man, but I needed to shout to get your attention.

The character has been around for over 40 years. Also, this is a comic book writers' site. That combination should make all of us want to spell the character name correctly.

Karen says:
"By the way, in this film he checked and rechecked facts. While his opinions are there, he did not play fast and loose this time to make his point. He didn't need to."

According to whom? Moore?

I don't doubt that there are many facts in the film, the blind squirrel finding the occasional nut and all, but if one becomes a dittohead for Moore you will be in the same position as those who do it for Limbaugh. Check the facts for yourself. If you still think that we went to war in Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline...well, oooookay. At least it will be an informed bone headed opinion.

But, again, I admire the skill with which Moore constructs his arguments--irrelevant of whether there is always truth to them. This is NOT, as some have claimed, akin to Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will (I don't see how anyone who has seen both films could make the connection--no offence to Moore but he hasn't one percent the cinematic genius of Ms. Riefenstahl who, one hopes might again be given a camera now that she is currently residing in Hell). I think a better comparison would be Viet Harlan's Jude Suss or maybe the documentary that Woody Allen shoots in Crimes and Misdemeanors.

CNN Headline News reports that Fahrenheit 9/11 has made another $21 million. That's $45 million or more in ten days. Pretty impressive for a documentary.

"To Bill and insideman and anybody else who doesn't know:

IT'S SPIDER-MAN. Normally, it's Spider-Man, but I needed to shout to get your attention.

The character has been around for over 40 years. Also, this is a comic book writers' site. That combination should make all of us want to spell the character name correctly."

Wow, I haven't felt this bad since that time Batman beat the snot out of me, yelling "Damn it, it's not "The Batman", its just BATMAN!!!"

I loved the film.

Here's what is most important about it even if you disagree with Moore: The film raises questions which none of the other media has raised.

And if the media were doing its job it would A) have raised the questions in the first place and B) tell us where Moore gets it wrong, where he gets it right.

If Moore is wrong, then the media should do the job that they are supposed to do: prove it.

What? The media's job is to sell us toilet paper and hamburgers? Oh. Okay. In that case they are doing their job very well.

And Moore is doing the job they USED to do.

My problem with allowing films like this to affect one’s political opinions is that the material presented therein is neither entirely true nor entirely propagandistic. It’s both mixed together, and it’s sometimes tough to tell which is which. In my opinion, there is plenty of legitimately damning material that Moore can focus on regarding the Bush administration, material that has been overlooked by the mainstream media, but in my opinion, he is not a documentarian. Fahrenheit 9/11, to the best of my knowledge, appears to take less factual liberties than Bowling for Columbine, but Moore still does not adhere to a strict reporting of facts. Arco suggested above that he is the cinematic equivalent of an opinion columnist, but even columnists cannot make their points with lies. I think it’s a slightly better analogy to say that he’s a satirist.

Don’t’ get me wrong. He was right to question Bush’s absentee record while in the National Guard, and was unfairly called “reckless” without any elaboration or clarification on the truth of those charges (which appear to me to be legitimate), or why he was otherwise being “reckless.” He is right to question the connections between the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the bin Laden family, the Saudi Royal Family, and the Bushes. He is right to ask if the administration ignored warnings of 9/11. He is right to wonder if Bush was right in hesitating for seven minutes after being told of the second plane hitting the WTC. He is right question why the bin Ladens and the Saudi royals were flown out the country two days after 9/11, a point that the media did not focus on. He is right question the connection between Iraq and 9/11, and whether the administration was determined to find justification for invading Iraq long before 9/11. He is right to show that some military servicemen are callous with regard to the burning of Baghdad, even going so far as to explain the choice of music to play in their tanks (“Burn, motherfucker, burn..”), as if Baghdad is only the Hussein regime, and not thousands of civilians as well. He is right to question the lack of competent focus in national security, as when he points to the targeting of Peace Fresno and a mother’s breast milk, but the lack of concern over passengers carrying lighters and matches on planes, or security on the West coast. He is right to explore whether the campaign on Afghanistan was incompetently waged (perhaps deliberately) in a way that allowed bin Laden and the Taliban to escape.

BUT…

Moore doesn’t focus on these issues in an entirely serious way. He embellishes, and exaggerates, and as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, never misses an opportunity for a sneer or a cheap jab. Is it really relevant to show the undignified moments of Bush and other administration officials having their hair and makeup prepped for the camera? Didn’t members of the Clinton administration have to undergo such moments? Is it really true that Saddam Hussein never threatened Americans, as Moore explicitly alleges in the film? And what exactly was the point of trying to get Congressmen to sign up their sons to enlist in the military. Last time I checked, none of the parents of those currently stationed Iraq signed their children up, for the simple fact that outside of a draft, they freely chose to sign themselves up. Presumably, if the children of Congressmen want to do so, they are free to do so. Yes, the military is filled with poor people, who join up because the military offers attractive incentives to kids whose parents can’t put them through college. But that’s not a secret. The scene is not relevant to the issues, except as a cute bit of satire. Is it propaganda, Peter? Depends on your biases. Bill O’Reilly might call it propaganda (despite not having seen the entire film—he reportedly left in the middle of it), but while Moore isn’t as vitriolic or as hypocritical as Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity, at best, his movie is not a documentary. It’s partially a documentary mixed with satire. There’s genuine material in the film fit for outrage, but one has to sift through it to separate Moore’s embellished chaff from the relevant wheat.

It is a powerful film, and I’ve seen it twice. But it’s greatest strength may be to incite discussion over the issues therein, rather than serve as an entirely accurate documentation of them.

By the way, Vincent Bugliosi’s The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President just arrived in the mail a couple of days ago. You can buy a copy for as low as $1.70 at Amazon.com at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/156025355X//103-9003728-5145424?condition=all. Bugliosi, for those who don’t know, is the eminent former LA prosecutor who put away Charles Manson, won 105 out of his 106 felony jury trials, never lost a murder trial, and whose various true-crime books, such as Helter Skelter, his book about the Manson case, and Outrage: The Five Reasons O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder, have made him the only author to have more than one true crime hit #1 on the New York Times hardcover bestseller list, and the only author to win the Edgar Allen Poe award for best true-crime fiction more than once (he was nominated at least three times).

PAD wrote:
"the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush's face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten..."

Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn't make decisions. He does what he's told to do. There was absolutely nothing he could have done at the time to prevent any further attacks from happening. They already were underway.

The teams of people around Bush were in constant communication with the White House, the NSA (and any other alphabet named branch of the government) and their job is to take care of the president. His job at that time is to let them do theirs, not to micromanage their actions. And if there was a decision that had to be made in that instant, that's why there's a Vice-President.

Bush was in a safe and secure location. The airspace within hundreds of miles near that school was being closely monitored because he was in the area. The roads to and from the school were all under constant supervision by local, state and federal officers. That same airspace and roads would have to be cleared for the president to leave. The Secret Service knows their job, and they do it well, but it takes time to clear the airspace and roads. Only after it was determined that it was safe to have someplace different to go to, would it make sense to leave. Instead of being upset over Bush sitting there for 7 minutes, be impressed that the law enforcement officials could make it secure enough for the president to leave in only 7 minutes (as in roads to the airport cleared and the airspace near the airport empty).

I find it amazing that so many people on the "left" seem to see something wrong with the way he acted in the classroom. If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die. Or if he would have jumped up and acted like Harrison Ford style president, there would have been the complaints that he's a Loose Cannon Cowboy, or something like that. No matter what he does, there are people that will find something wrong. I would be interested if Michael Moore even asked the Secret Service what was going on at the time, or is he just putting his own slant on the video without knowing (or worse, not caring about) the entire background story?

Mitch,
I read much of the link and I think a lot of what he says are opinion, too. I read Greg Palast's book about the 2000 election and there were a LOT more people disenfranchised than 1100. A high percentage of them were African American. People who had similar names, not just the same name as a felon were kicked off the rolls. The company that did the data processing has admitted to not doing the research necessary to take the proper people off the rolls. Michael Moore has said that the truth is in his documentary, but also his opinions. When he speaks or asks questions he has said it is definitely slanted. But most of this film is letting the people in it speak for themselves. While he is portraying his point of view in many instances, I think the site you sent me to has info that is equally slanted. I went to the movie knowing Moore had a point of view. So do all the posters. This is not in question. Most of the facts he brought out, I'd already seen in other sources, probably more reliable than a movie producer. There were some things I didn't know and others that I didn't know the extent of. It was his opinion that FOX was a leader in calling the election, but that the news organizations swung back and forth is a matter of record. The site looked like is was honestly trying to find the errors and was not rabidly going against Moore, I will give it that.

Bill,
I don't think we went to Afghanistan to build a pipeline. I do think this administration jumped on the opportunity. I don't know of many liberals who were against going there because the one who orchestrated 9/11 was there and being protected and supported by that government. Personally, I will never be a dittohead for anyone. I like the truth too much and no one doesn't have an agenda.

Jeff,
He SHOULD have said,"Excuse me children, I'm afraid something has come up that as President I need to deal with" He then should have gotten the info, not left it to his underlings. This was a time for a leader to make decisions, not those under him. He wasted 7 minutes in which he could have been briefed so he could make informed decisions. He should have ordered the various agencies to communicate and ordered the Air Force to get some planes up to investigate any other airliner going off course. Instead he sat. This is a leader?

Karen says:
"Bill,
I don't think we went to Afghanistan to build a pipeline. I do think this administration jumped on the opportunity. I don't know of many liberals who were against going there because the one who orchestrated 9/11 was there and being protected and supported by that government."

Karen, meet Michael Moore:

""Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....

But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed civilians."

or

" No one wants to talk about politics right now -- except our installed leaders in Washington. Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good.

I feel I have a responsibility as one of those Americans who doesn't feel good right now to speak out and say what needs to be said: That we, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants. I know it's a hard thing to hear right now, but if I and others don't say it, I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack."

(Both quotes from Moore in the week after 9/11)

In all fairness, Moore seems to have changed his mind--even to the point of critisizing Bush for NOT going into Afghanistan sooner! (or did I imagine the part where we are told that Bush gave Bin Laden a 2 month head start).

Karen,
You seem to think that no one in the governmental agencies did anything during those 7 minutes? "Gee, we just had 2 airliners crash into the WTC towers. Let's all just sit here with our thumbs stuck up our @ss until the President gets finished reading to the kiddies before we even consider doing anything. Pass those Krispy Kremes, willya?"

Air Force planes were scrambled, but it was already too late. As much as folks are complaining now about Bush that morning, I can only imagine what it would have been like if he actually did manage to give the order to shoot down an unarmed civilian airliner over US airspace.

There was nothing Bush could have done until he got to the communications center in Air Force One. He couldn't travel to AF1 until the roads were clear. That's not his decision, but the decision that's in the books for the Secret Service. He let them do their job to get him where he needed to be safely, not trampling over them and giving them conflicting orders. Yes, that's a leader.

Jeff, there was something very important that Bush could've done during those seven minutes.

Namely, get briefed on what's going on. Which can be done via a secured communication channel that I assume is within 20 feet or so of him at all times (While it's not an AF1 level "communications center" I find it hard to believe there's no secure way of communicating with POTUS whenever he leaves the White House or AF1). Say the briefing doesn't take seven minutes. Then he can spend the remainder thinking about what to do.

To quote Harry Truman, although I'm not at all sure it applies to Dubya, The Buck Stops Here. As soon as it's realized the country is under attack, that's the President's priority one, even if it's just trying to figure out what to do. Reading a book to a bunch of kids is somewhere down around priority 3,000.

Well, PAD, I kinda agree with your point of view, except:

"the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush's face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten"

That wasn't the look of a total moron. That was the same look alot of people had on 9/11 when they started to realize just what the hell was happening. I know I had that look on my face for a few moments since I wasn't near a tv when I first heard what was happening, and I live in NYC.

I think that was a little low of Moore, but the rest of the film I agreed with.

And more himself admitted that calling this a documentary would be the wrong word since it's clearly an Op-Ed piece... but a well thought out one.

.If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you're wrong.

I haven't seen it, and I don't plan to. So, I can't/won't do any point-by-point "rebuttal" of Moore.

However, personal experience is not the be-all, end-all. I don't need to have taken drugs to comment that I think they are an unhealthy, dangerous waste of time. There's a wealth of data about it. The same is true of Michael Moore - there's plenty of information about how he bends, stretches and manipulates facts to draw inaccurate conclusions. Even the mainstream press is having problems with the accuracy of Moore's conclusions in this film.

I don't have to see it to know that it has about as much worth as The Clinton Chronicles or other right-wing "documentaries" during the Clinton-Gore administration. I don't have to see things like this to know they aren't worth my time.

I haven't seen the movie yet, as it hasn't reached Holland yet. Nor am I likely to go to the cinema for it - some people wait for the tade, I usually wait for the DVD... and it doesn't look like Mike needs heavy support in the cinemas on this one anymore. I'm a huge fan of Moore's work and style - and anyone who hasn't the basic tools necessary to separate fact from opinion deserves any brainwashing they get. I have no idea what a 'fucumentary' is, but Moore's style is more that of the columnist, the pamphleteer.
Ah, anyway. I'm on his mailing list, so this is what he has to say, which will more than answer most of the comments raised here:

July 4th, 2004

Friends,

Where do I begin? This past week has knocked me for a loop. "Fahrenheit 9/11," the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever. My head is spinning. Didn't we just lose our distributor 8 weeks ago? Did Karl Rove really fail to stop this? Is Bush packing?

Each day this week I was given a new piece of information from the press that covers Hollywood, and I barely had time to recover from the last tidbit before the next one smacked me upside the head:

** More people saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" in one weekend than all the people who saw "Bowling for Columbine" in 9 months.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke "Rocky III’s" record for the biggest box office opening weekend ever for any film that opened in less than a thousand theaters.

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" beat the opening weekend of "Return of the Jedi."

** "Fahrenheit 9/11" instantly went to #2 on the all-time list for largest per-theater average ever for a film that opened in wide-release.

How can I ever thank all of you who went to see it? These records are mind-blowing. They have sent shock waves through Hollywood – and, more importantly, through the White House.

But it didn't just stop there. The response to the movie then went into the Twilight Zone. Surfing through the dial I landed on the Fox broadcasting network which was airing the NASCAR race live last Sunday to an audience of millions of Americans -- and suddenly the announcers were talking about how NASCAR champ Dale Earnhardt, Jr. took his crew to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” the night before. FOX sportscaster Chris Myers delivered Earnhardt’s review straight out of his mouth and into the heartland of America: “He said hey, it'll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It's a good thing as an American to go see.” Whoa! NASCAR fans – you can’t go deeper into George Bush territory than that! White House moving vans – START YOUR ENGINES!

Then there was Roger Friedman from the Fox News Channel giving our film an absolutely glowing review, calling it “a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.” Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice surmised that Bush is already considered a goner so Rupert Murdoch might be starting to curry favor with the new administration. I don't know about that, but I’ve never heard a decent word toward me from Fox. So, after I was revived, I wondered if a love note to me from Sean Hannity was next.

How about Letterman’s Top Ten List: “Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

But it was the reactions and reports we received from theaters around the country that really sent me over the edge. One theatre manager after another phoned in to say that the movie was getting standing ovations as the credits rolled – in places like Greensboro, NC and Oklahoma City -- and that they were having a hard time clearing the theater afterwards because people were either too stunned or they wanted to sit and talk to their neighbors about what they had just seen. In Trumbull, CT, one woman got up on her seat after the movie and shouted "Let's go have a meeting!" A man in San Francisco took his shoe off and threw it at the screen when Bush appeared at the end. Ladies’ church groups in Tulsa were going to see it, and weeping afterwards.

It was this last group that gave lie to all the yakking pundits who, before the movie opened, declared that only the hard-core "choir" would go to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." They couldn't have been more wrong. Theaters in the Deep South and the Midwest set house records for any film they’d ever shown. Yes, it even sold out in Peoria. And Lubbock, Texas. And Anchorage, Alaska!

Newspaper after newspaper wrote stories in tones of breathless disbelief about people who called themselves “Independents” and “Republicans” walking out of the movie theater shaken and in tears, proclaiming that they could not, in good conscience, vote for George W. Bush. The New York Times wrote of a conservative Republican woman in her 20s in Pensacola, Florida who cried through the film, and told the reporter: “It really makes me question what I feel about the president... it makes me question his motives…”

Newsday reported on a self-described “ardent Bush/Cheney supporter” who went to see the film on Long Island, and his quiet reaction afterwards. He said, "It's really given me pause to think about what's really going on. There was just too much - too much to discount." The man then bought three more tickets for another showing of the film.

The Los Angeles Times found a mother who had “supported [Bush] fiercely” at a theater in Des Peres, Missouri: “Emerging from Michael Moore's ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ her eyes wet, Leslie Hanser said she at last understood…. ‘My emotions are just....’ She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. ‘I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before.’"

All of this had to be the absolute worst news for the White House to wake up to on Monday morning. I guess they were in such a stupor, they "gave" Iraq back to, um, Iraq two days early!

News editors told us that they were being "bombarded" with e-mails and calls from the White House (read: Karl Rove), trying to spin their way out of this mess by attacking it and attacking me. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett had told the White House press corps that the movie was "outrageously false" -- even though he said he hadn't seen the movie. He later told CNN that "This is a film that doesn't require us to actually view it to know that it's filled with factual inaccuracies." At least they're consistent. They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die.

Many news shows were more than eager to buy the White House spin. After all, that is a big part of what "Fahrenheit" is about -- how the lazy, compliant media bought all the lies from the Bush administration about the need to invade Iraq. They took the Kool-Aid offered by the White House and rarely, if ever, did our media ask the hard questions that needed to be asked before the war started.

Because the movie "outs" the mainstream media for their failures and their complicity with the Bush administration -- who can ever forget their incessant, embarrassing cheerleading as the troops went off to war, as though it was all just a game -- the media was not about to let me get away with anything now resembling a cultural phenomenon. On show after show, they went after me with the kind of viciousness you would have hoped they had had for those who were lying about the necessity for invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us. I don't blame our well-paid celebrity journalists -- they look like a bunch of ass-kissing dopes in my movie, and I guess I'd be pretty mad at me, too. After all, once the NASCAR fans see "Fahrenheit 9/11," will they ever believe a single thing they see on ABC/NBC/CBS news again?

In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!). For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.

In closing, let me say that the most heartening response to the film has come from our soldiers and their families. Theaters in military towns across the country reported packed houses. Our troops know the truth. They have seen it first-hand. And many of them could not believe that here was a movie that was TRULY on their side -- the side of bringing them home alive and never sending them into harms way again unless it's the absolute last resort. Please take a moment to read this wonderful story from the daily paper in Fayetteville, NC, where Fort Bragg is located. It broke my heart to read this, the reactions of military families and the comments of an infantryman’s wife publicly backing my movie -- and it gave me the resolve to make sure as many Americans as possible see this film in the coming weeks.

Thank you again, all of you, for your support. Together we did something for the history books. My apologies to "Return of the Jedi." We'll make it up by producing "Return of the Texan to Crawford" in November.

May the farce be with you, but not for long,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

P.S. You can read letters from people around the country recounting their own experiences at the theater, and their reactions to the film by going here.

P.P.S. Also, I’m going to start blogging! Tonight! Come on over and check it out.

As I commented a little while ago, Bush must really feel hot under the collar. How he responds to the film will be interesting

"If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you're wrong."

Couldn't the same fairly be said about ANYONE who offers criticism of a creative endeavour without seeing (or say, reading) it?

Karen:

>He SHOULD have said,"Excuse me children, I'm afraid something has come up that as President I need to deal with" He then should have gotten the info, not left it to his underlings. This was a time for a leader to make decisions, not those under him. He wasted 7 minutes in which he could have been briefed so he could make informed decisions.

Karen, I agree with you 100%. This was the thought process that went through my head as well.

Luckily, word has it that Bush learned afew new words during that reading session.

Posted by: Peter David at July 5, 2004 09:55 PM

"Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it's just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.

If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you're wrong.

PAD"

I may be wrong, but I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If I see a glowing red stove burner, and touch it, I will get burned. If I do the same thing a second time, I will get burned again. I should hope, by the third time, I won't need to touch it again to know it will hurt.
Since I still bear the metaphorical scars from Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, why would I shell out hard earned money to get burned in the theater again? I will catch it on cable(maybe) where I don't have to pay for the pain. If anyone is to blame for my drawing from experience to prejudge the film, wouldn't it be Moore's history of playing fast and loose with the facts? What am I to do, take it at face value when he says, "Oh, this time it's all true. Really, I mean it."?
If I want to watch a fantasy, I already bought Hawk the Slayer on DVD, and that film has a closer relationship with reality than anything Moore has done.

PAD:
>>"Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it's just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.

>>If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you're wrong.

PAD"

>I may be wrong, but I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If I see a glowing red stove burner, and touch it, I will get burned. If I do the same thing a second time, I will get burned again. I should hope, by the third time, I won't need to touch it again to know it will hurt.
Since I still bear the metaphorical scars from Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, why would I shell out hard earned money to get burned in the theater again? I will catch it on cable(maybe) where I don't have to pay for the pain. If anyone is to blame for my drawing from experience to prejudge the film, wouldn't it be Moore's history of playing fast and loose with the facts? What am I to do, take it at face value when he says, "Oh, this time it's all true. Really, I mean it."?
If I want to watch a fantasy, I already bought Hawk the Slayer on DVD, and that film has a closer relationship with reality than anything Moore has done.

Blackjack, I certainly agree that you have the right and qualifications to decide whether or not you believe you'll this film based on your previous experiences, but PAD was talking about those who make statements about the content of this specific film without having seen it.

Good Morning All,

I was quite impressed by the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11." My fiance and I went to see it opening weekend here in Canada. After having seen "Bowling for Columbine," we were quite interested in seeing Moore's latest work. We were not disappointed. I will be the first to admit I did not support the US's decision to go after Saddam, while my fiance purported the decision as "it's about time they did away with Saddam, good for President Bush!" After seeing the movie, we left the theatre and he said, "How was I fooled?" My posistion was supported by the film, and I came away from it just thinking, "Boy, am I glad I am not an American."

Whether some of his facts are skewed to support his own opinion or not, is irrelevant. He asks the questions no one else asked, questions that should have been asked. The film did not "brainwash;" rather, it presented facts in a way that supported Moore's opinion, while at the same time, asked you to examine the facts and create your own opinion.

In the US, you have available to you a better democratic system than we have here in Canada. You actually get to cast a vote for who leads your country, while we vote for a local candidate for a party and whoever's party wins the most ridings, their leader is our country's leader. I just hope that you know how lucky you are in that system, and that when your election comes this fall, that every one of you votes.

See "Fahrenheit 9/11," get the facts from other sources as well, and make an informed decision on who leads your country when you vote this fall. Not all of us in democratic countries have that choice.

Jocelyn

>

Maybe he wanted to find out how the book ended?

> Bill - If you still think that we went to war in Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline...well, oooookay. At least it will be an informed bone headed opinion.

How then do you respond to the very interesting points Moore makes about how long it took the U.S. to go after bin Laden (once they'd decided he was the man responsible for the attacks) and that they committed far, FAR fewer troops to it in Afghanistan than they did to going after Hussein who HADN'T attacked them? Which also may help explain why they got Hussein, but not bin Laden. Makes one wonder what their real priorities were, doesn't it?

> Luigi - Is it really relevant to show the undignified moments of Bush and other administration officials having their hair and makeup prepped for the camera?

Sure. It helps bolster the realisation that the whole Washington thing is stage-managed from one end to the other.

>(And the 'deer-in-the-headlights')

A co-worker complains that it is unfair of Moore (and others to harp on that. Uh-huh. Since the atomic age came about, U.S. (and other) coastal cities are a maximum of ten minutes away from being vaporized in a sub-launched missile strike.

Bush spent seven of those minutes going "uh ...". That would have left him with a grand total of MAYBE three minutes in which to make decisions and have his people act on them, had it been a general attack. Not exactly what I'd consider reassuring in a leader.

Too, I'd seriously consider firing whomever was in charge of the security detail because those seven minutes were seven minutes which could have been spent getting the President on his way to a command and control center where he'd have had more direct sources of information, and greater control over the nation's assets in dealing with what was clearly [after the second plane made it obvious it wasn't an accident] a major emergency.

> And what exactly was the point of trying to get Congressmen to sign up their sons to enlist in the military.

An obvious one, I daresay. They were quite happy to send OTHER peoples' kids off to be hurt or killed, but certainly wouldn't consider taking such chances with THEIR offspring. Does the word "hypocrite" ring a bell here?

I am not an American. I am living in England and have no idea if/when this documentary will be shown here. I hope it will be because also non-Americans should see it.

This is why I am in the process of downloading it now. It is not something I do lightly but hopefully I can do my part later to support it should it come out on DVD.

A lot of what I read and heard about it reminds me of Charlie Chaplins movie "The Great Dictator". With this DVD also came an extra one with a lot of background material and I respect Mr. Chaplin for his courage to challenge Hitler this way. Not that Bush is Hitler but I am glad that someone in the USA is doing the same now, not with a movie but with a documentary.

"If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you're wrong."

Many said the same thing about Mel's movie, but that didn't stop the people commenting from thinking they were qualified.

I probably won't see it for the same reason people didn't see "The Passion". Watching Moore's religious ideas on film doesn't interest me. ( Can't tell me Politics is not the "new religion" of the modern era!)

ummm Not sure how I got to be Zwwk? But I kinda like it...

The worse part of all of this is that dispite the facts in Moore's documentary, dispite how obviously uncaring the Republicans are towards the people, we will most likely see 4 more years of Bush.

I don't say this lightly, because this is not about Bush or his policies or the Republicans. Its about how the Democrats just are not generating any real energy towards their own campaigns. Look at how much they have (or better put, "seemed to have") allowed the republicans to get away with.

Clinton lied about sex and they spent millions going after him on it. Bush lies about - well, what doesn't he lie about exactly - and the best response they got is to open a radio station, make Al Frankin the spear head (a guy I thought was boring on Saturday Night Live way back in the day, and he's not very exciting these days either), and the Republicans are still pushing their agenda forward unheaded, unabated because they do generate the energy to keep their agenda rolling along.

Unless a major miracle happens, get ready for 4 more years of Bush - because I don't think the Democrats have the chops to stop it. Their biggest mistake is refusing to understand "voter apathy." But that's a whole other topic.

Still waiting to see the movie before I make up my mind. That said, however, I'm metaphorically frothing at the mouth to see it. Just a matter of clearing the time with a baby sitter. *sigh* The joys of parenting.

A couple points regarding 9/11 morning:

1) When Andrew Card informed the pResident about the second plane, He immediately stepped away without waiting to see if he would receive any instructions.

2) Where was the Secret Service? As soon as it was believed that America was under attack, they should have been there to remove Bush, wether he wanted to go or not.

3) The Secret Service didn't need time to clear a route to the airport. This is done in advance. When Reagan was shot, when Ford was shot at, the Secret Service IMMEDIATELY removed them from the scene & got them to the hospital & Air Force One, respectively.

JeffGillmer, please clarify:

You said "Bush was in a safe and secure location ...", yet when Bush finally did return to AF1, he went darting all across the country because "AF1 was a target". How is it that on the ground in a single, well known & publicised location he's safe, but in the air & moving around he's in danger? If the school was a safe & secure location, and Air Force 1 was a target, then why move Bush from the safe area to a dangerous one?

Also, "Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn't make decisions. He does what he's told to do". Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the orders supposed to come FROM the president, and not TO him? (Except in matters of the Presidents personal safety, in which the Secret Service can overrule the President) Or is this an admission that Bush is a puppet of Cheney, Rove, et al?

Just a few issues... I have not seen the movie yet.
Moore hired the head of the Fact Checking team from The New Yorker to go through the movie scene by scene to make sure everything was defensible. I said The New Yorker Not the New York Times.
As said above, this is an Op-Ed, as Moore himself said, more than documentary.
If you go to a documentary or movie searching for Truth or Not Truth, you will find either. If you go,listen and watch, find out what are Facts and Not Facts afterward, then make up your mind of what is Truth or Not Truth, you probably will have a more pleasent time.
Moore is the king of hyperbole. I think he's freaking hilarious. But even I, who agree with Moore more often than not, would not go see something of his and take it on blind faith.

Travis Clark
P.S.
KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! Whoo hoo!!! Finally, a good decision by a Democrat.

sheesh... I almost sound like yoda.
And yes, it's pleasant, instead of pleasent. And really, what I should have said is this:
"If you go,listen and watch, find out what are Facts and Not Facts afterward, then make up your mind of what is Truth or Not Truth, you probably will learn something, and can put forth a valid argument."

Travis
KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!!

I know, I'm giddy.

Posted by Michael Brunner:
"1) When Andrew Card informed the pResident about the second plane, He immediately stepped away without waiting to see if he would receive any instructions."
I imagine the conversation was something as simple as 'a second plane hit the WTC, we're under attack, we'll be moving out in a few minutes'.

"2) Where was the Secret Service? As soon as it was believed that America was under attack, they should have been there to remove Bush, wether he wanted to go or not."
And they did, when it was deemed safe to move. What would be the use of rushing out into the open (from a safe location) until you knew it was safe?

"3) The Secret Service didn't need time to clear a route to the airport. This is done in advance. When Reagan was shot, when Ford was shot at, the Secret Service IMMEDIATELY removed them from the scene & got them to the hospital & Air Force One, respectively."
When the roads are cleared, they are reopened immediately after the President passes thru. They are sitll kept under constant supervision, but are reopened. And as you said. Ford was shot at, Reagan was shot. Totally different situations.

'JeffGillmer, please clarify:

You said "Bush was in a safe and secure location ...", yet when Bush finally did return to AF1, he went darting all across the country because "AF1 was a target". How is it that on the ground in a single, well known & publicised location he's safe, but in the air & moving around he's in danger? If the school was a safe & secure location, and Air Force 1 was a target, then why move Bush from the safe area to a dangerous one?'

AF1 was a target at ANDREWS AFB. Same with the White House, and the Capitol. In the air, AF1 is about as safe as you can get. And as I said earlier, that area in Florida was already on a hightened state of security because the President was there.

I have a few thoughts:

The focus on the 7 minutes Bush supposedly sat on his hands and did nothing is absurd. And it is characteristic of reading into something what you want to see. A true leader allows those under him to do their job. It is very easy with hindsight to look back and criticize. The reality is, this was not news of a nuclear attack. In fact, it was news of something so outside the realm of possibility at the time (Tom Clancy not withstanding) that it would have been difficult to know what to tell the president. NO warning had been given. NO statement had been made. There was simply a crash of an airplane, then another. To criticize his reaction at the time is only possible with what we know now.

I find it interesting that few have pointed out that some serious LIBERAL commentators have found problems with the so called "facts" in Moore's film. (Just one example comes from that "bastion" of conservatism, Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek ). I heard just as many loose allegations based on association about Bill Clinton. Those are not proven facts. The media has NOT been giving Bush a free pass on this, there just is not any credible evidence (as was the case with the wild allegations about Bill Clinton running drugs while the governor of Arkansas).

Bottom line, I doubt many will be persuaded either way by this film. But it is sad that those who hate Bush as so quick to accept half truths. It may make it easier to hate Bush, but that is about as far as it will go. Your unwillingness to engage in a debate based on reality will only come back to haunt you.

Jim in Iowa

I went to see this movie which should have just been a television "news" special ( a la an extended version of say....48 Hours)....and my girlfriend, who dragged me there just to see what all the fuss is about, found it to be just completely hilarious that anyone would/could walk in and actually take this thing at face value and not say to themselves: god damn does this man have an agenda. We both left knowing Michael Moore's true talent lies in splicing numerous videos in an attempt to make something incoherent look coherent. Whether democrat or republican, the only thing made acutely aware to everyone in the theatre, was something thats been shown many many times before, despite Michael Moore acting like he is revealing this: George Bush COMES ACROSS as a horrible speaker and an idiot. (And no, Im not a liberal, and yes, I voted for him, and will again)

I also learned a valuable lesson. When my girlfriend wants to see a movie for some other reason than she really wants to see it, it will be a complete waste of my money (Like the time she made me go see Britney Spears Crossroads because it would "be worth a few laughs")

Mike

I haven't seen the film yet -- was out of town for a wedding and a baby shower (no, not for the same couple) -- so as a result can't comment much on the substance of the film yet.

I will, however, say this:

Quite a few people are coming out of the film with new opinions. (And no, I'm not just taking Moore's word for this.) This isn't simply reinforcing old viewpoints, though I'm sure it's doing plenty of that as well.

No documentary that's already made 3X the money of any documentary in history is doing so only by reinforcing viewpoints. I think this film is going to have an impact (the fact that it's selling out near military bases in so-called "red state" areas seems testament enough to that), and as such I think the Bush team has got to be sweating a bit. As with so many other things political, the perception has a way of becoming the reality. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it's part of life -- and if just this f***ing once the perceptions tend to skew things in a way that's closer to my liking, I'll just have to live with that and do penance later.

And Mike -- while it's legitimate to say that Bush merely comes across as an idiot rather than actually being one, it's quite silly to say he simply "comes across" as a horrible speaker. Public perception is how speakers are judged.

Just a thought.

TWL

Dammit, I'd really like that e-mail address above to not be showing. Maybe this tweak will help...

TWL

I do think every American voter, and some non-Americans, need to see this film. If for no other reason than to remember the importance and impact of voting. Or NOT voting. When Bush got elected nearly 4 years ago (which due to an unfortunate moving/registration SNAFU, I was unable to vote) I said "oh well, how much damage can he do in 4 years?"

Never again will I ask such rhetorical questions.

But I fear the movie will sway very few. Moore's propensity for spinning the truth will damage his credibility with some. Supporters of Bush will be unmoved by what they will see as a "childish and unsubstantiated attack on a good man." And people who have already decided that they've had enough of a false government will continue to hope for a democratic revolution come next Fall.

JeffGillmer: I'd suggest you check up on secret service emergency procedures. The SS do not let the President enter any area, room, county, or state without having exit routes planned and executable 5 different ways to Sunday. If a crisis or emergency arises, without waiting for the President to say "boo" they have the man pinned to the floorboards of a bullet-proof limo speeding away. The only time the SS wait for paths to clear is for normal motorcades, and they do so not out of security interests but out a desire to lesson the impact placed on local traffic. Doubt me all you want, but I've got close on 10 years service with various Federal Agencies.

And as to the President sitting for 7 minutes during an attack, while his Agencies did their jobs. I work for the FAA. We needed Executive level direction during this crisis. While managers and directors tried to determine what exactly was occuring, first line traffic controllers did their best to do their jobs. Our airline fleet could have been grounded much earlier had the White House issued a directive after the first plane struck. Which may have provided those scrambled fighters (which, by the way, thanks to poor executive direction were headed in the wrong direction from New York) enough time to prevent the second plane from striking.

If ever there was a time for the President to take Executive control of a situation, it was the morning of September 11, 2001. Instead, our Chief Executive was reading stories to children.

"If ever there was a time for the President to take Executive control of a situation, it was the morning of September 11, 2001. Instead, our Chief Executive was reading stories to children. "

Oh give me a break. I don't care who was President, Clinton, Gore, Bush, or Kerry would all have been caught off guard. Yes, 7 minutes is a long time when a response is needed. But for the moment forget it was George Bush (the presumed idiot). This was not a missle attack. This was not a chemical attack. This was not a bomb like in Oklahoma. This was a commerical jet flown into a building. There had been no threat or warning. In hind sight we can see things clearly, but NO ONE, Republican or Democrat, could ever have been fully ready for such a circumstance.

I know I am in the minority in this forum, but I do shudder to think what would have happened if Gore had been in office. He was part of an administration that had suffered attack after attack with virtually no response. I am convinced that Bush did a far better job than Gore over the last 4 years. Could he have done better? Of course, you can always look back and see mistakes.

So go on and keep underestimating Bush (as my Republican friends did with Clinton). I strongly believe come November he will be reelected. And that will be far better for this country than for Kerry (who now has even tried to have it both ways on abortion!) to be in charge.

Jim in Iowa

I am currently researching the history of film propaganda for a university thesis. A key text which I have just finished reading is " The Power of Film Propaganda - Myth or Reality ". In this very scholarly work, Nicholas Reeves studies the effect and general popualrity of five key movements in film propaganda.

They are - British documentary films of WW1, the early Soviet cinema, the Nazi era films, British WW2 films, and Italian Neo-realsim films from 1945 -50.

He draws some interesting conclusions - but the most important for this discussion is his conclusion that film propaganda does not work - UNLESS the audience is already predisposed to accept the view the film-maker puts forward.

Thus

(1) Battleship Potemkin was a failure within the Soviet Union - but a big smash with audiences in Germany and was banned in Britain from general distribution.

(2) Whilst " The Jew Suss " was a big hit in Germany the follow up, " The Eternal Jew " was a major flop - both were avowedly anti-semitic but the first wrapped it up in a romantic/historical story that may actually have been the major drawing point - the anti-semitic material was ignored by the audience ( although I suspect that Reeves ignores the more likley fact that it percolated into their subconciousness )

(3) Most audiences accept propaganda if it reinforces their own self-view but are very resistant to having their emotions/reason manipulated - they tend to be more sophisticated than the film makers realise

(4) most regimes , democratic or authoritarian, invest a great deal in filmic propaganda to little return .

I would thus accept that, as many have said, few are likely to have their views changed by this, or any, film ( I haven't seen it myself - being British I get it later than you chaps ). Whether Mr Moore is attempting to do this is for you to decide or him to answer - but the evidence suggests that even if this were his aim - he probably won't succeed. People are too smart for that.

Thankfully

warmest regards

dave

It wasn't the President that was under attack. It was New York. The first crash was thought to be an accident by everybody. Washington and Pennsylvania came later. If there was a direct threat towards the President, they would have reacted differently. Such as the example of "pinning the man pinned to the floorboards of a bullet-proof limo speeding away". See, you've made my point. He let the Secret Service do their job to see to his safety. When it was determined that the US was unter attack, the Secret Service moved into action to close the roads so the President could travel to AF1 safely.

From Kingbobb"
"Our airline fleet could have been grounded much earlier had the White House issued a directive after the first plane struck. Which may have provided those scrambled fighters (which, by the way, thanks to poor executive direction were headed in the wrong direction from New York) enough time to prevent the second plane from striking."
So, your saying that any airplane crash should cause all commericial and private airplanes to be immediately grounded, and for fighters to be scrambled?

Um...yeah. Right. Maybe now AFTER 9/11, but this certainly wasn't the way things were beforehand.

"Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn't make decisions. He does what he's told to do. "

How you can square the title "Commander in Chief" with "He does what he's told to do," I really can't fathom. It's just incomprehensible to me that anyone could be that much of a Bush apologist.

For what it's worth, however, Moore says almost exactly that. "With no one to tell him what to do, Bush simply sat there." Interestingly, moans of "Oh my God" sounded throughout the theater at the inaction of the one man who should be taking action.

And keep in mind: The first plane hit BEFORE he wallked into the classroom. He decided to proceed with the photo-op anyway. Talk about priorities being out of whack.

"That wasn't the look of a total moron. That was the same look alot of people had on 9/11 when they started to realize just what the hell was happening. "

The flip response to that, of course, is, "Why couldn't it have been both?" Moore claims he went easy on Bush; that watching the blank stare for seven solid minutes would be agonizing for viewers.

I do not deny that I likely had a similar dumbfounded expression on my face when I realized what was happening. It lasted about ten seconds. Then I grabbed the phone and I was calling everyone I knew. I took every action at my disposal.

"If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die. Or if he would have jumped up and acted like Harrison Ford style president, there would have been the complaints that he's a Loose Cannon Cowboy, or something like that. "

Because of course if it had been Gore sitting there for seven solid minutes, the right wouldn't remotely have taken the opportunity to claim it was a sign of indecision, confusion, and outright fear. Heavens no. Conservatives have a long and illustrious history of giving liberal presidents every latitude and the benefit of every doubt.

I mean, here's a wacky thought. If I'm in Bush's place, I'm thinking, "We're under attack. My presence here is a publicized photo op. Which means that whoever is attacking us may well know where I am, which means that every single person in this school is in danger." I instantly get up, smile to the children, tell them I have to leave, immediately go to the principal and work out some sort of fast plan to send the kids home while getting myself the hell out of the area just in case there's a frickin' plane heading on a collision course for the school.

I don't sit there.

For.

Seven.

Long.

Minutes.

Waiting.

For.

Someone.

To.

Tell.

Me.

What.

To.

Do.

PAD

Oops. Sorry for the bad job of my cut and paste job in the post above. Proofread...always proofread before hitting send.

"Of course, you can always look back and see mistakes. "

See, whereas I think the job of a president is to be able to look FORWARD and see mistakes...and thus not make them.

For instance, I was never thrilled with Bush the First, but I never for a moment thought he was a dim bulb. And Bush the First explained, in detail, in his book, why he did not charge into Baghdad and go after Saddam. All the reasons he gave, all the problems he foresaw with such an endeavor, are exactly what we ran smack bam into in the assault sponsored by Bush the Second and his neocons.

Perehaps Bush the Second never read daddy's book.

PAD

"I know I am in the minority in this forum, but I do shudder to think what would have happened if Gore had been in office. He was part of an administration that had suffered attack after attack with virtually no response. I am convinced that Bush did a far better job than Gore over the last 4 years."

The fact that you are convinced of that renders you not only the minority in this forum but, very soon if not already, the minority in this country.

What would have happened if Gore had been in office? Taking a guess, we would have gone into Afghanistan with far more troops than we did because Gore wouldn't have needed to keep over 100,000 troops in reserve for an irrelevant attack on Iraq. He might well have gotten bin Laden, who killed over 3000 Americans, as opposed to getting Saddam, who didn't.

And if Gore HAD, for some demented reason, wanted to attack Iraq, the same conservative voices currently supporting Bush would have been citing every pernicious motive he could have for doing so.

PAD

PAD:
'How you can square the title "Commander in Chief" with "He does what he's told to do," I really can't fathom. It's just incomprehensible to me that anyone could be that much of a Bush apologist.'

Is it incomprehensible to realize that Bush waiting there for the Secret Service to move him to a different location is not the same as making decisions about what to do about the crisis.

PAD says he waited about 10 seconds before he started calling people. Wow. If you had a staff of people working for you, you wouldn't have needed to either. He didn't to leap up and spring into action. He needed to let his staff do their jobs, be it secure the route to the airport or to gather information about the attacks. The President had just a little more to do than calling friends, and to make the decisions he had to have the facts, and those take a little time to gather.

If he would have jumped up, and ordered the Secret Service to get into the cars NOW and head towards the airport before closing off the roads, it probably would have taken longer to get where he needed to be.

As for if Gore was sitting there, I would feel the same way. I would be more worried about Gore's after the fact actions, but not about sitting there in the classroom.

With all due respect, PAD, I still say hindsight is 20/20. To wait for information is not the same as waiting to be told what to do. The truth is, we don't know. If someone assumes Bush is a puppet, then of course he was sitting there waiting to be told what to do. If one assumes Bush is human, then I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

We are talking 7 minutes. Not 7 hours. Not even one hour. Seven minutes to assess exactly how bad the situation really was. NO ONE KNEW. This is a reflection on the FAA, FBI, CIA, etc., more than on Bush. (And as he was only in office 8 months, he cannot bear ALL the blame for the sorry state they were in at the time.)

The frustrating thing is this: Those 7 minutes are only useful as a metaphor for how Moore wants to portray Bush. The reality is, NOTHING would have changed if Bush had done as you described. And unless you want to assume he is an idiot, it also does not say anything more than he was human and perhaps wanted to find out what was going on. And he gave time to do so.

I would have a small amount of respect for Moore if he had truly talked about things that mattered, like the 7 years under Clinton when atttacks occurred and little was done about it. I don't put all of the blame on Clinton, but I do think he played a very key role in what led to 9-11.

This whole discussion illustrates how Moore is able to take a non-pivotal event and transform it into something else. How he can use half truths and "guilt by association" rather than true fact finding. Fortunately, I do believe the truth will become clear over time. For both sides (since Moore does occasionally ask a good question, even if he does a poor job providing true hard facts).

Jim in Iowa

"So go on and keep underestimating Bush (as my Republican friends did with Clinton). I strongly believe come November he will be reelected. "

Underestimating Bush isn't the problem. It's overestimating the intelligence of the electorate.

PAD

"What would have happened if Gore had been in office? Taking a guess, we would have gone into Afghanistan with far more troops than we did because Gore wouldn't have needed to keep over 100,000 troops in reserve for an irrelevant attack on Iraq. He might well have gotten bin Laden, who killed over 3000 Americans, as opposed to getting Saddam, who didn't."

I know you are being serious, but I have to laugh. I do not believe Gore would have tackled Afghanistan. Nor do I believe he would have been as effective as Bush.

But using your thesis that a president looks ahead, Bush going into Iraq was precisely to prevent Sadaam from killing (or actively helping someone kill) thousands of Americans. You may disagree, but who before 9/11 would have thought Bin Laden could have done so? No president can ever forsee everything. But I do believe one thing is true: Bush invaded Iraq because he truly believed it was a threat, not for any personal or financial gain. He may have been wrong (I don't think so), but he did it based on a belief he was protecting us from another 9-11.

Jim in Iowa

I would have a small amount of respect for Moore if he had truly talked about things that mattered, like the 7 years under Clinton when atttacks [sic] occurred and little was done about it. I don't put all of the blame on Clinton, but I do think he played a very key role in what led to 9-11.

So Bush's "7 minutes" are off limits for criticism, but Clinton's "7 years" are open season? Nice to see you're being even-handed about this.

In the spirit of discussion, however ... Clinton did quite a bit. Bin Laden's assets were frozen when it was clear some of the attacks could be traced to him. Clinton was working with other countries (oh, wait, that's a bad thing now) to isolate and capture him. Let's also not forget that the WTC bombers in '93 were in fact captured and tried under his watch.

Seems to me he dealt with each threat as it came. He didn't decide that the U.S. had the divine right to smack down anyone we thought might possibly one day kinda sorta present us with a problem. And frankly, the more people I find who think that's what America should be doing, the more I think this electorate's ethics and mine do not mix.

I do not believe Gore would have tackled Afghanistan. Nor do I believe he would have been as effective as Bush.

On what grounds? What makes you think ANY president would have avoided going into Afghanistan after 9/11? If you have any answer that doesn't involve right-wing assumptions that anything Clinton-Gore is de facto incorrect, I'd be interested to hear it.

But using your thesis that a president looks ahead, Bush going into Iraq was precisely to prevent Sadaam from killing (or actively helping someone kill) thousands of Americans.

Based on zero evidence, given that (1) Saddam had no significant ties to al-Qaeda and data showed no evidence that said status was going to change, and (2) Saddam hadn't been a threat to "thousands of Americans" in over a decade. He was penned in, and his armed forces (rather clearly in hindsight) were perhaps a mild threat to the region and no threat to us.

You may disagree, but who before 9/11 would have thought Bin Laden could have done so?

How about everyone who read the brief on bin Laden a month earlier? Y'know, the one which said he was clearly gearing up for a major strike and which said he was "determined to strike inside the U.S."?

The available evidence at this point suggests that invading Iraq did nothing to protect us from another 9/11. It further suggests that Bush's claims of doing so were either (a) hopelessly ignorant and naive, or (b) completely misleading. Reasonable people can of course disagree on which of those two options is more likely, but if the choice is maliciousness or incompetence, either way I want the man out of office yesterday.

TWL

JeffGillmer:
"What would be the use of rushing out into the open (from a safe location) until you knew it was safe" - The country is under attack, the attackers are using planes as missles, and the Presidents location is well known. The location (the school) is no longer safe because the school could come under attack at any moment.

"When the roads are cleared, they are reopened immediately after the President passes thru. They are sitll kept under constant supervision, but are reopened. And as you said. Ford was shot at, Reagan was shot. Totally different situations" - Yes, they are supervised, so they can be immediately reopened in the event of an emergency, wether it is the President, or the nation that has come into danger. And yes, they are different situations, but the reaction is the same - get the president out of the area & to a place of safety. The Secret Service can reclose the streets just as quickly if the president is shor, or if there is another reason to quickly remove him.

"AF1 was a target at ANDREWS AFB" - AF1 was in Florida, only 4 miles away, it wasn't at Andrews.

JeffGillmer: Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn't make decisions. He does what he's told to do.
Luigi Novi: Um, excuse me? The President of the United States does what he’s told to do? By whom? Who tells the President what to do? And what was he told what to do? All Andrew Card told him was that a second plane hit the WTC. He never told him what to do, nor would it be his place to do so. Since when does the President do what others tell him to do?

JeffGillmer: There was absolutely nothing he could have done at the time to prevent any further attacks from happening. They already were underway.
Luigi Novi: Oh really?

So he couldn’t have contacted NORAD, the FAA, Giuliani, etc., to see if any other planes were taking off in the wrong direction, and headed for primary targets? Weren’t there TWO OTHER planes aside from the two that hit the WTC? Who says they couldn’t prevent further attacks from happening? As far as they knew, there could’ve been far more planes headed to targets like the Empire State Building, the Capitol, the White House, etc.

JeffGillmer: The teams of people around Bush were in constant communication with the White House, the NSA (and any other alphabet named branch of the government) and their job is to take care of the president. His job at that time is to let them do theirs, not to micromanage their actions. And if there was a decision that had to be made in that instant, that's why there's a Vice-President.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s why there’s a President. Since when is it the Vice President’s job to take over when the President is not incapacitated? Where are you getting this from? And since when is taking charge the same thing as “micromanaging”? If there are decisions to be made, the V.P. should make them, but if the President makes them, it’s micromanaging? Since when? The President should’ve gotten up, left the classroom, and made sure to know what was going on by asking questions, not merely assume that his people were in communication with the various branches of government.

JeffGillmer: Bush was in a safe and secure location. The airspace within hundreds of miles near that school was being closely monitored because he was in the area. The roads to and from the school were all under constant supervision by local, state and federal officers.
Luigi Novi: And did Bush know this? Did he ask? Shouldn’t he have made sure to know what was going on?

JeffGillmer: I find it amazing that so many people on the "left" seem to see something wrong with the way he acted in the classroom. If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die.
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? What does leaving the classroom have to do with the kids dying? Dying from what? Shock of meeting the President and then seeing him leave? How leaving the classroom cause the kids to die?s

JeffGillmer: Or if he would have jumped up and acted like Harrison Ford style president, there would have been the complaints that he's a Loose Cannon Cowboy, or something like that.
Luigi Novi: A common Straw Man argument that Bush apologists have offered, and it’s total bunk. Calmly getting up and walking out to take charge of the situation has nothing to do with “Harrison Ford” or “Loose Cannon.”

JeffGillmer: Karen, You seem to think that no one in the governmental agencies did anything during those 7 minutes? "Gee, we just had 2 airliners crash into the WTC towers. Let's all just sit here with our thumbs stuck up our @ss until the President gets finished reading to the kiddies before we even consider doing anything. Pass those Krispy Kremes, willya?"
Luigi Novi: The fact that the various agencies did what they were supposed to do does not absolve Bush of not walking out to begin overseeing those actions.

JeffGillmer: There was nothing Bush could have done until he got to the communications center in Air Force One. He couldn't travel to AF1 until the roads were clear.
Luigi Novi: Since when can he only communicate with the necessary agencies from AF1?

JeffGillmer: That's not his decision, but the decision that's in the books for the Secret Service. He let them do their job to get him where he needed to be safely, not trampling over them and giving them conflicting orders.
Luigi Novi: And did he ask if that was being done? Did Andrew Card tell him that this was being done?

Jocelyn: Whether some of his facts are skewed to support his own opinion or not, is irrelevant.
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this?

The Starwolf: Sure. It helps bolster the realisation that the whole Washington thing is stage-managed from one end to the other.
Luigi Novi: Is this any different when it’s a Democrat in office? What does hair and makeup have to do with the allegedly fraudulent reasons for the war? What, they only have hair-and-makeup moments when they wage a fraudulent war?

JeffGillmer: I imagine the conversation was something as simple as 'a second plane hit the WTC, we're under attack, we'll be moving out in a few minutes'.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside that this is just your supposition, given that Bush’s visit to that Florida classroom was announced beforehand (as such visits generally are), he should’ve been rushed out of there if they thought he was in danger. Not stick around reading My Pet Goat.

JeffGillmer: So, your saying that any airplane crash should cause all commericial and private airplanes to be immediately grounded, and for fighters to be scrambled?
Luigi Novi: No, but if the target is the WTC—which had been targeted less than nine years earlier—and the administration had warnings of Al Quaeda’s plans, it should have.

JW: I would have a small amount of respect for Moore if he had truly talked about things that mattered, like the 7 years under Clinton when atttacks occurred and little was done about it. I don't put all of the blame on Clinton, but I do think he played a very key role in what led to 9-11.
Luigi Novi: In what way was “little done about it”? And wasn’t it Clinton’s outgoing administration who warned the incoming Bush administration about the Al Quaeda threat?

Here's the thing that alarms me the most about the whole "7 minute" incident. That it happened at all is an indication of the total lack of preparedness the Bush administration took with it into office.

I've copied section 2 from the US Constitution (from Cornell's web site) here:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Notice that the very first power granted to the office of the President is Commander in Cheif. I take that to mean that he is the one single person in charge of the national military, responsible for defending the interests of the country at home and abroad.

Yet national security was of so low a profile to our sitting President that, after hearing that a fully loaded jetliner had crashed into the World Trade Center, he opted to continue with a photo op rather than postpone it long enough to determine whether the national security of the country was threatened.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I work for the FAA. Let me tell you, if a jetliner crashes into a skyscraper, chances are, it's not an accident. Think about the last time you saw a plane flying close to a city skyline. I'll bet it was 9/11. Because the FAA doesn't allow jetliners to get close to large building. And for those cities that do have downtown airstrips, the approaches are very tightly controlled and monitored to prevent just such an accident from occuring.

I've checked the US Constitution pretty carefully recently, and no where do I see in the listing of the powers of the Office of the President "He shall, from time to time, sit before school children reading stories." I do see that he is the Chief Executive, and Commander in Chief. And that man, faced with a national crisis, decided that his time was better spent in front of cameras, rather then being immediately available to respond to a developing attack on our country.

Could it just have been an accident? Sure it could have. So tell me what the harm would it have been for him to take an hour and confirm it?

Granted, we'll never know if our military could have scrambled in time to save the second tower, or the people in the Pentagon when it was struck. We'll never know, because our President (and I'll admit, myself too) were so secure in the illusion of security that we held about ourselves, that he allowed himself or his aides to write off an attack as an accident. The difference with me (and millions of others) holding on to that illusion is that it's NOT OUR JOB to ensure the safety and security of the nation. We can all get passes for thinking the best. Our CinC needs to be thinking the worst, and be prepared to respond.

And yes, in any circumstance, a single plane crash, coupled with a threat that other planes have been compromised, would be enough to ground our entire fleet. Do you want to be the one tell hundreds or thousands of grieving families that thier loss was caused becuase you didn't want to cost the airlines some money?

If you check the reports of the various agencies from that morning, you'd see the chaos that the air traffic controllers and FAA were experiencing. FAA's mission is to manage a safe, effecient national aviation system. Where planes DO WHAT YOU TELL THEM, and don't have pilots that only know how to fly and crash. National security is not and was not part of the controllers' training. If the President, after the first strike, had been thinking like a CinC, he might have called FAA, found out what was going on, and issued some orders. He didn't. Cheny did...later. It was Cheney who issued the order that authorized the use of lethal force on other rogue jetliners, not Bush. I don't have the timelines in front of me, but my recollection is that the White House/Bush administration didn't check with the FAA until after the third plane had struck the Pentagon (I may be wrong on that, feel free to fact-check for me, please).

Mike:

>I also learned a valuable lesson. When my girlfriend wants to see a movie for some other reason than she really wants to see it, it will be a complete waste of my money (Like the time she made me go see Britney Spears Crossroads because it would "be worth a few laughs")

Slow learner, are ya? ;)

Posted by: Tim Lynch "So Bush's "7 minutes" are off limits for criticism, but Clinton's "7 years" are open season? Nice to see you're being even-handed about this."

Nice try, but there is a huge difference between the two. For the sake of argument, let' say Bush froze and was clueless for 7 minutes. It sure didn't take him 7 years to respond. I am not saying Bush's 7 minutes are off limits -- I am saying let's focus on what really matters. What exactly changed because of those 7 minutes?

My point is this: to focus on the 7 minutes is to focus on the trivial. Let's talk about the 8 months Bush was in office. Let us ALSO talk about the 8 years Clinton was in office.

And what exactly did Clinton do? He lobed a few cruise missles, but refused Bin Laden when he was virtually handed him on a silver platter (sp?) -- and that was after the FIRST attack on the Twin Towers. Clinton treated an international terroist threat as a domestic criminal case. Yes, they convicted some who were involved, but nothing happened to deal with the real entity behind it? To say otherwise is to ignore the bombing of our embassy, the attack on our warship, etc.

I wish Bush had done more. But anyone who thinks he could have come into Washington and by February 1 put a plan into action doesn't understand politics. Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of the Florida election, one thing is true: The court battle significantly delayed the process of Bush puting his staff in place. In addition, the resulting antagonism from the Democrats severely slowed down their processing of Bush appointees. That is established fact. Clinton could have left a detailed plan (and the fact is he did NOT), it would not have mattered. This was one of the roughest transitions of power in recent history. So while I do think Bush and his team missed some details, it was not like they were sitting around doing nothing. Please note: This is not blaming Democrats for 9/11. If the roles were reversed, things would have been similar. This is simply stating that Bush is not a dictator and could not just come in and take on terrorism. The hearings showed that one of the first actions taken by his staff when he did get in office was to talk about terrorism -- not Iraq.

Bottom line: I do not believe Bush was perfect, but neither is he solely to blame. He came into the game at the top of the ninth inning with the bases loaded. Do I still wish he had struck out Bin Laden rather than allowing him a grand slam homerun? Of course! But to blame Bush for poor leadership without honestly looking at the whole picture is to invite it to happen all over again. Which is why I thank God every day that Bush is in office right now, and why I pray he will be reelected for another 4 years. I don't think Kerry (or Clinton, for that matter) has any intention to hurt the country. But I do think he will make far worse mistakes than Bush would do. Bush is a true leader. You can love or hate him, but at least you know where he is going and why. That is why Michael Moore and others resort to attacking his character wih distortions and half truths. But I believe time will tell the truth.

Jim in Iowa

Weighing in on the 7 minutes of nonreaction.I have seen the clip on the internet and it pissed me off.I was stunned that he sat there reading a book to kids when god knows what was going on in the skies over a country he is charge of protecting.
Sorry ,letting others "handle things" is not the right answer.I believe the Commander in Chief
should be the most well informed,take charge mofo
on the planet.This means reading newspapers ,asking questions and getting more than just a one page reader's digest version of a potential national security threat.This also means he should have gotten off his ASS ,excused himself and been in immediate conference with his people.More to the point secure the children and the area if possible and get moving ,not be a sitting target.If memory serves on that day ,no one knew how many planes were doing suicide runs or if this was the extent of what was to come ,so sitting there was the last thing he should have done.Bottom line I hold the President to a high standard when it comes to protecting the american people,and this clearly was below standard performance in my opinion

If there's one thing the members of the PAD board never get tired of, it's these impossible to argue with alternate scenarios--"If Al Gore had been reading to those kids he would have said something inspirational." "If John McCain had been reading to those kids he would have shot those planes out of the sky with a pearl handled revolver." "If Bill Clinton had been reading to those kids he would have felt up the teaching assistant." That sort of thing.

I blame the What If? series.

JW in Iowa - wow. You really believe that stuff, don't you. I mean, you really believe George W. Bush is a good leader.

You seem like an intelligent person, so this amazes me. I've seen many people defend him by saying they are being loyal to their party, and that he's backed by smart people as advisers. And I've seen plenty of uneducated people say silly things like, "He's a good 'old boy who'd go fishin' with ya!" when he wouldn't even stoop to speak to them without a photo-op.

But to actually see an educated, well spoken person defend him and call him a good leader.

Bravo to you on your convictions.

I hold none of the same, believe that things would be better had Gore been in the White House, and hope like crazy that Kerry wins, but wish you and yours the best.

-Joe

Look at how much they have (or better put, "seemed to have") allowed the republicans to get away with.

Please. Democrats have been saying all sorts of things, and the best they get in response is that they're traitors, unpatriotic, and threatening our national security.

Bush going into Iraq was precisely to prevent Sadaam from killing (or actively helping someone kill) thousands of Americans.

And in the meantime, we KNOW that bin Laden is preparing to do exactly that. AGAIN.

Yet, he's not as important as Saddam?

Please, for gods sakes, somebody get Bush's priorities in order. Otherwise, there will be another 9/11, bin Laden will be behind it, and we'll be wondering why it happened again.

Joe,

Yes, I am intelligent and I do believe he is a good leader. Having lived in Texas for 16 years before Iowa, I did not meet Bush personally, but I have 3 close friends who have. There are many who are more intelligent than Bush. There are many who could have insured their re-election. But there are two things my friends have seen with Bush: He is motivated by his convictions, not polls, and he is motivated to act for the good of others. He is not perfect, and he is not as far thinking as many, but he is a bull dog. When he makes a commitment, he sees it through. He is loyal to those who are loyal to him. And so those close to him follow. And those who don't like him don't, because he does have core convictions.

I don't agree with him on some things and believe it is appropriate to hold him accountable. But he can be a good leader and still be a flawed human at the same time.

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Craig J. Ries "Please, for gods sakes, somebody get Bush's priorities in order. Otherwise, there will be another 9/11, bin Laden will be behind it, and we'll be wondering why it happened again."

I must disagree. We have not ignored Bin Laden. It is a valid question whether we could have done more to get Bin Laden. But I am certain Bush has a strong desire to get Bin Laden. His priorities, though, were focused on a bigger picture. It was to also prevent Sadaam from helping support a similar attack, and to change the landscape of the Middle East.

Was this the right approach? It was definitely a bold approach, one that has changed the Middle East for years. Clearly the chapter is not done. It is possible it could turn out to make things worse. But I think there is a strong possibility still that 20 years from now, this could be the key event that stemmed the tide of militant islamic terrorism.

The reality is that the jury is still out. Even another "9-11" would not settle the matter, because there are too many out there who want to harm the United States. I believe Bush has the right priority. He has taken a bold approach to accomplish it. But the "reserved" approach of the last 8 years clearly did not stop the attacks. I think this has a much greater chance to suceed.

Jim in Iowa

Jim in Iowa:

>But there are two things my friends have seen with Bush: He is motivated by his convictions, not polls, and he is motivated to act for the good of others. He is not perfect, and he is not as far thinking as many, but he is a bull dog. When he makes a commitment, he sees it through. He is loyal to those who are loyal to him. And so those close to him follow. And those who don't like him don't, because he does have core convictions.

You call an unwillingness to reconsider one's position despite contrary evidence and nearly an entire world disagreeing with you a positive character trait?

I have no problem with having strong convictions, but this mad dog... oops, "bull dog" mentality is what has this country as f'd up as it currently is. The stubborn, childish tantrumming, deception of the public and dismissal of an entire world makes me wonder how truly he is "acting for the good of others".

Me:
"So Bush's "7 minutes" are off limits for criticism, but Clinton's "7 years" are open season? Nice to see you're being even-handed about this."

JDubya:

Nice try, but there is a huge difference between the two. For the sake of argument, let' say Bush froze and was clueless for 7 minutes. It sure didn't take him 7 years to respond.

Nor did it take Clinton 7 years to respond to a much smaller provocation. That's kinda my point. You're the one who's focusing on the 7 minutes while claiming it doesn't matter.

I am not saying Bush's 7 minutes are off limits -- I am saying let's focus on what really matters. What exactly changed because of those 7 minutes?

In reality -- we'll never know. One possibility, of course, is that planes would have scrambled faster and kill orders given sooner -- but obviously that's just speculation.

In terms of "what would it change", you're right -- the 7 minutes don't matter much. They're illustrative of Bush's general approach to ... well, pretty much everything ... but the practical impact may be minimal. I'd like to hear from "kingbobb" on that subject, actually -- as someone who works for the FAA, his opinion strikes me as one far more relevant than yours or mine.

I'll be happy to drop the 7 minutes, so long as we deal FAIRLY with the months and years prior to 9/11.

And what exactly did Clinton do? He lobed a few cruise missles, but refused Bin Laden when he was virtually handed him on a silver platter (sp?) -- and that was after the FIRST attack on the Twin Towers.

To put it mildly, that "fact" is very much in dispute. Richard Clarke (a lifelong Republican who worked for presidents on both sides of the aisle) has been quoted as saying that the CIA was authorized in the mid-1990s to go get bin Laden, that Clinton was enthusiastic about doing such, but that the CIA held back for various reasons. He's also been quoted as saying that lots of orders were issued saying in effect "go get them."

(Source: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact if you want to look online, though obviously his book also contains the claims.)

Now let's turn the question around: What did Bush do? You say that it was early in his term and the transition was complicated by the whole election mess. I'll certainly grant that, but it's not a full answer.

What concrete things did the Bush team actually do about terrorism in the months leading up to 9/11? They had warning -- hell, according to your arguments they had eight years of warnings, and the last few months of them were growing more looming and more specific.

So what did they do?

Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of the Florida election, one thing is true: The court battle significantly delayed the process of Bush puting his staff in place. In addition, the resulting antagonism from the Democrats severely slowed down their processing of Bush appointees.

"Antagonism from the Democrats." The GOP controlled both houses of Congress until they pissed off Jim Jeffords and goaded him into jumping ship. They confirmed every Cabinet member he nominated -- even Ashcroft, for which several of them have a date to burn in hell. Exactly what form did this so-called "antagonism" take?

So while I do think Bush and his team missed some details, it was not like they were sitting around doing nothing.

I believe the old Usenet response here is "Post proof or retract." Can you point to things they actually did rather than simply posting generalities and blaming Clinton's lack of response?

This is simply stating that Bush is not a dictator and could not just come in and take on terrorism. The hearings showed that one of the first actions taken by his staff when he did get in office was to talk about terrorism -- not Iraq.

Huh? They showed nothing of the kind -- if anything, they showed much more of an emphasis on Iraq. What part of the hearings were you reading and/or listening to?

How many meetings were there with terrorism as a focus during those months, Jim? How many planning sessions? How many new directives were given? By whom? How many times were experts in the region spoken to?

For full credit, please compare and contrast with how many meetings and discussions took place about missile defense, about Saddam, or about tax cuts.

But to blame Bush for poor leadership without honestly looking at the whole picture is to invite it to happen all over again.

I agree. Unfortunately, the Bush team doesn't -- at least, not in the same way.

Let's recall that the administration opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission in the first place -- surely it was their job to "look at the whole picture", as you put it. Why would they do that?

Which is why I thank God every day that Bush is in office right now, and why I pray he will be reelected for another 4 years.

Ah, yes. God. The same one that "instructed" Bush to wage eternal war?

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- Bush, in a meeting with the Palestinian Authority

[One source, among others:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer]

The same God that Gen. William Boykin quotes as the reason (a) he knew we'd win a war against Muslims, and (b) the instrument by which Bush was installed in office?

I respect your hope that Bush wins and your faith in God -- but given that Bush's position is that God's a Republican, you'll have to forgive me if I share neither.

Bush is a true leader. You can love or hate him, but at least you know where he is going and why.

Yes -- because he persists in treating the entire world stage as a simple black-and-white issue.

It's not. No one with any background in international relations would ever dream of thinking everything is this simple. Bush does, or at least acts as if he does.

And that, quite frankly, scares the crap out of me every day he's in office.

I don't think your criteria for leadership are sufficient. I think one must be able to acknowledge changes in circumstance and adjust accordingly. Yes, sometimes that means you have to change your mind -- but better someone who's willing to do so when events warrant it than someone who has a one-size-fits-all ideology.

Like Joe above, I respect your convictions -- I honestly do. I cannot, however, in good conscience share them.

TWL

>"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- Bush, in a meeting with the Palestinian Authority

Waittaminnnnnnnute... I didn't vote for god! How long has he been pulling the strings behind this administration?

Although, there is a helluva passing of the buck. Who's going to tell god he is wrong?

Wanna see a neat "Separated At Birth?"?

Take a look at http://www.ippnw.ch/images/moore.jpg.

Then go to http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0807126063.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

JeffGillmer: Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn't make decisions. He does what he's told to do.
Luigi Novi: Um, excuse me? The President of the United States does what he’s told to do? By whom? Who tells the President what to do? And what was he told what to do? All Andrew Card told him was that a second plane hit the WTC. He never told him what to do, nor would it be his place to do so. Since when does the President do what others tell him to do?
...since he's just the President. He's not a King or Dictator. There are many plans made to move the President from point A to point B. Bush doesn't need to know the details of those plans. That's what his handlers are for.

JeffGillmer: There was absolutely nothing he could have done at the time to prevent any further attacks from happening. They already were underway.
Luigi Novi: Oh really?
So he couldn’t have contacted NORAD, the FAA, Giuliani, etc., to see if any other planes were taking off in the wrong direction, and headed for primary targets? Weren’t there TWO OTHER planes aside from the two that hit the WTC? Who says they couldn’t prevent further attacks from happening? As far as they knew, there could’ve been far more planes headed to targets like the Empire State Building, the Capitol, the White House, etc.
...and those things were being done already. There were people doing their job to get that information ready for the President.

JeffGillmer: The teams of people around Bush were in constant communication with the White House, the NSA (and any other alphabet named branch of the government) and their job is to take care of the president. His job at that time is to let them do theirs, not to micromanage their actions. And if there was a decision that had to be made in that instant, that's why there's a Vice-President.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s why there’s a President. Since when is it the Vice President’s job to take over when the President is not incapacitated? Where are you getting this from? And since when is taking charge the same thing as “micromanaging”? If there are decisions to be made, the V.P. should make them, but if the President makes them, it’s micromanaging? Since when? The President should’ve gotten up, left the classroom, and made sure to know what was going on by asking questions, not merely assume that his people were in communication with the various branches of government.
...anytime the President is "out of place" the Vice President makes decisions, especially during a crisis. My talking about taking charge is in relation to leaving the school, micromanaging the jobs of the Secret Service. The same Secret Service that has been doing their job longer than any President. Bush let them take the lead and move him where he needed to be to take over making the bigger decisions.

JeffGillmer: Bush was in a safe and secure location. The airspace within hundreds of miles near that school was being closely monitored because he was in the area. The roads to and from the school were all under constant supervision by local, state and federal officers.
Luigi Novi: And did Bush know this? Did he ask? Shouldn’t he have made sure to know what was going on?
...yes, I'm fairly certain he knew. It's standard procedure to monitor all the roads to and from the airport and to keep an extra hard watch on the surrounding airspace wherever the President is at any time.

JeffGillmer: I find it amazing that so many people on the "left" seem to see something wrong with the way he acted in the classroom. If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die.
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? What does leaving the classroom have to do with the kids dying? Dying from what? Shock of meeting the President and then seeing him leave? How leaving the classroom cause the kids to die?
...I'm saying that's just one of the complaints that some on the left would have probably used if the President jumped up and rushed out of the room. Since he sat there, folks are complaining about that. It wouldn't have mattered what he did, partisans on the left would say it was wrong.

JeffGillmer: Or if he would have jumped up and acted like Harrison Ford style president, there would have been the complaints that he's a Loose Cannon Cowboy, or something like that.
Luigi Novi: A common Straw Man argument that Bush apologists have offered, and it’s total bunk. Calmly getting up and walking out to take charge of the situation has nothing to do with “Harrison Ford” or “Loose Cannon.”
...he was not in position to take charge of the situation. He needed to get moved to the place where he could be in secure communications with multiple agencies.

JeffGillmer: Karen, You seem to think that no one in the governmental agencies did anything during those 7 minutes? "Gee, we just had 2 airliners crash into the WTC towers. Let's all just sit here with our thumbs stuck up our @ss until the President gets finished reading to the kiddies before we even consider doing anything. Pass those Krispy Kremes, willya?"
Luigi Novi: The fact that the various agencies did what they were supposed to do does not absolve Bush of not walking out to begin overseeing those actions.
...see above. He doesn't need to oversee those agencies or their actions. He needs them to do their job and get him the required information. Do you need your boss looking over your shoulder at every second of the day to make sure you're doing what you're supposed to do? If so, this is an incredible waste of energy for both you, your boss, and the job itself.

JeffGillmer: There was nothing Bush could have done until he got to the communications center in Air Force One. He couldn't travel to AF1 until the roads were clear.
Luigi Novi: Since when can he only communicate with the necessary agencies from AF1?
...since AF1 has the secure communications facilities to corrdinate such things. I'm fairly certain that most elementary schools don't possess this equipment.

JeffGillmer: That's not his decision, but the decision that's in the books for the Secret Service. He let them do their job to get him where he needed to be safely, not trampling over them and giving them conflicting orders.
Luigi Novi: And did he ask if that was being done? Did Andrew Card tell him that this was being done?
...see several responses above. He didn't need to ask. Standard Operating Principal to move the President. There are well planned procedures to follow.

JeffGillmer: I imagine the conversation was something as simple as 'a second plane hit the WTC, we're under attack, we'll be moving out in a few minutes'.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside that this is just your supposition, given that Bush’s visit to that Florida classroom was announced beforehand (as such visits generally are), he should’ve been rushed out of there if they thought he was in danger. Not stick around reading My Pet Goat.
...thus it was determined that he wasn't in danger. So, why rush faster then they already were to move Bush? If it had been determined that there was an inbound airliner heading towards the school, a different set of plans would have been used to move the President.

JeffGillmer: So, your saying that any airplane crash should cause all commericial and private airplanes to be immediately grounded, and for fighters to be scrambled?
Luigi Novi: No, but if the target is the WTC—which had been targeted less than nine years earlier—and the administration had warnings of Al Quaeda’s plans, it should have.
...car bomb in underground parking garage equals attack by hijacked civilian airliners. Yeah, I can see where those two go together. Now it seems you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

JeffGillmer: I find it amazing that so many people on the "left" seem to see something wrong with the way he acted in the classroom. If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die.
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? What does leaving the classroom have to do with the kids dying? Dying from what? Shock of meeting the President and then seeing him leave? How leaving the classroom cause the kids to die?
JeffGilmer: ...I'm saying that's just one of the complaints that some on the left would have probably used if the President jumped up and rushed out of the room. Since he sat there, folks are complaining about that. It wouldn't have mattered what he did, partisans on the left would say it was wrong.

You've stated perfectly one of the reasons that I dislike Bush. I could see him jumping up and running out of the room as much as simply sitting there. The fact that there are innumerous other options between those two extreme responses says it all. The man works in extremes and sees in extremes. The world is not black and white.

Fred Chamberlain:
"Who's going to tell god he is wrong?"

I will. Especially if it's the 'God' that speaks only to the person who is charged with leading the most powerful military force on the plant.

...And if it's the 'God' that requires donations.

...And if it's the 'God' that is prayed to by child molesting priests and those who assist in the cover up and the parents of those children that seem to think that money makes it ok.

I would without hesitation say, "God, you are wrong. And, by the way... What does 'God' need with a starship?"

My point is that whoever this 'God' is that these types worship it's not the one that has been written about for millenia. They soil (as in 'underwear') all the good things that they claim to stand for when they invoke God in this manner.

And the Hell of it is that I don't even believe in God, yet I often find myself defending God's Word. I guess it's just one of those things.

Salutations,

Mitch

Posted by JW in Iowa at July 6, 2004 05:49 PM
Joe,

"He is motivated by his convictions, not polls, and he is motivated to act for the good of others."

As long as his convictions reflect the will of the people. More and more I see God being brought into the campaign.

"He is loyal to those who are loyal to him."

Unfortunately, being our commander in chief, he is also suppose to be loyal to those who did not support him. That's the nature of the beast. He represents us all.

Haven't seen the film yet. Hoping to go before Friday. More anxious than ever to see the film.

>>Fred Chamberlain:
>>"Who's going to tell god he is wrong?"

>I will. Especially if it's the 'God' that speaks only to the person who is charged with leading the most powerful military force on the plant.

>...And if it's the 'God' that requires donations.

>...And if it's the 'God' that is prayed to by child molesting priests and those who assist in the cover up and the parents of those children that seem to think that money makes it ok.

>I would without hesitation say, "God, you are wrong. And, by the way... What does 'God' need with a starship?"

>My point is that whoever this 'God' is that these types worship it's not the one that has been written about for millenia. They soil (as in 'underwear') all the good things that they claim to stand for when they invoke God in this manner.

>And the Hell of it is that I don't even believe in God, yet I often find myself defending God's Word. I guess it's just one of those things.

Damn..... guess I really need to work on my sarcasm skills as that attempt was missed completely.

Not completely, Mr. Chamberlain. In fact I caught it quite well. It just made something occur to me. It's not the quiet ones you need to watch. It's the ones with power claiming to do God's work. And, as some of my examples illustrate, it can be a damned scary thing.

Salutations,

Mitch

TWL - You may disagree, but who before 9/11 would have thought Bin Laden could have done so?
-How about everyone who read the brief on bin Laden a month earlier? Y'know, the one which said he was clearly gearing up for a major strike and which said he was "determined to strike inside the U.S."?

Also, who is most likely to do so? bin Laden has no fixed base of operation. He can strike from anywhere and the world doesn't have a fixed target to hit back. Hussein has a very fixed base of operation and isn't stupid enough not to know he's either going to get blown to bits, or chased out of the country (and thus from his power base) if he tried anything cute.

Luigi - Luigi Novi: Is this any different when it’s a Democrat in office? What does hair and makeup have to do with the allegedly fraudulent reasons for the war?

Irrelevant. I said "Washington", not a Party in particular. Yes, it probably would be as true for the Democrats as the Republicans. This is a good thing?

I saw it yesterday with my daughter, Alixandra...one thing I think no one has mentioned (I haven't scrolled through all 91 comments, though I read about half of them) is the way Moore presented the events of 9/11...

During these moments of the film Alixandra was buried into my chest, shaking and crying (she was in NYC that day, I was just across from the WTC at Exchange Place in Jersey City, for those in the New York Area and are familiar with the geography), and I was just holding her tight as we were both brought back to those seconds, minutes and hours in a way that no amount of video replays have done since 9/11. And how did Moore achieve this? I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it, but I will say that it was the judicious and brilliant use of sound that did it.

This is an important movie, and I agree with PAD, EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD SEE IT. I don't care if you're for Bush or Kerry, if you're a hard right-winger or a flaming liberal, if you're an independent or a neoconservative or a Moderate Republican or a conservataive Democrat or if you're sitting on the fence, EVERYONE OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE SHOULD/MUST SEE IT....

Then go out and do your own research, read the cheers of the converted and read the diatribes of the angered, go check out Reilly and FOX and CNN and TIME and SALON.COM and Google Michael Moore...and THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!!!!

AND WHEN NOVEMBER 11TH ROLES AROUND, VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

And if you "don't believe in voting," or you "can't be bothered," or you're "too busy,"...well, that's your right, too...

But talking the talk isn't the same as walking the walk.

Mindy

My Fahrenheit 9/11 Review

This was a solid movie that I would call half opinion/editorial and half documentary. The O/E comes in the form of voice over form Michael Moor over expertly edited news footage and documents. This is mainly done to connect the dots in a way that presents his views about the Bush administration and their business and Saudi connections. He also goes after Congress, hitting hard on both Republicans and Democrats alike. The Documentary areas of the film puts the human faces on the wars in a way that rarely get shown on the news. When Moor shuts up and you get to see and hear the US solders, Iraqi citizens, and the mother that losses her son in the war, you are hit with the reality of the war. This is the real meat of the film. This is what you do not get to see much of on the evening news. This is the stuff that no amount of violent video games can desensitize you to (and I played a lot of Mortal Kombat and Counter Strike in my day).
If you are not a fan of Bush or the War in Iraq you will absolutely love this film. If you are disillusioned or have given up on politics, this movie may reinvigorate you. If you are pro Bush you need to see this film because you need to have complete knowledge of what you are up against. Unlike all the books that have come out attacking the Bush administration, this movie is extremely entertaining & engaging. The news footage Moor uses may be old news to those of us that were old enough to vote in the last election, but the 18 to 21 year olds that are seeing this film are more likely to be seeing a lot of it for the first time. They are the ones that are most likely to be influenced by the film, and in turn tip the scales of the next election. If you don’t want to give Michael Moor money, buy a ticket for a Walt Disney or New Line film (the people that refused to distribute the film) and sneak in to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

Guys, I really hate to take a political discussion and interrupt it with a comics topic, but Newsarama is reporting that Bruce Jones has just signed a two year exclusive deal with DC.

PAD - is there any chance that you'll be returning to the Hulk full time?

Please?

Oh and in case it wasn't too obvious, the whole "I hate interrupting politics for comics" thing was sarcasm. I figure it happens the other way all the time. hehe

Kurt:

>Guys, I really hate to take a political discussion and interrupt it with a comics topic, but Newsarama is reporting that Bruce Jones has just signed a two year exclusive deal with DC.

Cool!! Congrats to him. Congrats to me too as I'll finally have a chance at reading a Hulk story. I haven't seen Marvel put one out in a few years.

MindyP51:
"THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!!!!"

Hi, Mindy.
I would suggest that my decision not to see this film at this time is indicative of my ability to think for myself. I think the same could be said for others who have also made that choice.

I regret that your daughter and yourself were that close to events on September 11, 2001. I can only imagine what that must have been like and I feel that my imaginings would STILL come up short.

The thing that really gets to me is that for a while afterward we realized that our petty differences weren't so important after all. I wonder if that is the deeper loss that we all suffered: That those petty differences became important again after a short time. That our sense of unity in the face of such an attack so quickly and easily gave way to notions like keeping gays out of marriage and other small-minded notions. I had hoped that we could hold that sense of unity quite a bit longer.

But what do I know? It's far more important to feel good about pointing out perceived fallacies in the opposing perspective. That's just irony, I'm not taking a shot at you, Mindy. I'm just disappointed that we lost the drive to work together instead of blaming the dreaded "other side."

Salutations,

Mitch

Peter and/or Glenn,

Could you put the Sign In link at the top of the page? That would make it easier and faster to leave a reply. Thanks.

Peter and/or Glenn,

Also, once I post a reply, I then have to 'Sign In' again to post a second reply, even if it is still on the same topic. Is it possible to set it up so that one 'Sign In' lasts for the entirety of the visit?

Kingbobb: Yet national security was of so low a profile to our sitting President that, after hearing that a fully loaded jetliner had crashed into the World Trade Center…
Luigi Novi: Waitaminute. Did Andrew Card tell him it was a jetliner, or just a “plane”? When I woke up that day, it was sometime around 10am, when the entire event had already taken place, and hearing the reports for the first time about the “plane” or “planes,” I assumed they were talking about a small, single engine plane, like the one s that you sometimes read about crashing into buildings. Was the specificity of the plane communicated to Bush at that point?

JW: And what exactly did Clinton do? He lobed a few cruise missles, but refused Bin Laden when he was virtually handed him on a silver platter (sp?) -- and that was after the FIRST attack on the Twin Towers.
Luigi Novi: Can you elaborate on this point?

JW: I wish Bush had done more. But anyone who thinks he could have come into Washington and by February 1 put a plan into action doesn't understand politics. Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of the Florida election, one thing is true: The court battle significantly delayed the process of Bush puting his staff in place. In addition, the resulting antagonism from the Democrats severely slowed down their processing of Bush appointees. That is established fact. Clinton could have left a detailed plan (and the fact is he did NOT)…
Luigi Novi: First of all, 9/11 didn’t happen on Feb. 1st. It happened over seven months later. Second, the outgoing Clinton administration most certainly DID have a plan for Al Quaeda, which was completed a few weeks before Bush’s inauguration. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger arranged ten briefings with his successor, Condoleeza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, as reported in a Dec. 30th, 2001 New York Times. When Berger met with Rice, he gave her a warning about bin Laden. (Fahrenheit 9/11 shows footage of Rice flat-out saying that she was given a document titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”). Rice was impressed with Clinton’s counterterrorism guy Richard Clarke, but according to the article, there was some question about how seriously Bush and Cheney took him. A Washington Post article even stated that Clarke warned Rice that there was going to be a “major attack.” The movie also shows testimony from from the 9/11 hearings in which an official who went to the top (to Ashcroft, IIRC) with these concerns was told not to bring them up again.

Luigi Novi: So he couldn’t have contacted NORAD, the FAA, Giuliani, etc., to see if any other planes were taking off in the wrong direction, and headed for primary targets? Weren’t there TWO OTHER planes aside from the two that hit the WTC? Who says they couldn’t prevent further attacks from happening? As far as they knew, there could’ve been far more planes headed to targets like the Empire State Building, the Capitol, the White House, etc.

Jeff Gilmer: ...and those things were being done already. There were people doing their job to get that information ready for the President.
Luigi Novi: And did Bush ASK his staff if those things were being done? Did he KNOW those things were being done? What pro-active questions did he ask to that effect?

Jeff Gilmer:...anytime the President is "out of place" the Vice President makes decisions, especially during a crisis. My talking about taking charge is in relation to leaving the school, micromanaging the jobs of the Secret Service. The same Secret Service that has been doing their job longer than any President. Bush let them take the lead and move him where he needed to be to take over making the bigger decisions.
Luigi Novi: Bush was not “out of place.” The idea that you need to be in the Oval Office or on Air Force One to make decisions is ludicrous. The Secret Service’s job is not to “take the lead.” It’s to protect him. He’s the one who is supposed to take the lead. Even if the SS needed time to prepare his departure (which some above disputed), that doesn’t mean he can’t communicate with the rest of his administration and the other pertinent govt. agencies to find out what was happening and begin implementing a response, even if only a preliminary one, regardless of whether he happened to be in the corridor of a Florida school or on AF1.

JeffGillmer: I find it amazing that so many people on the "left" seem to see something wrong with the way he acted in the classroom. If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die.

Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? What does leaving the classroom have to do with the kids dying? Dying from what? Shock of meeting the President and then seeing him leave? How leaving the classroom cause the kids to die?

JeffGillmer:...I'm saying that's just one of the complaints that some on the left would have probably used if the President jumped up and rushed out of the room. Since he sat there, folks are complaining about that. It wouldn't have mattered what he did, partisans on the left would say it was wrong.
Luigi Novi: Right, because the left is so reactionary and stupid that they would equate leaving the schoolroom with the children dying? Sorry, but I’m not buying that. That seems to be your little Rorschach view of the left, one without an empirically valid argument to back it up.

JeffGillmer:...he was not in position to take charge of the situation. He needed to get moved to the place where he could be in secure communications with multiple agencies.
Luigi Novi: The first step of which would’ve been leaving the classroom, or at the very least, asking Andrew Card what their plan was for doing so. Instead, no such exchange is seen on that video.

JeffGillmer: He doesn't need to oversee those agencies or their actions. He needs them to do their job and get him the required information. Do you need your boss looking over your shoulder at every second of the day to make sure you're doing what you're supposed to do?
Luigi Novi: If an extremely unusual emergency situation develops, then my boss should making sure everyone is coordinated. It’s his JOB to oversee everyone doing theirs. That’s what he’s paid to do.

JeffGillmer: since AF1 has the secure communications facilities to corrdinate such things. I'm fairly certain that most elementary schools don't possess this equipment.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say they did. But as tyg pointed out above, it is presumable that Bush has the means to contact anyone he needs from wherever he is, be it the Presidential limo, satellite phones that his entourage has etc.

JeffGillmer: He didn't need to ask. Standard Operating Principal to move the President. There are well planned procedures to follow.
Luigi Novi: First of all, regardless of whether there are planned procedures, it is common sense to ask a very simple question like, “Everything going according to procedure?” Second, we are not talking about merely “moving” him. He should’ve immediately began asking what was going on with the situation, even if the only info available was preliminary.

JeffGillmer: thus it was determined that he wasn't in danger.
Luigi Novi: And how was this determination made?

JeffGillmer: So, your saying that any airplane crash should cause all commericial and private airplanes to be immediately grounded, and for fighters to be scrambled?

Luigi Novi: No, but if the target is the WTC—which had been targeted less than nine years earlier—and the administration had warnings of Al Quaeda’s plans, it should have.

JeffGillmer:...car bomb in underground parking garage equals attack by hijacked civilian airliners. Yeah, I can see where those two go together.
Luigi Novi: An attack on a target by terrorists one year means that when a plane flies into the same place less than nine years later, it might be a terrorist attack. I also noticed you ignored the part where I said, “the administration had warnings of Al Quaeda’s plans.” Since bombing the WTC didn’t work in ’93, the notion of flying planes into them should’ve occurred to Bush, particularly given the three instances in 1994 involving using planes as missiles, one of which was a terrorist act, and another of which was flown into the White House.

>...anytime the President is "out of place" the
>Vice President makes decisions, especially
>during a crisis.

Um, no. The Vice-President is *not* in the chain of command. S/he has three duties; to preside over the Senate, to break ties in the Senate, and to take over for the President, either temporarily or permanently, if the President is incapacitated. Incapacitated does *not* include "unable to come to the phone right now"; if the President is not actually killed, either the President must sign over their position [again, either temporarily, such as when one President [I'm thinking Reagan, but am not sure] underwent surgery for about 8 hours, or permanently] or the Cabinet must vote to declare the President unable to hold office (again, either temporarily or permanently).

Now, I don't doubt that in the current adminstration, Chaney has a *lot* of power. And Gore had a surprising amount in the Clinton administration. But these are very much the exceptions. Ever hear the Tom Lehrer song "Whatever Happened to Hubert?" about how previously prominent politician Hubert Humphrey basically vanished when he became Johnson's Veep? Truman didn't even know about the project to develop the atomic bomb until FDR's death. Etc.

Ever hear the Tom Lehrer song "Whatever Happened to Hubert?"

"Second fiddle's a hard part, I know
When they don't even give you a bow..."

TWL

A few points of interest:

1. A comprehensive list of Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism activities can be found here. Needless to say, it's a helluva lot more than what Bush has been doing before -- or after -- 9/11.

2. Folks who say Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary because it isn't objective are in error -- documentaries are all about supporting a particular view, and every documentary ever produced has an opinion of some sort. See Roger Ebert's explaination here.

3. Folks who haven't seen the film can see Bush's "seven minutes of inactivity" here, which starts after Andrew Card tells George W. Bush, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

JW: And what exactly did Clinton do? He lobed a few cruise missles, but refused Bin Laden when he was virtually handed him on a silver platter (sp?) -- and that was after the FIRST attack on the Twin Towers.
Luigi Novi: Can you elaborate on this point?
---------------------------------
I think he's probably talking about Sean Hannitys claim that the government of Sudan offered to turn Osama Bin Laden over to the US around '95ish.

Of course, like most things Sean Hannity says, its complete BS. The offer came from a man that national security adviser Sandy Berger determined was an unreliable freelancer. The kind of which the US does not do official business.

When the Sudan government was contacted, no such offer existed.

People like to call this film propaganda, but at worst, its counter propaganda. A necessary evil in which tofight the hate monger Hannitys, Limbaughs and Coulters.

Kingbobb: Yet national security was of so low a profile to our sitting President that, after hearing that a fully loaded jetliner had crashed into the World Trade Center…

Luigi Novi: Waitaminute. Did Andrew Card tell him it was a jetliner, or just a “plane”? When I woke up that day, it was sometime around 10am, when the entire event had already taken place, and hearing the reports for the first time about the “plane” or “planes,” I assumed they were talking about a small, single engine plane, like the one s that you sometimes read about crashing into buildings. Was the specificity of the plane communicated to Bush at that point?

Kingbobb (again): Luigi, I don't know. The Bush Admin. isn't known for revealing little details like that. My guess would be that the information was limited to "a plane has crashed into the WTC," or somesuch. But as you point out, the WTC was a known terrorist target, and planes striking large buildings is an extremely rare thing. 9/11 aside, you can literally count on one hand the incidents over the past 20 to 40 years of any aircraft striking a large building. There was that incident in Florida shortly after 9/11 (I think that was a student pilot, but I don't clearly remember). Other than that, the only other incident I know of, worldwide, is a passenger aircraft striking the Empire State Building, back when it was the world's tallest building.

And I'd better go check the US Constitution again, 'cause I must have missed the clause that authorizes the Veep to take control of the country when the Pres. is in the can, or otherwise "out of place." Maybe that's the way Bush/Cheney are running things, but if so, it's a gross violation of Constitutional authority, and an impeachable offense. We elected Bush as Pres., not Cheny. If they are running the office of the Pres. by committee, then this administration is an even worse violation of our government than we thought.

Let's remember that Bush was told of the first plane hitting the WTC when he first reached the elementary school photo-op. According to Bush personal assistant Blake Gottesman, Andrew Card told Bush, "By the way, an aircraft flew into the World Trade Center" (see Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon). When Bush was walking into the classroom, he already knew that an unprecedented incident was occurring in NYC.

And Andrew Card's words to Bush when the second plane hit were, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." This has been corroborated in numerous news reports.

And personally, anyone who hears that two airplanes hitting both towers of the WTC and doesn't conclude there's an enemy action involved has to be denser than lead.

I must disagree. We have not ignored Bin Laden. It is a valid question whether we could have done more to get Bin Laden. But I am certain Bush has a strong desire to get Bin Laden.

The Bush Administration said, about the time we targetted Saddam, that bin Laden was "no longer a priority".

Then, in the last few months, they have presumably stepped up efforts again to get him. And the only reason such efforts have been stepped up again is because Bush could use it in the election.

All in all, the fact that we went after Saddam before getting bin Laden, when Saddam was not an immediate threat, shows that Bush doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

"All in all, the fact that we went after Saddam before getting bin Laden, when Saddam was not an immediate threat, shows that Bush doesn't know what the hell he's doing."

Oh, Bush knows perfectly well what the hell he's doing... it just has nothing to do with the well-being of the nation, and everything to do with making him and his croneys rich(er).

Hi, Mitch, this is MindyP51. I didn't take your comment as an insult at all. And I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE SAD POLARIZATION OF THIS COUNTRY and the loss of unity that occurred so rapidly in the weeks after September 11th....of course, being a cynic, I wasn't surprised by it at all...Americans are NOTORIOUS for their short attention span and I applaud Michael Moore for being the gadfly this country needed to start paying more attention for a longer period than your average TV commercial. Well, hopefull, anyway! :-)

BTW, Mitch, I loved Moore's THE AWFUL TRUTH, and I found his book, STUPID WHITE MEN, to be very interesting. I just don't think the situation(s) portrayed in FARENHEIT 9/11 is(are) as black and white as he has portrayed them.

John Kerry is on Larry King right now (along with Mrs. Kerry), so it's a good chance to hear him. (It's 9:33 P.M., July 8, here in the NYC area.)

No worries, mate!!!

Best,

Mindy

By the way, I know Election Day is November 2nd...I didn't even realize I wrote November 11th until my husband (John Higgins, for you comics geeks out there :-) ) pointed it out to me.

So get and vote on November 2nd, everyone!

And Novembe 11th, I believe, is Veteran's Day.

Mindy

James Lileks slaps Moore silly:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/070804.html

Good for a chuckle, though you hardcore Moorephiles should give it a skip.

Interesting link, Bill; thanks. I've not seen F9/11 yet (nor any Moore film to date, actually, due more to lack of time than lack of interest), so I'm hardly a hardcore Moorephile. Lileks, however, seems entirely too smug by half for my tastes. The fact that international poll after international poll shows American standing abroad completely and utterly in the crapper (positives - negatives only reaching positive numbers in about 5-15% of countries surveyed) is, according to Lileks, the fault of the French.

Right.

Again, I'm actually fairly willing to believe that Moore can way overstate his case and shoot himself in the foot in the process: lots of polemicists do that, on any side of any issue you'd care to name.

So far as I can tell, though, Lileks is in that same boat sittin' right next to him and poking holes in the bottom.

TWL

In a related vein...

Just when you thought George W. Bush can't get more manipulative, it's now revealed that he's pressuring the Pakistanis to find or kill Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda members in time to disrupt the Democratic National Convention later this month:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904

That's right, folks -- forget national security, forget apprehending the folks responsible for the 9/11 attacks, all Bush cares about is making a big news splash that'll soak his political opponents...

Robert, I heard that news about the Pakistanis being pressured last night on CNN during a break at work. What I found utterly amazing is that it's only been a few months since a top Iranian official claimed that the US already has bin Laden and is simply waiting to announce his "capture" until mid-to-late October, and apparently, this revelation about Pakistan being pressured seemed to come as something of a shock by the CNN newscaster.
Of course, administration officials are denying this report about Pakistan, just as they denied the Iranian claim. (I just hope that if bin Laden is captured before Election Day, that the media and the public will demand an investigation into the timing of the capture. It's really hard to imagine that someone who requires dialysis treatment can successfully elude capture for nearly 3 years yet could be captured within the next 3 months without there being some chicanery involved.)

Tim,

Lileks is worth reading--give him a try for a few weeks to get used to the "voice", if you will. I find him entertaining even when I disagree with him.

Robert:
Interesting article...but since it relies strictly on sources that "insisted on remaining anonymous" how are we to judge its worth? At least the claims that Sudan tried to hand over Bin Laden to Clinton have actual real names involved--doesn't make them TRUE but at least one can evaluate them with SOME level of reality.

Joseph
"Of course, administration officials are denying this report about Pakistan, just as they denied the Iranian claim."

You do realize that at least ONE of these claims has to be 100% untrue, right? I mean, one says that we are pressuring the Pakistanis to capture Bin Laden and the other says that we have ALREADY captured Bin Laden.

So if Bin Laden is captured...Ha! It was a Bush dirty trick! If Bin Laden isn't captured...Ha! Bush dropped the ball on the war with terror! The Democrats have managed to Calvinball the game so that ANY eventuality will be proof of their worldview. Not bad.

Speaking of Iraq, has anyone else seen the CNN article about one of Saddam Hussein's lawyers making an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on his behalf?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/09/saddam.lawyer.ap/index.html

While I agree that everyone, even Saddam Hussein, should get a fair trial, I find one of the statement's his lawyer made puzzling. He said actions the U.S. government has taken are a violation of Hussein's fifth amendment rights.

Um... did I miss the big announcement that Saddam Hussein was a U.S citizen, and thus protected by the United States Constitution? No? I didn't think so. He doesn't HAVE any fifth amendment rights. What's more, his trial won't be in a U.S. courtroom, but in either an Iraqi courtroom or before the war crimes tribunal at the Hague (or both). Whatever rights he has would apply to the laws of Iraq and/or the Hague.

Rick

I'd say that no one of voting age "should" see this movie.

For shit's sake, this film's creator has a justified reputation for being disingenuous.

Bias or no bias the films and books in the past have made false presentations and distorted and even muddied his supposed evidence.

Given his own behavior regarding the marketing of the film and his "rebuttals" of responses to "Bowling For Columbine" I have no reason to assume that this film will have anything of worth to me (regardless of how I may or may not enjoy the movie).

Why should a liar be countenanced because his effects "bring up thought" or "make us think"? I don't care for the answer. I don't care how people answer or what words they use to answer.

Why must I be required to see a film to combat its points or its effects? Why must I contribute to this rich jerk's already-heavy purse simple to gain credibility in whatever argument?

It is incredibly, amazingly, uncannily STUPID that I have to pay $7.50 or more, plus spend two hours in order to earn credibility for/in my dissension? Why must I contribute to the wealth of this man whom I do not agree with or respect in order to combat the man's opinions? Given that Christopher Hitchens and others have sketched out and listed several relevant details from the piece there is no reason that I have to pay precious money or spend precious time to listen to Moore's voice describing the exact same notions, just to earn the supposed right to have my opinions and ideas appreciated by some of the people ANYWHERE (but including here) who happen to either agree with Moore or just happen to think the movie should be discussed.

To be honest, it's an awful forum where knowledge is valueless in the face of experience, if the contents and fruits of both knowledge gained second-hand and first-hand is identical.

I discourage anyone and everyone of voting age to contribute to Michael Moore's ever-growing financial wealth if they can get the same so-called benefits from another source entirely.

I'm not encouraging a boycott. I'm discouraging the disparagement of interested parties who haven't invested and aren't willing to invest just to play an odd game of political theory.

I'm against the promotion of the film as a kind of "must-see". I'm certainly in favor of people going to see the film if they want to.

CJA

Why should a liar be countenanced because his effects "bring up thought" or "make us think"?

I don't know -- why IS Bush in office?

TWL (and don't forget to tip your server...)

Just when you thought George W. Bush can't get more manipulative, it's now revealed that he's pressuring the Pakistanis to find or kill Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda members in time to disrupt the Democratic National Convention later this month:

The US Government is trying to kill bin Laden? Those dirty bastards. When did we make that a policy objective?

BTW, is anyone else having trouble getting the "preview" feature to work?

I think a better question is whether anyone has actually GOTTEN said "preview" feature to work at this point. I haven't had any luck since the switch to TypeKey.

I figure Glenn's got his hands full at the moment, but maybe sometime he can see what's up with it.

TWL

Yeah, the Preview doesn't work for me either, Tim.

Um, Bill, it would definitely behoove you to read a bit more carefully. The Pakistani claim that the Administration is denying is that Pakistan is being pressured to find bin Laden *OR* some top al-Qaeda official(s). The Iranians claimed that bin Laden was already in US custody.
Both claims can be true. The Pakistanis would not necessarily have been told that bin Laden is in US custody. If the Iranian claim is true, that doesn't make the Pakistani claim "100% untrue". Likewise, if the Pakistani claim is true, that doesn't make the Iranian claim "100% untrue".

Joseph says:
"The Pakistani claim that the Administration is denying is that Pakistan is being pressured to find bin Laden *OR* some top al-Qaeda official(s)."

Granted. However, it makes little sense to believe that the administration is putting undue pressure on Pakistan to find anyone other than Bin Laden since that is the only one who could possibly sway the election. I'd say about 25 of the public could name any of the top 10 leaders of AL-Qaeda other than Bin Laden and maybe, maybe that Mullah Omar guy. Capturing someone like Zarqawi would possibly be a greater catch than Bin Laden but it would not register as a blip on the electorate.

At any rate, since when have the Iranians and Pakistani anonymous sources been altogether great sources of the truth? They probably also have a few first edition copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion you could buy.

"I don't know -- why IS Bush in office?"

It wasn't through my godlike power of precognition but through my experience which told me that somebody would go that route and say almost those exact words. For goodness' sake, in the past you've leaned so far left I'm surprised you haven't fallen over.

Although really... you apparently haven't noticed that whatever the President says and does, regardless of truth or audience, he's not doing it to merely incite "discussion" or make us talk. Writing those words I never really thought they were referring to the President or could reasonably be used to allude to any President but I was certain that someone with selective reason would try to filter it that way.

No one ever said that a President was approved because he made us think.

As for why the current President is in office. Someone decided almost four years ago that according to the present set of rules and standards, the then-Governor of Texas had recieved the proper amount of votes in the certain specific places which indicated his role for the four years afterwards.

and ultimately, if the people in this country didn't agree that he was well and properly elected, they should have started a violent uprising, for as any Machiavellian will tell you, if the general population doesn't rise up against it, they either approve it, support it, or don't give a damn. He's President. Breathe.

damn. I was dragged off-topic. I don't feel bad.

I can't be cast as an irresponsible citizen because I didn't pay a tax to Ralph Nader's former favorite supporter. and a hearty "To heck/hell/hades with you" to those who insist otherwise.

I'm not tipping any server that won't let my sign in the first time, let alone the second time I tried with Typepad. what's up with this thing?

CJA

It wasn't through my godlike power of precognition but through my experience which told me that somebody would go that route and say almost those exact words.

When you open a door that wide and inviting, you can't exactly object when someone decides to stroll through. (And I'm well aware that you didn't lodge such an objection -- it's just the word that fit best there. So please don't jump on that one.)

For goodness' sake, in the past you've leaned so far left I'm surprised you haven't fallen over.

Given the number of friends I have who make me look like Ayn Rand, and that I'm not even the furthest left of people here, I'm forced to conclude you don't really know me all that well. Of course, you probably think anyone to the left of Cheney is a Marxist.

Then again, at least I sign my real name to my posts and stand by my words, unlike some pissants I could name.

Although really... you apparently haven't noticed that whatever the President says and does, regardless of truth or audience, he's not doing it to merely incite "discussion" or make us talk.

That I'll readily grant, and I knew my response was a one-liner reach in the first place. This president in particular seems much more interested in squelching discussion and making us shut up.

And given that at this point they're being surprisingly cavalier about even guaranteeing an election will HAPPEN at this point [source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040708-15.html , towards the bottom], all the evidence suggests that said interest will continue to grow.

and ultimately, if the people in this country didn't agree that he was well and properly elected, they should have started a violent uprising, for as any Machiavellian will tell you, if the general population doesn't rise up against it, they either approve it, support it, or don't give a damn.

1) I didn't bring up the 2000 election. You did.
2) Violent uprisings seem to be much more of a far-right action (e.g. militia groups) than the actions of the left. If nothing else, that side of the aisle certainly seems to be much better armed.

And do have a nice day.

TWL

Tim says:
"And given that at this point they're being surprisingly cavalier about even guaranteeing an election will HAPPEN at this point [source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040708-15.html , towards the bottom], all the evidence suggests that said interest will continue to grow"

Now that you've given the already paranoid leftists who read this a case of hives, let me point out that what this references is the question posed by a reporter on what might happen were there a terrorist attack on election day.

Which poses an interesting question: What SHOULD we do if, and this is a major God Forbid here, a massive, crippling, terrible attack or series of attacks is launched the day before election day. Something on the order of truckloads of anthrax spores exploding in a dozen major cities, or 500 suicide bombers detonating themselves at 12 noon in fast-food establishments...the kind of thing that would make people stay home.

Does the election go forth?

To my mind, I say yes, but one might argue that it's easy for me to say that since the people most likely to stay home would be inner city folks, as opposed to the more conservative suburban areas.

So Bush could postpone the elections--and get tarred as "Dictator Monkeyman" by his always sympathetic opposition, or go ahead with the elections and be accused of using terrorism to win the vote.

Either way, the opportunity to really screw with us just seems too good an opportunity for the bad guys to pass up. Hope I'm wrong.

Bill says,
Now that you've given the already paranoid leftists who read this a case of hives, let me point out that what this references is the question posed by a reporter on what might happen were there a terrorist attack on election day.

...as was obvious from the context for those who read said reference.

What's also clear from the context is that the reporter was looking for a commitment that the election would go forward. Said commitment was not forthcoming. This is not something I consider heartening.

Your hypothetical is interesting, however:

Which poses an interesting question: What SHOULD we do if, and this is a major God Forbid here, a massive, crippling, terrible attack or series of attacks is launched the day before election day.

If it were possible, I'd almost say something like: yes, in those areas not directly affected. Directly affected areas would have a postponement that's as brief as humanly possible, and no results of any form would be made public until all sectors had voted.

I doubt that would really be possible (especially the last clause), but it seems the best of a bad lot of choices to me.

If that's not an option, then I say yes, and use whatever infrastructure you have available to ensure that people get to the polls and can feel relatively safe in doing so. (Or, to get really out there, postpone the election but have Kerry and Bush sharing equal power until said election is held. That would substantially reduce the number of accusations that they were trying to run out the clock.

Me, I'm voting absentee, for several reasons (convenience being one of them, given the distance between the polling place and where I work), and would urge everyone to do the same. One cannot disrupt what's already happened.

Either way, the opportunity to really screw with us just seems too good an opportunity for the bad guys to pass up. Hope I'm wrong.

I hope so too.

Of course, one could hypothesize that repeated nonspecific warnings from Tom Ridge about "planned attacks to disrupt the democratic process" might even have the effect of keeping the people most likely to stay home from going to the polls out of fear -- which, as you say, probably skews in the GOP's favor. One might observe that this would serve the administration's electoral purposes without all that messiness of actual loss of life.

But then, I suppose, one would have to be a "paranoid leftist" to do that.

TWL

Tim
I find it a little ironic that you find it disheartening that the administration would not guarantee that election would go forth in the event of a terrorist attack when your own best solution does not guarantee that the election would go forth, at least for everybody.

"Of course, one could hypothesize that repeated nonspecific warnings from Tom Ridge about "planned attacks to disrupt the democratic process" might even have the effect of keeping the people most likely to stay home from going to the polls out of fear -- which, as you say, probably skews in the GOP's favor. One might observe that this would serve the administration's electoral purposes without all that messiness of actual loss of life.

But then, I suppose, one would have to be a "paranoid leftist" to do that."

Well, considering that it has become dogma to many on the left that Bush should have known about 9/11 because of that memo that said (you'd all best be seated now) "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," (presumably this was from the CIA's crack "Duh" division) one can hardly blame Ridge for erring on the side of caution. If there is another attack and it comes out that there was any--ANY--reason to suspect it might happen, Ridge will be roasted by many of the same folks who castigate him as Chicken Little.

Seriously, I read a few commentaries from people who claimed that we should have known what would happen because there were Arabs taking flying lessons but not paying attention during the landing sequence parts. Good God...talk about back seat prognosticating. Everyone's Nostradamas the day after.

Ridge is in a can't win position--if it happens nobody will thank him for the warnings--they'll be busy criticizing his inability to stop it. If it doesn't happen, he will be criticized for trying to scare people.

re your suggestions

The first is fine but, as you say, unworkable. You won't be able to prevent exit polls and short of suppressing freedom of speech, the results will get out. If the affected areas could possibly have an effect on the election we will have both parties acting like animals to get out the vote, while the National Guard would be trying to keep order...a nightmare.

Bush and Kerry sharing power is unlikely--you can only have 1 commander in chief. At any rate, Bush is president through November and December anyway, so that gives 2 months to get the vote completed, with no power sharing required.

But I think we are thinking too big here. I doubt that they can actually pull off destroying the election but they can create an atmosphere where people have to go through metal detectors and provide ID to vote, which will provide grist for those who lose to complain "We was robbed!" In a close election this sort of manipulation will at the very least ensure that the president, whoever they may be, will enter under a cloud.

Bill,
I find it a little ironic that you find it disheartening that the administration would not guarantee that election would go forth in the event of a terrorist attack when your own best solution does not guarantee that the election would go forth, at least for everybody.

I don't. My "best solution" has within it the possibility that the election may not quite go forward on time, but the process would clearly be moving forward. McClellan gives no indication that the election would go forward at all under those circumstances.

Let's keep in mind that none other than Gen. Tommy Franks (who had a substantial role in the Iraq war and is generally well respected on both sides of the aisle) has gone on the record predicting that another strike inside the U.S. would result in a suspension of the Constitution and an imposition of something akin to martial law. He wasn't happy about it, and neither am I.

And while you're right that Ridge's announcements could simply be nothing more than a giant CYA, and that such is even reasonably likely, I have serious doubts that the political office inside the WH isn't well aware of every word that's being said and planning those words carefully.

Various pundits on the right have already said that a vote for Kerry is "letting the terrorists win", or words to that effect. Using that interpretation, it's not much of a stretch to take Ridge's warnings as a quiet "don't let Kerry win." Given how little interest this administration seems to have in playing fair (domestically or internationally), I don't think it's especially fair to expect me to always have the most charitable interpretation of a given action.

Bush and Kerry sharing power is unlikely--you can only have 1 commander in chief.

We've never tried, nor have we ever had circumstances such as the ones you're hypothesizing.

But I think we are thinking too big here. I doubt that they can actually pull off destroying the election but they can create an atmosphere where people have to go through metal detectors and provide ID to vote, which will provide grist for those who lose to complain "We was robbed!" In a close election this sort of manipulation will at the very least ensure that the president, whoever they may be, will enter under a cloud.

Oh, I think it's worse than that. Under those circumstances, I don't think half the electorate will accept the outcome -- and I think that would lead to some sort of armed conflict. A clear result one way or another would probably prevent that from happening for a while, but one more murky election and I think the political system is going to break down entirely.

I hope to hell that (a) that prediction doesn't have to be tested, and that (b) it turns out to be wrong if it is tested.

TWL

Tim Lynch: Then again, at least I sign my real name to my posts and stand by my words, unlike some pissants I could name.
Luigi Novi: Well, I'm not sure if there's a specific person or connotation you're going for here, but personally, I support anonymity for people who choose to participate in internet debates, even when they enter the realm of heated disagreement, so long as it's maintained in a mostly sincere and good-faith manner regarding the poster's beliefs and opinions regarding the issues, and effort is maintained to refrain from gratuitous flaming. Me, I use my real name when I post here or at www.nitcentral.com, but when I post on the boards at the Internet Movie Database, I use an alias because those boards tend to be less closely monitored, and feature a greater population of unenlightened children who haven’t learned the value of politeness when disagreeing with someone. I don’t think this makes me a “pissant,” it just means I’m cautious.

If Blue Spider chooses to use pseudonym, I see nothing wrong with it. I mean, what difference does it make? Sure, he could sign his posts “Zack Davidson,” or something, but it’s not like you really know for certain one way or the other if that’s his real name, is it, Tim? For all you know, “Luigi Novi” is just an alias, and I’m just lying about it being my real name, and the same could hold true for “Tim Lynch.” So what difference does it make if he uses a traditional first and last name? Now if someone creates a reputation for themselves with one name (real or imagined), and others come to know him/her through the agreements or disagreements they have with him/her in those message board debates, and THEN suddenly switches to a new temporary pseudonym for the sole purpose of attacking or insulting someone, then THAT’s cheap.

Tim Lynch: And given that at this point they're being surprisingly cavalier about even guaranteeing an election will HAPPEN at this point [source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040708-15.html , towards the bottom], all the evidence suggests that said interest will continue to grow.
Luigi Novi: I read that everything on that page, and didn’t see what you were referring to, Lynch. Can you elaborate on that?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040711/ts_nm/politics_election_terror_dc_2

See also:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek

Doubtlessly this will be seen by some on the far left as mere subterfuge to allow "another coup". The talk of Bush somehow preventing the election is EXACTLY the same kind of talk that one was hearing from the far right Clinton haters back in 2000. They looked silly then and their soulmates on the left look silly now.

Of course, should something happen and it turn out that nobody had planned for the eventuality, the Bush team would be accused of a "lack of imagination" etc etc.

Hey, has the site been wonky for the last day? I haven't been able to post since yesterday afternoon, forcing me to go to my alternate form of entertainment, calling up random homes and asking if they have Dinty Moore in a can.

On aliases and "anonymity". Luigi:

Well, I'm not sure if there's a specific person or connotation you're going for here,

Look at who I was responding to. That should help.

but personally, I support anonymity for people who choose to participate in internet debates, even when they enter the realm of heated disagreement, so long as it's maintained in a mostly sincere and good-faith manner regarding the poster's beliefs and opinions regarding the issues, and effort is maintained to refrain from gratuitous flaming.

That is, of course, a reasonable position. I'd like to think mine is as well, though, and it differs from yours somewhat.

I'm a strong supporter of anonymity in those cases where it's necessary -- discussion fora on things like abuse recovery, for example, or a certain level of anonymity to provide protection for whistle-blowers. In those cases, anonymity provides a clear and present benefit.

Other than that -- no. I'd never propose that people not have the right to use such anonymity, but fifteen years of experience online has taught me that being able to lob stinkbombs into the middle of a room anonymously makes it far more likely that said stinkbombs will actually be used. (And I say that as someone who actually got a phone call while at work from Richard Arnold years ago wanting to dispute something I'd said online, so I'm well aware of the drawbacks of having one's name out in public.)

I take what I write seriously and I take my points of view seriously. If I expect others to do the same, I think that merits attaching a real name to them, not a pseudonym.

You're right, of course, that what's really beyond the pale is to adopt several pseudonyms and use them in a deceptive manner -- but if people are using their real names anyway, the impetus to pull that kind of deception is lessened.

If Blue Spider chooses to use pseudonym, I see nothing wrong with it. I mean, what difference does it make? Sure, he could sign his posts “Zack Davidson,” or something, but it’s not like you really know for certain one way or the other if that’s his real name, is it, Tim?

And to think people call ME paranoid. :-) If someone signs something that looks like a real name, I assume it is such. I trust until I'm given reason not to.

I'm just wrapping up reading The Transparent Society by David Brin, a nonfiction work he wrote about 5-6 years back. I don't agree with all of it, but it's been a fascinating read. I recommend it to anyone who's interested in issues of transparency, anonymity, privacy, and accountability.

TWL

On the "delaying elections" question. Bill writes:

Doubtlessly this will be seen by some on the far left as mere subterfuge to allow "another coup". The talk of Bush somehow preventing the election is EXACTLY the same kind of talk that one was hearing from the far right Clinton haters back in 2000. They looked silly then and their soulmates on the left look silly now.

I was going to include a fairly biting note here about the condescending pat-on-the-head tone you're taking here, Bill. However, since on the whole I think you're a fairly reasonable person I'll set it aside. This time. As a rule, though, I really don't do well with being condescended to and never have.

The difference between the anti-Clinton statements in 2000 and the anti-Bush statements now is that the Bush administration actually is talking about delaying the election. Clinton, so far as memory serves, never brought any such thing up, nor did anyone in his administration. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will pop in with evidence to that effect shortly.

Let's look at this historically. Even at the height of the Civil War, elections were held on time. Even at the peak of Vietnam and the unrest it sparked in the US (the closest we've come to a civil war since 1865, IMO ... at least until now), elections were held on time. National elections have, to the best of my memory, never been postponed in the US. (The only election I can think of that was postponed at all was the NYC mayoral election on 9/11 itself, and I think everyone sees that as justified.)

What's more, the analogy being used is flawed. The officials discussing this keep drawing parallels to Spain, saying that the Madrid bombings have made them more aware that something might need to be done.

But the Madrid bombings did not delay the elections in Spain, and the bombings took place in the capital a mere three days before said elections.

What the Madrid bombings may have done is influence the outcome, but that's democracy.

So is Spain really a good model to use here for a reason to change a fundamental right of the American people? Or is the fact that the incumbent in Spain was ousted reason enough that the elections need to be delayed?

Remember, one of the Bush team's campaign themes has been that we shouldn't change horses in midstream, which when combined with the fact that several officials have said the "war on terror" will take decades leads to some deeply unsettling conclusions.

So while the tone here may sound as silly to you as the anti-Clinton rhetoric in 2000, the substance is rather significantly different. As writer Teresa Nielsen Hayden wrote recently, "I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist." (In the interest of giving credit where it's due, I first saw this quote on Lis Riba's blog when a friend linked to it.)

Of course, should something happen and it turn out that nobody had planned for the eventuality, the Bush team would be accused of a "lack of imagination" etc etc.

But "planning for the eventuality" should mean very public statements that (a) elections will go forward on time unless it's absolutely impossible to do so, and (b) any delays would be as short as humanly possible. Those statements have not occurred.

Quick question, Bill, since you seem to think expressing many concerns makes one "look silly": are there any circumstances under which you'd think the Bush administration is NOT doing a good job? And what exactly would a group in power -- any group, on either side of the aisle -- have to do in order to make you think they ARE subverting the Constitution?

TWL

The big point to be considered is not whether we should have a plan in place in case of an attack, it's the fact that the ONLY plan the Bush Admin has in mind is, if we get attacked, delay the election.

I'll be honest - I'm damned surprised we haven't been attacked again since 9/11. Hell, I was convinced we would be.

But that wouldn't keep me from voting should an attack occur just before the election.

Tim,
I'm sorry if I came across as condescending toward you. Despite our profound political differences I have the utmost respect for your intelligence. I make it a rule not to assume mental superiority toward anyone who teaches physics.

Do keep in mind though that when I say "some on the left" I don't automatically mean you. I read a wide variety of political blogs and such, right and left. There are those who are convinced that Bush will do anything, including assassination, military coup, whatever, to stay in office. They are the liberal twins of the folks who said much the same about Clinton.

Can't think of anything Clinton did to bring that thought on...but since I thought that the speculation was f****** goofy I wasn't paying much attention.

Here's my point--yes, the Bush people are talking about potential scenarios. They should. Lest we forget, a New York City election was scheduled for September 11 or 12, I believe. It was delayed, the wise thing to do most agreed at the time. This was possible because there was a law in place.

There is no such law in place for a federal election. For that matter, what would happen if the Congress was wiped out in one massive attack? Nobody seems to be sure. We live in a world where a city can vanish into thermic mist in seconds but we have put little thought into questions of succession.

I'm not talking about you, Tim, but some--SOME--of the anti Bush crowd would no doubt regard any such thinking or planning as proof that Bush was planning on killing the congress and having them all replaced with Republicans appointed by his oil money friends so they can build a pipeline blah blah blah, the usual.

It's a difficult position--we do need a plan but at the same time, publicizing it may invite trouble. And no matter what is done, there will be sniping from critics.

I have to say though, were it John Kerry or even Bill Clinton now dealing with these questions, I sure hope that I would be less willing to indulge in what I have to regard as wild speculation than you are. However I also recognize that your dislike and mistrust of Bush vastly outweighs anything I've felt toward any politician so this is, perhaps, unsurprising.

"But "planning for the eventuality" should mean very public statements that (a) elections will go forward on time unless it's absolutely impossible to do so, and (b) any delays would be as short as humanly possible. Those statements have not occurred."

Agreed. This is a relatively new story so I'm not surprised if the spokesman had little in the way of specifics. At any rate, won't this take some kind of congressional action? I suspect this story will get more play in the weeks ahead (or it will be swept under the rug while we all just cross our fingers and wish the bad guys away).

"Quick question, Bill, since you seem to think expressing many concerns makes one "look silly": are there any circumstances under which you'd think the Bush administration is NOT doing a good job?”

Well, I don't think that expressing many concerns makes one look silly...unless one is expressing many silly concerns. If, for example, one is "concerned" that Paul Wellstone was murdered by the RNC, then I think that "silly" is letting one of easy ("goofy as a pet coon" would be more apt).

As for the possibility that I might, under any circumstance, NOT think that the Bush administration is doing a good job...where do I start? The anti-gay marriage effort is a travesty, though Kerry's non-profile in courage eases the bitterness somewhat. Domestic spending has been wasteful, the No Child Left Behind act is achingly awful, the war on Iraq should have been presented with a far greater emphasis on removing a genocidal dictator than on seemingly nonexistent WMD stockpiles, the CIA has remained broken, the Sudanese genocide has been allowed to continue,...if one is looking for someone who walks in lockstep with the Bush team, one had best look elsewhere. The Democrats would have to nominate a real loser to not have much chance of getting my vote. Predictably, they did.

"And what exactly would a group in power -- any group, on either side of the aisle -- have to do in order to make you think they ARE subverting the Constitution?"

Something that would subvert the constitution. Fortunately, our system makes this less likely than in most countries (if they had a constitution, which they don’t). Planning for bad possibilities in a world that is full of them doesn't cross the threshold. Not even close.

Craig says:
"The big point to be considered is not whether we should have a plan in place in case of an attack, it's the fact that the ONLY plan the Bush Admin has in mind is, if we get attacked, delay the election."

I don't know that there is ANY plan yet. Sounds to me like this is in the very early stages of planning, if that. (this should have been addressed WAY before now). At any rate, other than delay, what else can be done? We either have the elction or delay it and only the delay needs much planning.

I suppose they could plan for National Guardsman at every polling place, which would probably result in claims of intimidation.

You're not the only one "damn surprised". I can't figure it out, myself, unless we have way overestimated these folks (or way underestimated how effective the counter terrorism has been).

BTW, Craig, Tim, everybody, go to http://jibjab.com/thisland.html

If it's busy keep trying. Worth it.

Bill,

I'm sorry if I came across as condescending toward you. Despite our profound political differences I have the utmost respect for your intelligence. I make it a rule not to assume mental superiority toward anyone who teaches physics.

Much appreciated.

Do keep in mind though that when I say "some on the left" I don't automatically mean you.

I'm aware of that. In this case, since I'm the one who brought up the "delaying the election" scenario, I assumed I was being included in that category. I don't generally assume I'm being targeted by every statement, no. :-)

Here's my point--yes, the Bush people are talking about potential scenarios. They should. Lest we forget, a New York City election was scheduled for September 11 or 12, I believe. It was delayed, the wise thing to do most agreed at the time.

True, as I've already mentioned. It wasn't just scheduled -- it was already in progress when the WTC was hit.

My point, which Craig has already echoed, is that they're not saying something like "if another attack were to take place, we need to figure out how the election would work." They're saying outright that they're looking for legal mechanisms to justify delaying the election. That is too quick a jump and too broad a statement.

This was possible because there was a law in place.
There is no such law in place for a federal election. For that matter, what would happen if the Congress was wiped out in one massive attack? Nobody seems to be sure. We live in a world where a city can vanish into thermic mist in seconds but we have put little thought into questions of succession.

First, I don't think I agree that "little thought" has been put into it -- I've seen various discussions about ways to ensure continuity of government in the event of such a disaster.

Second ... to be blunt, if DC "vanishes into a thermic mist", the continuity of government is not going to be my primary concern -- or, I suspect, the country's. (Among other things, almost all of my wife's family lives in and around DC.)

I have to say though, were it John Kerry or even Bill Clinton now dealing with these questions, I sure hope that I would be less willing to indulge in what I have to regard as wild speculation than you are.

You are welcome to regard it as wild speculation. Obviously, I don't consider it such.

And consider the statements we've had over the last three years, such as:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
-- G. W. Bush, 12/18/00
[I'll grant that this one may have been in jest.]

"The nice thing about being president is that I don't have to explain myself to anyone."
-- Bush, to Bob Woodward

Authority to set aside laws is "inherent in the President."
-- administration lawyers in a 2003 memo on torture, as quoted by everyone up to and including that leftist rag the Wall Street Journal

"George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the US. He was appointed by God."
-- Gen. William Boykin, June 2003

'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"
-- Bush to the Palestinians, June 2003

Even leaving out the myriad ways in which Bush and I would differ on the issues (such as the always-good-for-a-laugh creationism debate), those statements form a very worrying picture.

If Clinton administration officials or Kerry administration officials projected the same contempt for accountability and mistrust of transparency, then honestly I hope you would engage in such "wild speculation." The statement "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" is occasionally misused, but it's also CORRECT more often than not -- and I think the public's willingness to say "gee, these guys are in charge, so they must be right" is a slap in the face to anyone who thinks our freedom means a damn.

Forget cultural issues. Forget our stature abroad. There is a very basic issue of accountability at issue here, and I think the people currently running the country have even less respect for said accountability than did the Nixon administration. That alone would be enough to swing my vote, even were it not for the eight gazillion other reasons I'd like to see Bush out of power.

Since you clearly don't have the same mistrust of the administration, that either means (a) you disagree that transparency and accountability matter, or (b) you don't think this administration has been in favor of secrecy and against accountability. I'm honestly curious as to which category you'd put yourself in.

"Quick question, Bill, since you seem to think expressing many concerns makes one "look silly": are there any circumstances under which you'd think the Bush administration is NOT doing a good job?”

Well, I don't think that expressing many concerns makes one look silly...unless one is expressing many silly concerns

I think you misread my intent there. I didn't mean "many concerns" in that a given number is that looks silly -- I meant that a great many individual concerns expressed have been dismissed by you as silly, and that anyone expressing any of said concerns is equally dismissed. I can easily see how the sentence could've been interpreted other ways, though.

As for the possibility that I might, under any circumstance, NOT think that the Bush administration is doing a good job...where do I start?

That's kinda my question to you. :-) I appreciate the response (and am heartened that a fellow teacher finds NCLB equally "achingly awful").

"And what exactly would a group in power -- any group, on either side of the aisle -- have to do in order to make you think they ARE subverting the Constitution?"

Something that would subvert the constitution.

Now there's a helpful answer.

Let's get more specific. One of the big examples of same brought up in constitutional-law discussions is Watergate. Was that an example of subverting the Constitution?

Is tampering with an election such an example? Does it depend on the way in which the tampering is done?

TWL

Cute animation, Bill. Thanks.

TWL

"Let's get more specific. One of the big examples of same brought up in constitutional-law discussions is Watergate. Was that an example of subverting the Constitution?"

I'd be pretty surprised if it were not considered so.

I have a pretty high standard on the "high crimes and misdemeanors" part of the impeachment process. Folks who thought that Bill Clinton should not have been impeached because he committed no high crime usually skipped over the misdemeanor part, or had some tortured logic about "high misdemeanors"...if such things exist (isn't a misdemeanor by definition NOT a serious crime, though a crime nonetheless?). However I would argue that his crimes were not really a subversion of the constitution.

With Nixon one could hardly argue the case. Even assuming he did not know of the break in, his efforts in the cover-up were more than enough. The abuse of power was obvious and worthy of the impeachment he escaped only by resigning (had Clinton done likewise Gore would be president today, for better or worse).

"Is tampering with an election such an example? Does it depend on the way in which the tampering is done?"

Any illegal tampering is subversion of the constitution, regardless of who does it. I'm rather surprised that neither party has really tried to expose some of the abuses that go on (perhaps neither is clean in that regard). I think that a Pulitzer awaits any intrepid reporter who gets the undercover scoop on some of the shenanigans (assuming some of the anecdotal evidence has any validity to it--a big assumption).

For anyone who believes the material in Fahrenheit 9/11 was accurate (or hell, for those who think it inaccurate), this is a must-read: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

You know, the perfect way to come up with a viable solution to the danger of terrorist influenced elections might be to create a panel of former office holders headed by Clinton, Ford and Carter. That should placate those who see it as an attempt to do a legal coup and may even produce something useful.

You know,

I'm not too sure about this and I'm hoping someone can help out. I remember a magazine a few years ago called Comic Relief. In it, they had a cartoon called "President Bill" or something like that.

Well, the time came for re-elections and Bill lost. Right before he the inaugaration of the new President-Elect, Bill declared Martial Law to hold onto power. Now, all this talk is coming up about delaying elections....

Considering that I truly believe that GWB ONLY reads the comics section in any given newspaper or magazine and has the rest of it read TO him(saves on time to have it broken down, you know),this actually seems like a really werid coincidence.

For anyone who believes the material in Fahrenheit 9/11 was accurate (or hell, for those who think it inaccurate), this is a must-read: ">http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Have you actually read that list? It's an embarassing collection of straw men and misguided conclusions for the most partt, and calling it the best attempt to discredit Moore is a laughable embarassment.

On the other hand, if you want something meatier to sink your teeth into, check this out -- Michael Moore presents references and citations for every fact in Fahrenheit 9/11. Be warned, it's a very extensive list...

Bill,
"Let's get more specific. One of the big examples of same brought up in constitutional-law discussions is Watergate. Was that an example of subverting the Constitution?"

I'd be pretty surprised if it were not considered so.

Well, since you're the one I'm asking to consider it, I'd be equally surprised were you not the one making the final call on that.

However I would argue that [Clinton's] crimes were not really a subversion of the constitution.

How about Oliver North? Lying under oath to Congress about an issue which circumvented Congressional oversight seems possible to me.

"Is tampering with an election such an example? Does it depend on the way in which the tampering is done?"

Any illegal tampering is subversion of the constitution, regardless of who does it.

Glad we agree on that.

I kinda wish you'd answered some of the other stuff I'd written (at least the one or two things that were direct questions for you), but we're so far downtopic that I suppose we're boring the six people left reading this. Perhaps another time.

TWL

"I kinda wish you'd answered some of the other stuff I'd written (at least the one or two things that were direct questions for you)"

I'll answer if I can, not sure which ones you mean. The one about do I "(A)-you disagree that transparency and accountability matter, or (B)- you don't think this administration has been in favor of secrecy and against accountability."?

The trick answer is, of course, (C)- the Treaty of Fenwick. Hey, I didn't earn those triple digit SAT scores by sitting on my ass.

Actually I think that this administration has been in favor of both secrecy and against any more accountability than they absolutely have to. In this they follow, IMHO, the fine tradition of EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THEM. So it neither pleases not upsets me.

And we can degenerate into a contest of "who can google the worst stuff about the adminstration of our choice" but it will probably end up with an agreement to disagree.

I'll answer if I can, not sure which ones you mean. The one about do I "(A)-you disagree that transparency and accountability matter, or (B)- you don't think this administration has been in favor of secrecy and against accountability."?

That's the one. Thanks for the response; I think it's perhaps the answer best showing where and why our worldviews are differing so strongly.

I wasn't expecting you to address the quotes; your response is more than a bit distressing from where I sit, but I didn't really expect otherwise.

Time will tell. It always does.

TWL

Well, being the cynical SOB that I am...

I actually don't doubt the good intentions of the Bush team...it's their execution that scares me. If it's anything like their management of post-fall Iraq...aiii-yah.

A lot of posts. Discussion seems to have moved all over the map.

Eh, I'll just comment on PAD's comments re: F911, and the questions that he brings up. Or more specific, what Moore does NOT bring up.

I don't expect to change PAD's opinion. I never will. I'm just hopefully trying to bring a few facts to light so that hopefully PAD will see the bigger picture.

It's a staggering piece of work. Even with the understanding that Moore is out to get Bush, nevertheless the most damning moments come from simple facts: The refusal of a single Senator to join with the Black caucus in protesting the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida;

What about the disenfranchisement of those voters in the Central Time Zone in Florida. That's an area that's heavily Republican. And the announcement that Gore had "won" -- before the polls had closed -- very likely stopped those citizens from casting their votes for Bush.

Regarding the people who were tossed off the legitimate voters roll, that's because an entire election had to be invalidated due to the fact that convicted felons were allowed to illegally vote. And not only that, DEAD people voted too! The changes were in response to that situation. Did the computers go too far in omitting the names? Probably, but those who were taken off the list had a chance to appeal the decision if they were taken off in error.

Bottom line: Florida in 2000 was a screw-up of collosal proportions. Voters were disenfranchised on BOTH sides. Republicans and Democrats both got screwed. There's no way of knowing what would've happened had everybody gotten a fair chance to vote. To focus on only one side of the equation is to withhold the entire truth, which Moore loves to do.

And as an aside ... that part where it says "Under all scenarios, Gore won Florida" is untrue. Multiple papers have done researchs, and Bush won Florida in all scenarios except when you counted overvotes. And Gore never asked for overvotes to be counted. Gore lost Florida.

the entanglement of Bush family business interests with bin Laden and Saudi Arabia business interests;

To be honest ... so freaking what? Bush's family are investors. The bin Laden family are also investors. They happened to invest in the same company. SHOCK! SHUDDER!

And everybody seems to be forgetting that the bin Laden family is, for the most part, pro-West. Osama was disowned by the family, remember? To point to the bin Ladens and say "look, terrorist link!" is just as false as pointing to Roger Clinton and say "look, the Clintons are involved with drugs because Bill's brother is a druggie!" The bin Laden family and Osama shouldn't be considered to be the same thing.

As for the Carlyle Group (the investment firm that both the Bush family [note, the Bush family, not George W. Bush himself] and the bin Laden family invested in)? Well, there's another guy who's invested a LOT of money into that very same company. Way more money than both the Bush family and the bin Laden family combined.

George Soros.

You might know him as the primary financer behind the website MoveOn.org. You know, that extremely left-leaning website that has hosted "ads" that compare Bush to Hitler?

So is Soros involved in this giant big conspiracy that Moore speaks of? Gotta be, he's investing in the same investment firm that the Bushes and the bin Ladens invest in!

Oh, and P.S. that oil pipeline? Ya know, the reason why we invaded Afghanstain, according to Moore? Wasn't even a Bush project. The oil pipeline project originated with Clinton. The company that eventually won the rights to build the pipeline is the one that Clinton proposed. The company that Bush was backing ended up having absolutely nothing to do with the Afghanstain oil pipeline project. Oops. There goes that theory.

the contradictory statements of Bush's own people (their assurances in early 2000 that Saddam is not a threat as opposed to their later proclamations that he is);

Like Democrats have never flip-flopped?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?" Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Oct 9, 2002.

the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush's face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten;

There's been a lot of debate up there about these seven minutes already. I won't rehash it here, but obviously there's more than one way of looking at it. Those who despise Bush are going to find negative things in Bush's actions no matter what.

the children in Iraq post bombing, with arms blown off, legs blown off...a little boy screaming as medics desperately try to sew pieces of his face together. An elderly Iraqi woman screaming that God has foresaken them, that her house and all her neighbor's houses were destroyed, that she's been to five funerals in the previous week.

And life during the Saddam regime REALLY was idllyic! Children played with kites! Mothers beamed with pride! Happy, happy, joy, joy.

Unless, of course, you happened to speak a negative word against Saddam and his thugs. Or a Kurd. Or a Shiite. Or simply a soccer player who had a bad game while representing the Iraqi national team. Then you're gassed, put into a meat grinder, or just simply killed. We did find all those mass graves that stored hundreds of thousands of corpses.

At least we're giving the Iraqi citizens *freedom.* Something that they never had under Saddam. Freedom isn't always pretty, and is oftimes bloody to get. Our founding fathers knew that, as did the Union army during the Civil War. Ditto the "Greatest Generation" who sacrificed so much to defeat the Nazis.

Bush liberated two countries.

And do I really have to pull out some Michael Moore quotes regarding his feelings on the terrorist situation? They aren't pretty. I think that most everybody here, despite their misgivings about the reasoning behind the war, want us to win in Iraqi and to see peace, stability, and democracy brought to that troubled region. Michael Moore wants the terrorists to win.

Here's a sample quote. Taken directly from his own website.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."

'nuff said.

Like you, StarvingWriter, I don't expect to change your mind here. However, there's one particular point of fact which seriously needs correcting. (There may well be others, but this is the one I know well.)

MoveOn.org. You know, that extremely left-leaning website that has hosted "ads" that compare Bush to Hitler?

Here's where the "bright green bullshit" alarm goes off.

The facts: MoveOn hosted a contest called "Bush in 30 Seconds" which invited people to send in possible ads about Bush, the best of which would get professional reworkings (if need be) and actually aired on national television.

One or two of the hundreds if not thousands of ads produced used a Bush/Hitler comparison. They were not the winning ads.

Thus, to say that "MoveOn hosted ads comparing Bush to Hitler" is entirely wrong. Those ads appeared briefly on their site in order to let the membership judge them as part of the contest rules. MoveOn did not sponsor them, pay for them, or support them.

I will assume you were misinformed rather than consciously choosing to perpetuate this unfounded accusation.

TWL

Tim says:
"Thus, to say that "MoveOn hosted ads comparing Bush to Hitler" is entirely wrong. Those ads appeared briefly on their site in order to let the membership judge them as part of the contest rules. MoveOn did not sponsor them, pay for them, or support them."

No, they did not sponsor them. Or pay for them. Or support them.

They did, however, host them.

Which is what StarvingWriter said, and which you, oddly, claim to be an unfounded accusation.

Perhaps there is some confusion here. When you have a video on your website that people can view, isn't that called "hosting" it? That's the proper use of the word as I understand it and if I'm wrong, let me know so I don't go repeating the error.

I think to use the term "host" implies that one supports the video's claims, not only its right to be viewed and judged.

I don't know of a one-word term for "aired but didn't sponsor", since the MoveOn contest is the only situation I can think of where it would be relevant.

I also think that for someone who is generally scathing about Clinton's definition of "is", you are taking a gigantically lawyerly approach here. StarvingWriter's meaning was clear, and I rebutted the statement on that basis. Could we not wade into the muck of parsing individual words this go-round, please?

TWL

Hehe..

And life during the Saddam regime REALLY was idllyic! Children played with kites! Mothers beamed with pride! Happy, happy, joy, joy.
At least until those American bombs dropped and blew up the place, yeah. Was ousting Saddam worth it?

Then you're gassed, put into a meat grinder, or just simply killed.
Sorry, bub, the "Saddam threw people into grinders" story appears to be so much fabrication. No one has been able to find the Christian minister who allegedly first reported that atrocity. Saddam was a bastich, but he wasn't that weird.

At least we're giving the Iraqi citizens *freedom.* Something that they never had under Saddam.
That would be laudable, if that was the reason we were given for the war to begin with. Yet, for some reason, when Colin Powell did his little dog-and-bullshit show at the UN, he kept talking about WMDs and mobile weapons labs and secret missile bases -- none of which, we now know, actually existed beyond Chalibi's imagination.

Repressed Iraqis? A good excuse when those WMDs didn't show up, but certainly not the first reason given by the Bush White House.

But Saddam's gone, so everything's hunky-dory, right? Tell that to the Iraqis:

...here in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, nothing is normal for any family in any neighborhood. For the well off and well educated, the past year has been a shocking plunge into the abyss. The rules of civil society have broken down just as badly as the country's power grid. Assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, suicide bombing, carjacking and street battles are now commonplace. Baghdadis live in permanent fear, locked for safety behind high walls and guarded gates in dreary isolation. Young girls don't go out, and even wives accompanied by their husbands rarely venture more than a few blocks. Inside the barricaded residences, life is a mix of boredom and burden as families cope with the aggravations caused by sporadic electricity, backed-up sewage and water that might come on only at 1 a.m. ... "We have freedom and democracy, and we're worse off."
--"Living With the Fear," Time magazine, 7/19/2004

Posted by: Robert Jung at July 14, 2004 02:22 AM
And life during the Saddam regime REALLY was idllyic! Children played with kites! Mothers beamed with pride! Happy, happy, joy, joy.
At least until those American bombs dropped and blew up the place, yeah. Was ousting Saddam worth it?
Yes I believe it was, if the best defense you can muster about the man follows.

Then you're gassed, put into a meat grinder, or just simply killed.
Sorry, bub, the "Saddam threw people into grinders" story appears to be so much fabrication. No one has been able to find the Christian minister who allegedly first reported that atrocity. Saddam was a bastich, but he wasn't that weird.
I'm guessing he won't look for you on his Dream Team. I can just picture your opening remarks. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client gassed people, he shot people, he buried them in mass graves. But he did not grind them up and eat them. At least he's not Idi Amin, right?"

At least we're giving the Iraqi citizens *freedom.* Something that they never had under Saddam.
That would be laudable, if that was the reason we were given for the war to begin with. Yet, for some reason, when Colin Powell did his little dog-and-bullshit show at the UN, he kept talking about WMDs and mobile weapons labs and secret missile bases -- none of which, we now know, actually existed beyond Chalibi's imagination.

Repressed Iraqis? A good excuse when those WMDs didn't show up, but certainly not the first reason given by the Bush White House.
I can't argue about the lack of WMDs thus far. But even if you want to take it as a given that Bush took us to war for the wrong reasons, That doesn't invalidate the right reasons. There were legitimate concerns about WMDs, there were repressed Iraqis, it could help stability in the region if we can turn Iraq into a democracy, and you can make a good argument about the potential for cheaper oil. Disagreeing with one or more of those reasons doesn't mean you can't agree with the rest.

But Saddam's gone, so everything's hunky-dory, right? Tell that to the Iraqis:

...here in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, nothing is normal for any family in any neighborhood. For the well off and well educated, the past year has been a shocking plunge into the abyss. The rules of civil society have broken down just as badly as the country's power grid. Assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, suicide bombing, carjacking and street battles are now commonplace. Baghdadis live in permanent fear, locked for safety behind high walls and guarded gates in dreary isolation. Young girls don't go out, and even wives accompanied by their husbands rarely venture more than a few blocks. Inside the barricaded residences, life is a mix of boredom and burden as families cope with the aggravations caused by sporadic electricity, backed-up sewage and water that might come on only at 1 a.m. ... "We have freedom and democracy, and we're worse off."
--"Living With the Fear," Time magazine, 7/19/2004
The beginnings of freedom are rarely pretty. The countries that were freed from the Soviet bloc had it pretty rough after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I doubt they would have wanted things back the way they were.
Heck, at the birth of our own nation, if the prevailing wisdom had been, "We have freedom and democracy, and we're worse off," do you know what that would mean? I'll tell you. Right now we'd all be speaking English, that's what!
...Wait a second. That line works better when the subject is WWII, doesn't it? Well, you know what I mean.

You're not the only one "damn surprised". I can't figure it out, myself, unless we have way overestimated these folks (or way underestimated how effective the counter terrorism has been).

The problem here, and a problem with Bush in general, is timing.

A year ago, bin Laden wasn't that important. Now he is, and I don't think it's coincidence since we're coming up on the election.

I mean, I think it's sickening that, almost 3 years after 9/11, only NOW are they considering putting a plan in place should we have a Worst Case Scenario for the election.

What the hell have these guys been doing for the last 3 years?
Oh yeah, blowing up Iraq and Afghanistan. Nice.

And this while the only thing important to the GOP in Congress is to make sure we get gay marriage banned.

Their priorities are just as screwed up as Bush's.

"I mean, I think it's sickening that, almost 3 years after 9/11, only NOW are they considering putting a plan in place should we have a Worst Case Scenario for the election."

I agree...but look at the results of the consideration--widespread condemnation and easy fodder for late night comedians. There will be no plan and while one can blame the administration with some validity it seems to be the public that doesn't want to even consider the possibilities. I hope this will not prove to be a mistake.

(and if the worst happens prepare for some Michael Moore type revisionism...something like "When terrorism experts warned that our precious elections might be disrupted, the Bush team refused to consider any delay in the elections." (Cut to satellite feed of Dick Cheney picking his nose)

Tim,

I certainly don't want to put myself in the position of being compared to Bill Clinton but I still have to think that based on what I'm used to reading, "host" was the proper term. In Internet speak it does not mean inviting over for coffee and croissants.

But ok, so "MoveOn AIRED ads comparing Bush to Hitler". Is the Bullshit Meter remaining quiet? Or does one have to give them every benefit of the doubt to pass muster: "MoveOn aired but did not sponsor, pay for, approve, or even really know about ads comparing Bush to Hitler, which would be unfair although it is certainly understandable given the divisive nature of the current administration where any criticism is considered unpatriotic even though THEY are the ones who sent us into an illegal war over oil to take attention away from the disenfranchisement of black voters in the Florida recount."

(Rassenfrassen browser went down while I was writing this, so this version of my response may be a bit more fragmented.)

Bill,

I certainly don't want to put myself in the position of being compared to Bill Clinton but I still have to think that based on what I'm used to reading, "host" was the proper term. In Internet speak it does not mean inviting over for coffee and croissants.

As I said before, the problem is that there really is no one-word phrase that works out of context here. Yes, if you provide the full context of the event the term "host" works just fine. If you simply use the one-sentence "it hosted blahblabblah", as StarvingWriter did, it gives a misleading impression. (And no, "aired" isn't any better -- if anything, it implies they bought TV time for it and thus is worse.)

I'm sure this isn't going to be an acceptable answer, but how about "a MoveOn member created an ad which compared..."? That would be correct, would only take an extra couple of words, and would (properly) make it clear that it was one person's idea rather than the organization's as a whole.

(Not that this has stopped Bush-Cheney '04 from using the HItler footage in an ad interspersed with clips from Gore and, I believe, Kerry.)

TWL

"I will assume you were misinformed rather than consciously choosing to perpetuate this unfounded accusation. "

I wouldn't make that assumption were I you, Tim. See, FYI, "Starving Writer" is the crap-filled slimeball who took such a personal dislike to me that he wrote a lie-filled letter to the National Organization for the Deaf, lying and distorting the contents of several issues of "Young Justice" (the ones featuring a young girl who was an Olympic archer but was 90% deaf). He said I wrote it to make deaf people look foolish and inferior to the clearly Aryan character of Arrowette (thus implying I had Nazi sympathies.) He boasted about having done so on line, openly admitting it was lies, and proud of it. He did it explicitly to try and get me bad publicity and hopefully fired off the book.

I had a feeling he'd slither his way over to this website sooner or later. Hopefully he'll slime his way back out. Either way, I'd waste no more time with him were I you. I certainly have no intention of doing so.

PAD

Bill (and others),

The "fodder for late-night comedians" effect of this election consideration has at least as much to do with the manner in which this was done as with the idea itself.

As has already been pointed out on this thread but apparently ignored, if they'd gone to the Congressional leadership (of BOTH parties) and said, "you know, we should have a plan in place for election day in the event of a worst-case scenario" and then publicly announced that a bipartisan panel was looking into this ... well, okay, the comedians might still have had fun with it, but not nearly as much and not in a way which resonated with the public as much.

Instead, we had the news get out (a) via a late-night leak to Newsweek, (b) involving only administration officials (and thus not at all bipartisan), and (c) done so hamhandedly that even Condi Rice had to say "I don't know where this is coming from" in a nationally televised interview.

Christ, is it the slightest wonder people are reacting badly to this?

I think the public will be perfectly willing to consider the possibilities -- if they're examined in what's perceived to be a fair way. This is failing the smell test on so many levels that I'm frankly surprised anyone's trying to defend its execution. (The principle, yes, and I think we've hashed that out already.)

TWL

Thanks for the heads-up, PAD. Noted for future reference.

TWL

Tim,

Well, I used the word "aired" because you were the one who suggested it.

"how about "a MoveOn member created an ad which compared..."?"

That's fairly worthless since the critique was aimed at Moveon for hosting the video. What a "member" does, good or bad is irrelevant. If a member of the Republican party invents a cure for canker sores it will have little relevance to the organization, good or bad. If the RNC hosts a flash animation video showing John Kerry having sex with a pig and/or Whoopie Goldberg, it would be deserving of considerable criticism and would no doubt get it.

But if what PAD says is accurate, we've given this "gentleman" too much attention already. Pah! We will speak no more of him.

It would be nice if we could agree on standards of honesty for judging statements, so that we could apply the same standards to people we agree with and people we disagree with.

Bill, it sounds as if you are saying you are comfortable with a statement (would consider it essentially honest) providing it is literally true, even if it gives a misleading impression.

While it may be literally true that MoveOn temporarily hosted an ad that was submitted as a contest entry (and removed the ad after receiving complaints that brought the submission to their attention), the statement that they hosted ads, plural, gives the (false) impression they did this knowingly, intentionally, and as a matter of policy.

Personally, I would consider that a misleading and deceptive way of putting it, and think Tim's revisions are more in line with what I'd want to say if I were trying to honestly describe the situation. But let's set that aside. If that is the standard you would prefer for honesty, than can you give me any examples from Moore's F 9/11 that do not meet this low standard?

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the discussions of it I've listened to it sounds as if the examples of "dishonesty" on Moore's part are of the same ilk as MoveOn hosted ads comparing Bush to Hitler.

Similarly, the Bush administration still maintains there were "connections" between Hussein and Al Quaida. Many people got the impression from hearing these assertions from 2001 to 2003 (leading up to the war) that the administration was saying Hussein and Bin Laden had been working together on terror projects against the US (which turns out not to be true). The administration this year has been defending these assertions, saying they worded their statements very carefully and never actually said Hussein and Bin Laden were in cahoots, and that if people got that misimpression its not the administration's fault.

I consider that deceptive. If you disagree with that assessment, are you willing to hold Moore to the same low standard? My understanding is that Moore asserts in the movie there were connections between Bush and Bin Laden. Just as it is true there were connections between Hussein and Bin Laden (although not necessarily significant ones indicating any sinister collaboration) so it is undeniably true there were connections between Bush and Bin Laden (although not necessarily significant ones indicating any sinister collaboration). Why should we not be concerned about the misimpressions people might get from the one but not concerned by the misimpressions people might get from the other?

Personally, I'd prefer to hold both sides to a higher standard. We don't need to call what Bush and Moore appear to be doing when they word things carefully but misleadingly, but we should find some label other than honest to give to such behavior and we should apply that judgment evenhandedly.

Oops. That should be "Why should we be concerned...", not "Why should we not be concerned...", in the next-to-last paragraph.

Is there anyone who has managed to make Preview work yet? If so, advice on how to do it would be appreciated.

I will assume you were misinformed rather than consciously choosing to perpetuate this unfounded accusation.

Funny, I thought the bullshit alarm was colored red. Or brown. Ah well. In any case, I picked the word "hosted" for a reason. And no, it's not misleading.

"But it was a contest," you say. "The ads weren't created by the webmasters of MoveOn.org. Only the people who visit MoveOn.org. Besides, they pulled those ads down immediately after the initial uproar."

Fair enough, and had that been it I would've not even made a point of it.

However ...

Druge Report found out that MoveOn.org didn't remove those ads from their website. Rather, they merely renamed it and moved it to another part of their site.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7mo.htm

(Note: When I went over there to check and see if the ad was still there, the link took me to a 404 page. Either the MoveOn.org folks renamed or moved it around again, or the link never existed in the first place and Druge Report was lying. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which.)

So no, I wasn't "misinformed." Unless, of course, you consider reading the Druge Report to be misinformation, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But that doesn't change my original point, which is that George Soros, the main financer behind MoveOn.org and an extremely left-leaning individual, also invests in the same investment firm that the Bush family and the bin Laden family use. According to Michael Moore's twisted logic, that would mean that Satos is also a part of this vast "conspiracy" with Bush and bin Laden. I think we all know how outlandish that is.

While it may be literally true that MoveOn temporarily hosted an ad that was submitted as a contest entry (and removed the ad after receiving complaints that brought the submission to their attention), the statement that they hosted ads, plural, gives the (false) impression they did this knowingly, intentionally, and as a matter of policy.

There were at least two ads that compared Bush to Hitler that were a part of this contest that I'm aware of.

But to be fair, I'm only aware of one ad that MoveOn.org has continued to host on their site (at least until July 12, 2004). I don't know if MoveOn.org also continue to host the other ad on their site somewhere.

In any case, hosting the ad, with "renamed.again.renamed.mov" as a part of the name, for up to six months after it was claimed to be taken down, certainly seems like the MoveOn.org webmasters did this "knowingly, intentionally, and as a matter of policy."

Nova Land,

Good comments.

If moveon.org did as you say than they deserve less criticism. I'm surprised that they were unaware of the video's contents and one must wonder why they would open themselves up to so much potential trouble--what if someone posted hardcore child porn? (lest you think this unlikely--I've twice had the thrill of renting a normal video and discovering some dope has splices xxx scenes into the middle. That's the last time I rent The Black Hole, lemme tell you).

I thought that the ad was considered a legitimate entry and removed only when it didn’t get enough votes. As a reader of moveon it certainly was no wackier than some of the ideas printed by regular readers (who are, in turn, no crazier than the black helicopter fans over at the right wing Freerepublic.com)

But if events are as you described then yes, moveon is only guilty of negligence and not deserving of the attacks. If Mr Writer knew that than he was indeed guilty of a Michael Mooreish attack.

As for F9/11...it is already receding in my mind but one can find many examples of truncated quotes and other misleading items if one wishes. One obvious one--most people who I've talked to who saw the movie SWEAR that it showed that the Bin Laden family and other Saudi's were able to fly out of the country while mere Americans were stranded at airports (I recall Ricky Martin being mentioned).

In reality, this did not happen and, cleverly, Moore does not explicitly state that it did. I watched carefully--He said that the airports were closed (true), that Americans were stranded (true)and that Saudis were able to leave the country after September 13th (also true). Most viewers carelessly assume that there is some point being made here but there isn't--the Saudis were NOT flying when nobody else could, though that's the implication. “After September 13th” could mean any date after September 13th, including today and he doesn’t explicitly say that ONLY Saudis were flying after the 13th…but that seems to be the impression many are taking away.

He's a clever guy but if you're looking for truth without spin or manipulation you'd be better off, statistically speaking, with a monkey and a dartboard.

Luigi Novi: For anyone who believes the material in Fahrenheit 9/11 was accurate (or hell, for those who think it inaccurate), this is a must-read: ">http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Robert Jung: Have you actually read that list? It's an embarassing collection of straw men and misguided conclusions for the most partt, and calling it the best attempt to discredit Moore is a laughable embarassment.
Luigi Novi: Yes, I have the list, and while I disagree with at least four of the items in which Kopel resorts to reasoning that I find dishonest (the matter of the Special Protection for Saudi Embassy [Deceit 25], the matter of the Oregon Troopers [not numbered; between Deceits 39 & 40], the aforementioned images of pre-war Iraq pDeceit 45], and Invasion of Iraq [Deceits 46-47]), the rest of it appears to be well-reasoned and backed by reference. If the bulk of it is accurate, then it paints a pretty damning picture of Moore, much as the analyses of the falsehoods in Bowling for Columbine, as detailed

If you can tell me where Dave Kopel’s information is incorrect, please let me know, because almost nothing on that site detailing Moore’s movie Notes directly refutes any of the specific challenges made by people like Kopel about the various points in the movie. Most of the material on that site simply provides reference for things that are not in dispute (no one disputed that Bush’s inauguration limo got pelted with eggs, or that the guy at in charge of the decision desk at FOX News on election night is his cousin, or what he did when Andrew Card told him about the second WTC impact), or just reiterates accusations in the movie that Kopel’s page clarifies. Looking through the first three sections of the material on that Notes page, the one thing that appears to be in dispute is whether Gore got more votes than Bush, and the one thing that Moore may be right on was the amount of vacation time Bush took, except that he used as an example of this in the movie was Bush’s golfing with Tony Blair, which hardly sounds like a mere vacation. But with the rest, Kopel clarifies on his webpage how Moore’s explanations of these things are untrue, either flat-out or by context. Starving Writer mentioned some of them above subsequent to your post, as does Dave Kopel.

Starving Writer: There's been a lot of debate up there about these seven minutes already. I won't rehash it here, but obviously there's more than one way of looking at it. Those who despise Bush are going to find negative things in Bush's actions no matter what.
Luigi Novi: Not really.

Peter David: the children in Iraq post bombing, with arms blown off, legs blown off...a little boy screaming as medics desperately try to sew pieces of his face together. An elderly Iraqi woman screaming that God has foresaken them, that her house and all her neighbor's houses were destroyed, that she's been to five funerals in the previous week.

Starving Writer: And life during the Saddam regime REALLY was idllyic! Children played with kites! Mothers beamed with pride! Happy, happy, joy, joy. Unless, of course, you happened to speak a negative word against Saddam and his thugs. Or a Kurd. Or a Shiite. Or simply a soccer player who had a bad game while representing the Iraqi national team. Then you're gassed, put into a meat grinder, or just simply killed. We did find all those mass graves that stored hundreds of thousands of corpses.
Luigi Novi: Irrelevant. The point of showing the horrors of war is not to imply that life under Saddam is idyllic, which a ridiculous Straw Man, and Moore is absolutely right when he made this point in his interview in the current Playboy . The point is that the American people have the right to make informed conclusions and decisions about where and when they want their government to intervene overseas, which they can’t do when the media allows themselves to be censored by that government. The public might make different choices when they can see what happens in war, when they see that our smart bombs were not quite as smart as we were told by CNN. We already knew that Saddam was a fucking bastard, since that point’s been documented and become common knowledge since 1991.

Irrelevant. The point of showing the horrors of war is not to imply that life under Saddam is idyllic, which a ridiculous Straw Man

I'd agree. But it's a straw man that Moore himself sets up by portraying life in Iraq pre-war as being idllyic, with children playing kites and smiling, giddy, happy Baghdadis.

It's a straw man that Moore sets up, and pretty easy to knock down.

The point is that the American people have the right to make informed conclusions and decisions about where and when they want their government to intervene overseas, which they can’t do when the media allows themselves to be censored by that government.

Sure, I agree.

So umm ... Did you see any vidoes or pictures of the beheading of Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson, or Kim Sun-il in the newspapers or on the TV news? Yeah, me neither. But boy, those pictures of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals sure were ALL over the place!

But hey, I agree with what you said. I think our news media could certainly do more to provide more news on the going-ons in Iraqi and Afghanstain, both good and bad.

That's one of the problems I have with President Bush, to be honest. His secretiveness. But that seems to be the case with every politican out there in the land. Everybody, from Bush to Kerry to the gal running for "registrator of deeds" down here seem to have some skeletons to hide in his/her closet. Ah well.

Luigi Novi: Irrelevant. The point of showing the horrors of war is not to imply that life under Saddam is idyllic, which a ridiculous Straw Man…

Starving Writer: I'd agree. But it's a straw man that Moore himself sets up by portraying life in Iraq pre-war as being idllyic, with children playing kites and smiling, giddy, happy Baghdadis. It's a straw man that Moore sets up, and pretty easy to knock down.
Luigi Novi: No, a Straw Man Argument is a inaccurate, distorted version of an opponent’s argument, which the first person discredits instead of the opponent’s actual argument. Another way of putting it is to confuse one’s own interpretation of what someone says with what they actually are saying, interpreting it according to that which imbues into the argument instead of addressing what the person actually intended to say.

As I stated above, Moore didn’t portray pre-war Iraq as idyllic. He simply showed that there was a civilian face on Baghdad, and that there was a human cost to bombing it, and point that may have eluded many Americans were being told that civilian casualties were being kept low. I personally remember how I saw a piece (on CNN, IIRC) on how our smart bombs had increased in accuracy since the first Gulf War so that missiles could be directed to a specific window on a building. I was relieved. But then civilian casualty numbers started rolling in (albeit the number is a source of dispute). As Moore stated in his interview in the July 9th Entertainment Weekly:

Who doesn’t know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did such a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. The ones that we are going to bomb indiscriminately. In those 20 seconds, I show a child in a barbershop, a young boy flying a kite, a couple getting married. People having lunch at a café. Anyone who takes that and says that I’m try to say that Saddam’s Iraq was some kind of utopia is just a crackpot. The New York Times reports that our air strikes that week were zero for 50 in terms of hitting the targets.

Thus, he did not set up an Straw Man. Even if you feel that he was attempting to argue that pre-war Iraq was deliberate, there are two points against this: 1. That which you interpret as Moore’s message is not necessarily what he intended. Don’t confuse the two, because that’s a false argument. 2. A Straw Man is a distorted version of an opponent’s argument. If his depiction of Iraq was a Straw Man, then whose argument was he distorting, and what was the argument. (I say all this in case you don’t know what a Straw Man is, given your above response.)

Luigi Novi: The point is that the American people have the right to make informed conclusions and decisions about where and when they want their government to intervene overseas, which they can’t do when the media allows themselves to be censored by that government.

Starving Writer: Sure, I agree. So umm ... Did you see any vidoes or pictures of the beheading of Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson, or Kim Sun-il in the newspapers or on the TV news? Yeah, me neither. But boy, those pictures of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals sure were ALL over the place!
Luigi Novi: Except that that has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi civilian casualties, and is a poor analogy. First, Berg and the others were not Iraqi civilians. Second, with Berg and the other hostages, even if we didn’t see the actual murders, we know they happened. The media did report them. Even if we didn’t see the actual knife being drawn across the throats, we were told they were happening, and even shown footage of their captivity. This was no the case of Iraqi civilian casualties, of which we were not told. We were instead told nothing about civilian casualties by the mainstream media.

Thus, he did not set up an Straw Man. Even if you feel that he was attempting to argue that pre-war Iraq was deliberate, there are two points against this: 1. That which you interpret as Moore’s message is not necessarily what he intended. Don’t confuse the two, because that’s a false argument.

Fair enough. Moore might've intended to simply put "a human face" on Baghdad.

But when you're talking about the same person who compared the terrorists "insurgents" in Iraqi to Minutemen, called them revolutionaries, and then proclaimed that they will win. Then later on in the same speech, he very nearly goes to the point of praying that more American soldiers will die just to teach Americans a lesson.

Well.

Is it really so impossible to feel that perhaps Moore really does think that Iraq, pre-war, was a peaceful, idllyic place? Practically American! After all, Moore approved of the Saddam loyalists blowing up stuff in order to regain control of Iraqi (they're Minutemen! Revolutionaries! And they will WIN!)

You choose to see that Moore was just trying to put a human face on Baghdad. I will have to disagree with that, considering everything else Moore has said regarding the war and how he seems to idolize the terrorists.

2. A Straw Man is a distorted version of an opponent’s argument. If his depiction of Iraq was a Straw Man, then whose argument was he distorting, and what was the argument. (I say all this in case you don’t know what a Straw Man is, given your above response.)

The argument that Moore is fighting against, of course, is that Saddam was a vicious bastard who ruled Iraqi with an iron fist and terrorized the populace. Oh sure, I have no doubt that those who supported Saddam and his thugs (or those who simply kept to themselves and didn't disturb anything) lived decently. Iraqi isn't a poor country. But those were a small minority in Iraqi. By "portraying a human face on Baghdad" Moore was trying to see "Look, life in Iraq isn't nearly as bad as you Americans say it is! How dare you come in and shake things up when things were just hunky-dorky! Bad Americans! BAD!"

This was no the case of Iraqi civilian casualties, of which we were not told. We were instead told nothing about civilian casualties by the mainstream media.

I dunno about you, but I certainly heard a lot about the civilian casualties in Iraqi from various news sources. To be fair, I can't recall an instance where I heard it from a mainsteam TV news station. But I've certainly been aware of the civilian casualties in Iraqi since the war started.

Here's the thing, though.

The vast majority of those Iraqi civilian casualties were casued by *IRAQI soldiers* and terrorist strikes, who killed Iraqi civilians *deliberately*.

Have we killed innocent civilians? Undoubtedly. War is hell, and mistakes happen. Our weapons aren't perfect. Sometimes innocent lives are lost. That's an unavoidable part of war. I don't like it, but I can't deny it. I wish there was a way that we could reduce accidents and civilian casualties caused by us to zero, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon. But at least we *try* to minimize civilian casualties, up to and including calling off strikes when we discover civilians in the area. We don't go out of our way to deliberately target innocents. Unless, of course, you have direct proof of our troops deliberately killing civilians. We're doing this to improve their lives by bringing them freedom and democracy.

What are the Iraqi insurgents fighting for again? Why are the terrorists killing innocent American, South Korean, Turkey, and Iraqi civilian lives for again? Oh right, they want to impose their brutal rule on Iraqi, just like Saddam did.

See, you can tell me all about "innocent civilian deaths" and show me all the pictures in the world and show me all the sobbing mothers in Iraqi. Wouldn't change my opinion one bit. It was still right for us to go in and take Saddam out. (And before you whine about the lack of WMDs, I never cared about that in the first place. For me, it was always about liberating the Iraqi populace and getting rid of Saddam.) The only way you'll ever change my opinion is to show me that Saddam was actually a nice, decent human being who never brutally murdered, raped, or tortured an innocent human being. Considering all those mass graves we found, good luck with that.

Personally, I would consider that a misleading and deceptive way of putting it, and think Tim's revisions are more in line with what I'd want to say if I were trying to honestly describe the situation. But let's set that aside. If that is the standard you would prefer for honesty, than can you give me any examples from Moore's F 9/11 that do not meet this low standard?

I've noticed some silence on this subject. So out of curosity, does the fact that Drudge Report found out that MoveOn.org was hiding at least one "Bush-is-Hilter!" ad on their website for six months after they claimed to have taken it down change your opinion on my original statement?

Just curious.

StarvingWriter posted:
"What about the disenfranchisement of those voters in the Central Time Zone in Florida. That's an area that's heavily Republican. And the announcement that Gore had "won" -- before the polls had closed -- very likely stopped those citizens from casting their votes for Bush."

You make a wild assumption which isn't even based on reasonable supposition. Florida law allows for polls in the state to be open from 7am to 8pm ET (which would equate to 6am to 7pm CT); during the 2002 election, due to some polling places (in the Eastern time zone) failing to be open by 7am, Gov Bush was urged to extend polling times by 2 hours (which meant polling places in the Central Time zone closed at 9pm, local time). The first announcements that Florida was declared for Gore didn't come until 7:49pm ET, a mere 11 minutes before polling places closed. To the best of my knowledge, people who hadn't intended to vote by that time were hardly likely to vote, nor were they likely to have enough time to get to a polling place (most state laws allow for anyone who is in line when poll hours end are still permitted to vote, but whoever is designated as the senior official in charge of the polling facility has the authority to close the polling place to someone who's running towards the building but hasn't actually entered the facility).
At any rate, Bush carried every one of Florida's 10 counties in the Central time zone--the closest vote was in Calhoun County where Bush prevailed by just over 700 votes while the Panhandle's largest counties were lopsided victories for Bush: Escambia County (where Pensacola is) Bush received 73171 to Gore's 40990; Okaloosa County (home of Eglin AFB) went 52186 for Bush compared to 16989 for Gore; in Bay County (Panama City area), Bush 38682, Gore 18873; and in Santa Rosa County (next to Escambia) was 36339 for Bush, but only 12818 for Gore. Overall, the Panhandle went for Bush 238136 to 111712, so it's incredibly unlikely that any Bush supporters were so disheartened by the call that "Florida goes to Gore" would have made any difference. It really would stand to reason that if those CTZ voters still had until 8pm CT (a full hour AFTER the initial call "for Gore"), then the only "disenfranchisement" would have been of their own making (i.e., they didn't bother to make time to get their guy in).

That's an unavoidable part of war.

I'm sure the relatives of the dead civilians are pleased by that.

Although, in this case, war was avoidable.

It really would stand to reason that if those CTZ voters still had until 8pm CT (a full hour AFTER the initial call "for Gore"), then the only "disenfranchisement" would have been of their own making (i.e., they didn't bother to make time to get their guy in).

There's been reports of people driving to the polling place, finding out that Gore had "won," then turning back and heading home figuring that it was all over anyway.

Are you telling me that in a race as tight as Florida was, 11 minutes didn't mean anything? If so, then a few people being turned back at roadblocks didn't mean anything either.

As for the disenfranchisement being of their own doing, then using your own logic, those people who were unjustly removed from the voting rolls were also disenfranchisemented by their own doing, since they had plently of time to appeal the decision and get reinstated on the rolls but didn't.

Either you ignore all the screw-ups, whether it affects Democrats or Republicans, and say "that sucks, but that's how it is," then in which case Bush won. Or you have to take in all the screw-ups into account, realize that they affected Democrats *and* Republicans, and admit that had everything went well, it could've went either way and there's no way of knowing. You can't just say "Democrats lost votes, therefore Gore should've won Florida!" while ignoring that Republicans lost votes as well.

Although, in this case, war was avoidable.

Oh, absolutely. All Saddam had to do was surrender, and there would've been no war.

Starving Writer: Fair enough. Moore might've intended to simply put "a human face" on Baghdad. But when you're talking about the same person who compared the terrorists "insurgents" in Iraqi to Minutemen, called them revolutionaries, and then proclaimed that they will win. Then later on in the same speech, he very nearly goes to the point of praying that more American soldiers will die just to teach Americans a lesson…
Luigi Novi: Except that I wasn’t debating those points.

Starving Writer: Well. Is it really so impossible to feel that perhaps Moore really does think that Iraq, pre-war, was a peaceful, idllyic place?
Luigi Novi: He flat-out said that he didn’t.

Luigi Novi: A Straw Man is a distorted version of an opponent’s argument. If his depiction of Iraq was a Straw Man, then whose argument was he distorting, and what was the argument. (I say all this in case you don’t know what a Straw Man is, given your above response.)

Starving Writer: The argument that Moore is fighting against, of course, is that Saddam was a vicious bastard who ruled Iraqi with an iron fist and terrorized the populace.
Luigi Novi: He is not fighting against that argument at all, as he has conceded that that point is obvious. Where has he taken that someone has said, or else a stated position, and distorted it? That’s what a Straw Man is. A Straw Man does not mean “saying something you think it untrue, or portraying something inaccurately.” That’s not what a Straw Man is.

Starving Writer: Oh sure, I have no doubt that those who supported Saddam and his thugs (or those who simply kept to themselves and didn't disturb anything) lived decently. Iraqi isn't a poor country. But those were a small minority in Iraqi. By "portraying a human face on Baghdad" Moore was trying to see "Look, life in Iraq isn't nearly as bad as you Americans say it is! How dare you come in and shake things up when things were just hunky-dorky! Bad Americans! BAD!"
Luigi Novi: No he wasn’t. That’s simply your interpretation.

Starving Writer: I dunno about you, but I certainly heard a lot about the civilian casualties in Iraqi from various news sources. To be fair, I can't recall an instance where I heard it from a mainsteam TV news station. But I've certainly been aware of the civilian casualties in Iraqi since the war started.
Luigi Novi: Hence my point. The mainstream media, the outlets that are the most ubiquitous and available when you turn on your TV or radio, did not report this.

Starving Writer: Here's the thing, though.The vast majority of those Iraqi civilian casualties were casued by *IRAQI soldiers* and terrorist strikes, who killed Iraqi civilians *deliberately*.
Luigi Novi: Is there documentation for this?

Starving Writer: Have we killed innocent civilians? Undoubtedly. War is hell, and mistakes happen. Our weapons aren't perfect. Sometimes innocent lives are lost. That's an unavoidable part of war. I don't like it, but I can't deny it. I wish there was a way that we could reduce accidents and civilian casualties caused by us to zero, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon. But at least we *try* to minimize civilian casualties, up to and including calling off strikes when we discover civilians in the area. We don't go out of our way to deliberately target innocents.
Luigi Novi: True. But you’re preaching to the choir here. I agree with all of this, and never disputed it. But the public has a right to know about those casualties nonetheless.

Starving Writer: See, you can tell me all about "innocent civilian deaths" and show me all the pictures in the world and show me all the sobbing mothers in Iraqi. Wouldn't change my opinion one bit. It was still right for us to go in and take Saddam out.
Luigi Novi: I have no problem with that. But you are forming that conclusion with the necessary information in mind. Those who aren’t given that information cannot do so.

Luigi Novi: [Michael Moore] flat-out said that he didn’t.

Moore lies so often about practically everything under the bridge, and I'm supposed to believe he wasn't lying in that one instance?

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Oh, absolutely. All Saddam had to do was surrender, and there would've been no war.

Last I checked, we were under no requirement to invade Iraq.

Unless you think that Bush really is some sort of Prophet or Pope.

Starving Writer: Well. Is it really so impossible to feel that perhaps Moore really does think that Iraq, pre-war, was a peaceful, idllyic place?

Luigi Novi: He flat-out said that he didn’t.

Starving Writer: Moore lies so often about practically everything under the bridge, and I'm supposed to believe he wasn't lying in that one instance?
Luigi Novi: Lying about what? About his personal views regarding a fact that’s not even in question, and which he admitted to? This statement of yours makes no sense. He admitted that pre-war Iraq was a dictatorial shithole, a point that is impossible to refute. Where would there be room for him to lie on this point, if he’s flat-out saying that life under Saddam was a fear and torture-filled hellhole? What would be the value in lying if he’s already conceded this point to the critics who accuse him of portraying it otherwise? If critics are accusing him of portraying Saddam’s Iraq as idyllic, and he concedes that it was not, isn’t that pretty much the end of the discussion insofar as the particular point about what he believes is concerned?

Sorry to say but the evidence seems to keep adding up aginst Moore ability to tell the truth.

See link

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MOORE_NEWSPAPER?SITE=ILBLO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT