For almost the entirety of the 1990s, the RAM (Republican Attack Machine) spewed lies the way Old Faithful blasts water. Now "Fahrenheit 9/11" comes out and suddenly the RAM aggressively embraces the concept of truth and accuracy with such zeal that you're almost waiting for them to complain because Michael Moore didn't define the word "is."
Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here's an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to:
"Iraq is better off now than it was."
That's not necessarily true. Why? Because it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
See, we don't know for sure what the impact of Saddam's fall will be. Not for sure. Not remotely for sure. No one can know. Why? Because once upon a time, the US had no problem with Saddam. He seemed much better than The Other Guys in other countries that we had problems with. So top GOP officials were photographed shaking his hand, and I seem to recall we sold him weapons.
And one thing led to another, and then we didn't like him because he was a brutal dictator and was killing innocent Iraqis, and so we got him out of power...while killing innocent Iraqis. Iraq IS better off? Iraq has civil unrest, water and electrical power are dodgy, buildings are bombed out, prisoners were tortured (and for all we know, still are but we just haven't found out yet) and thousands of innocents were killed, while young American soldiers went in and died for a cause that was questionable at best. And Michael Moore showed all that, not just as evening headlines, but on the most human level imaginable, and that terrifies the RAM because they don't want Americans seeing that.
Furthermore, it may well be that the result of this endeavor will be that a new generation of terrorists is spawned by America's invasion, the resulting Iraqi government may be no better or even worse than what they had before (especially if a new dictator seizes power, and then what? We invade again?), oil prices are skyrocketing, we've lost tons of worldwide goodwill that 9/11 handed us, and by the way, America is so much safer with Saddam gone that we get terror alerts every six weeks or so and we're discussing suspending elections. Is martial law next?
And that's the point that "F9/11" is making, and the RAM is terrified that the message is going to take hold, and they're trying to nitpick it to death while protecting the big lie that is the Bush Administration. To quote Edith Ann, "And that's the truth *pbthhhh *."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at July 15, 2004 10:40 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingThank you for posting that, Mr. David! Just found your site and I now have finally found the courage to post my first comment. Bravo for this post. The only unfortunate thing is that the people it should really be reaching to make them think are too far brainwashed by the RAM (nice name!) that it will fall on deaf ears. I'm wondering if Canada should just post their application for citizenship online now to speed things up come November, in case things go badly for us (ie: Bush winning). Anyway, just my 12 cents worth. Thanks for the site and for such well-thought-out, intelligent posts.
Iraq is a troubling issue. I was against getting into for precisely this reason. It's a can of worms, and we (the US) has neither the stomach, or the right, to make the country the way we want it to be. I've been reading the phrase "preemptive" war a lot, but let's call it what it was, an unprovoked attack. An I know there are a lot of people out there who think we were amply provoked by Saddam's threats and attitude -- which I think is nonsense.
Pearl Harbor is a provocation. The Holocaust is (or should have been) a provocation. Sept. 11 is a provocation (and we know -- at least anyone with half a brain knows -- that Saddam had nothing to do with that). Shaking your fist and make threats is NOT a sufficient provocation for war. I liked Barack Obama's speech about the war (sadly gone from his website now as he moves toward the middle) where he took issue with the phrase "War is Not An Option." War IS an option, when necessary. The Civil War was necessary, as was WWII. This was was not. It was self-serving, pointless and destructive.
But (there's always a but, isn't there?), we DID attack Iraq. We did topple their government. If we DON'T clean up the mess we've made, we're just going to create bigger problems for ourselves down the line.
I don't know how to do that, but I know that nothing I've heard so far from W. (or, sadly, from Kerry) has me convinced that THEY know how to fix it either.
I know we can't simply throw up our hands and walk away. Nor can we keep hitting them until they agree with us.
I applaud Moore for rubbing people's noses in the war. People (especially Americans) are complacent. We NEED to have out noses rubbed in sh*t once in a while to remind us that it stinks, and to encourage us to do something about it. I hope that's what the movie does, to encourage us to find a way out of this war that really DOES leave Iraq better than we found it.
As a Canadian, I've been waiting for you guys to come and stomp on us for years. I mean, we have nuclear capabilities, a leader who mindlessly spends billions of dollars and doesn't account for them and millions of people who are oppressed and exiled to the North, forced to chop trees and dig for oil day after day.
When will someone set us free? When will the madness end?
As an avid watcher of CNN (your news is far more "entertaining" than ours), I am constantly amazed at the war, your election process and the millions it wastes and just the overall extreme attitude of your people. There is clearly no love between your two political sides. Up here, there's more parties than we know what to do with and while I can't say that our system is better, it certainly is quicker and cheaper to elect a PM in Canada than a Pres. in the US.
And, if I'm not mistaken, your election is still over 3 months away!
And Mussolini had the trains come in on time.
Good CHRIST!
Everytime you post this kind of stuff I must desperatly reach for a copy of your work to remind myself I am a fan of your fantastic writing.
I read this today about Moore on another site.
"Moore is the real life Ellsworth Toohey (villain in the novel The Fountainhead). Toohey's chief weapons for seizing power were mockery and ridicule: "Don't set out to raze all shrines, you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity and the shrines are razed ... Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It is simple. Tell them to laugh at virtue."
Michael Moore is a liar. So says Dave Kopel, who outlines the 59 lies he found in Fahrenheit 9/11
For more info please see: www.davekopel.com
jjbar, unless we get a bigger import from you than codeine Tylonol I think you guys up North are pretty safe from us. :-)
I agree with PAD. I loved F9/11, and think the Bush Administration is afraid of it. I don't know of 1 person (personally) that plans on voting for Bush INC. He's been a disaster for this country.
My only issue with Michael Moore is the same issue I have with all celebrities....I am tired of people using their status as a way to change the vote. And of course its not really these people I blame, as much as it is the stupid uneducated masses who will turn and say: Well If Barbara Streisand/Michael Moore/Ashley Judd is for/against this, so am I.
I know Michael Moore is far from Hollywood elite. And he has a right to express his opinions. But it makes me quite sick (and I mean this for when both sides do it)...that anyone in these fields, whether entertainment, sports, or whatever it may be...uses their status to change something.
Cause guess what? There are some truths in F9/11. There are also some blatant lies. But alot of idiots who have no idea will go to that movie, say: Hey its a movie, and if this movie is telling me this is so, and Michael Moore is telling me this is so, then it must be so. (Which, amazingly, works out in the same way he criticized Britney Spears in the movie for blindly trusting the president.)
Mike
Well, according to a recent report by the GAO, Iraqis are worse off in several key areas since the US Army came in.
* Knight Ridder article
* GAO report (pdf)
And once again, the defense is simply, "the other guy did it first/worse!"
Sorry if everyone doesn't swallow Moore's opinions with the proper level of humble supplication. When the movie first came out many supporters siad stuff like "Everyone should see it, even if they don't agree with it." but evidently they are now upset that so many actually DO disagree with it.
As for the Iraqi people, they will have the opportunity to put Saddam back in power if they wish. There was a demonstration today calling for his execution so it may be difficult to find a compromise that will please everyone. Maybe make him secretary of transportation.
"And one thing led to another, and then we didn't like him" (Saddam)...
I wonder what that one thing leading to another was? Hummmm.....
Could it have been the invasion of another country and after having his army defeated? Then he accepts terms for a cease fire, and fails to live up to those terms time and time again? Just little things like the near daily aggressive actions towards the UN forces enforcing the no fly zones by firing antiaircraft weapons. Preventing the UN weapons inspectors from having full access to labs. Not abiding by the UN resolutions HE agreed to to end the fighting of the first Gulf War. Just little things like that.
My problem with Michael Moore's work isn't that he's against Bush. But, much like PAD's statement above, it may be factally correct, he doesn't tell the entire story.
Now it will be interesting to see how the Democrat Attack Machine Naysayers (DAMN) reacts to the firing of Whoopi Goldberg by Slim-Fast after her remarks about Bush. Not disagreement with his policies, but remarks about his name.
Fascinating, isn't it, how many people feel compelled to attack a "silly little movie." It's as if the slightest possibility of questioning the rush to war is un-American.
By the way, I don't think RAM is all that good an identifier. I mean, a ram is...well, sexually endowed, and that seems to be appealing to a lot of right-wing people. (Especially now that we're hearing reports of videos where children held by Americans in Iraq's prisons were sexually molested...while their mothers were forced to watch. See the link at:
http://stream.realimpact.net/?file=clients/aclu/conf2004/20040707_aclu_AmericaAtACrossroads_300.rm
and go in on the RealMedia stream at about 1:30:00 to see the appropriate part of the speech. And people claim Bete Noire is fiction.)
Instead of RAM, I prefer the old traditional BFEE - Bush Family Evil Empire. A reminder that the current Bush is not the only one associated with nasty stuff. It also doesn't insult all Republicans, some of whom disagree with this administration's nonsense.
Sometimes I wish things were a lot simpler than they are now, at least as far as the issues are concerned. Once upon a time you really could tell the good guys from the villains.
Just imagine a little down home wisdom from Sheriff Andy Taylor: "Since this whole mess is nothing but a giant can of worms to begin with, how about we call a truce and settle everything peace-ably down round the ol' fishing hole?"
Back in reality though, I've got my crash helmet, and other safety gear on. My insurance premiums are up to date, and as soon as I post this, I'm going to hide in my bomb shelter until it's all over.
Take care everyone.
With tongue firmly in cheek... ;)
Lee.
Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here's an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to:
"Iraq is better off now than it was."
I honestly can't remember a single person saying that Iraqi is better off now than it was. That's a straw man argument you're putting up there.
Certain aspects of Iraqi life has improved, yes. Likewise, certain aspects of Iraqi life has become worse. Overall, things are probably still the same. We've taken away the state-sponsored terrorism, and it's been replaced with independent terrorism. Innocent Iraqi civilians are still being killed, which sucks.
However ...
At least Iraqi has a *chance*! Under Saddam, they never did. And they didn't even have the luxury of simply waiting until Saddam died and replacing him, as he had those two murderous goons he called his sons waiting in the wings to ensure that the Hussein machine kept on rolling. Had we left Iraqi alone, 50 years later Iraqi would still be a place where people are murdered, tortured, or mulitated simply for disagreeing with the government.
At least, right now, there's the chance that 50 years later Iraqi can end up like Germany or Japan. Will it happen? Who knows? There's no guarantee. But there's the *chance*! And that's better than no chance at all.
That's enough for me.
I agree with PAD. I loved F9/11, and think the Bush Administration is afraid of it.
So afraid that I have yet to see one single member of the Bush Administration mention the movie. At all. (Although I'm open to being proven wrong. Got a link to a member of the Bush Admin badmouthing F9/11? Feel free to post it here.)
I think some people overestimate the impact that the movie will have. I don't think anybody in the Bush camp is losing sleep regarding F9/11. They're more concerned about Kerry and Edwards.
"It's as if the slightest possibility of questioning the rush to war is un-American."
Actually, it's as if being at all critical of the movie is equal to tagging one's opponents as un-American.
Jeeze! Thin-skinned much?
Starving Writer: "(Although I'm open to being proven wrong. Got a link to a member of the Bush Admin badmouthing F9/11? Feel free to post it here.)"
White House Communications Chief Dan Bartlett said the film was
"outrageously false" after it received the Palme d'Or at the Cannes
Film Festival, and last Friday he was on the morning TV show circuit
denouncing the film as "filled with lies."
Moore responded, "Typical White House response. Say the film is full
of lies but you haven't seen it. I mean, just how stupid are these
people. This is embarrassing. This is a good county and the people
leading our country should be the smartest -- the best and the
brightest. Thank him for his review, I guess, is what I should do, and
send him a Christmas card."
Well said, Peter.
I could respect both Moore and the Republicans a lot more if only the both of them would be a bit more truthful with their material, and left the lies, the ad hominem, hypocrisy and other manipulative tactics they used behind. I think political discourse in this country would a lot more tolerable if it weren’t for people like Moore or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh distorting the picture, and the people who take everything they say as gospel.
michaeljjt: My only issue with Michael Moore is the same issue I have with all celebrities....I am tired of people using their status as a way to change the vote.
Luigi Novi: What else is he going to do with it? Unlike Streisand or Judd, Moore’s not a singer or an actor, and his celebrity originated from his political views.
Bill Mulligan: And once again, the defense is simply, "the other guy did it first/worse!"
Luigi Novi: I could be wrong, but I think Peter’s argument was that the Republicans claim to hold an ideal like the truth in high esteem that they actually don’t. They only care about things like lying when it’s Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob. But when Oliver North or Ronald Reagan sell missiles to our enemies and lie about to Congress, then it’s “patriotic.”
Peter David: Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here's an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to: "Iraq is better off now than it was."
Starving Writer: I honestly can't remember a single person saying that Iraqi is better off now than it was. That's a straw man argument you're putting up there.
Luigi Novi: Not really. I’ve heard quite a few people say that. I myself certainly assumed that Iraq was better off without him, given the footage of cheering Iraqis when Baghdad fell. I still believe it’s better off without him, though what I’m reading now about Iraq at places like http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9041465.htm leads me to wonder how bad it still is.
Starving Writer: So afraid that I have yet to see one single member of the Bush Administration mention the movie. At all.
Luigi Novi: It’s possible that they feel it’s best not to dignify it.
I wish there were more people that represented the middle ground like myself rather than the extreme left or extreme right. Both tend to overpostulate and misuse information. To say that Iraq is not better off without the Husseins is ridiculous. Reports I've read from the AP say that countrywide Iraq has more electricity than before the war. Wouldn't you rather have Baghdad go without for the hours necessary and support the rest of the country for that same time if need be unlike what was done prior?
Was there enough reason to go to war? Not from what we know now but any country harboring terrorists from the Achille Lauro or 1993 WTC bombing should have the same happen to them. That's an overly simplistic statement but as much as the media writes about not finding WMD, they should write about the tortures that the Husseins inflicted on the Iraqi people and the terrorists that were found in Iraq after the coalition invaded.
I did not want the war to happen but I'm also being overly optimistic to think that Saddam had nothing to with any terrorists when they were harbored for years and had no WMD aspirations when he avoided UN inspections for years. I do think we should have kept the inspections in there for a much longer time and not jump the gun like we did.
I'd love to read a report similar to the Kopel report on F911 and make an informed opinion based on the FACTS. Michael Moore's movie is not fact and unfortunately is his edited version of the truth. I would find much more credence in his film and message if it wasn't edited the way it was. I would respect him much more if he just put the facts out there and not his opinion first and facts later. Sadly, I guess I have to research each item footnote by footnote and form my own opinion as I am not getting it from the media.
Peter, you are liberal to a fault, and God Bless You. I am a Democrat who is voting that way this year but still do not agree with your views and MM's fictional editing.
And also lets compare Abu Gharib accounts to Saddam's torture accounts and see which disgusts you more. No excuse for the former but do not excuse the latter which is exactly what the media has done.
C'mon PAD,
F9/11 has only one point, Vote Bush out of the White House.
If it hadn't been for the war, Moore would have been shouting the Cynthia McKinney line "Bush knew and did nothing".
Wars are easy to scapegoat. No one wants to see people dying and places blown up. Nothing ever works right afterwards.
Is Iraq better off? I'd say yes. Of course, there were people who said slaves were better off before the civil war than after. Same thing happened there that's happening in Iraq today. A bunch of hooded men lynching slaves and trying to scare them back into the old system of doing things. Of course that didn't last too long. The KKK only existed up until... well they still exist, don't they? I can tell you for a fact that it's been about thirty years ago that a town near Raleigh, NC where I live, and home of that GOOD OL' BOY, John Edwards, finally took down a sign that had a KKK member welcoming people to the town of Smithfield.
Wonder how Moore would have documented the Civil War? Wonder what position many of the liberals in this forum would have taken on that war?
Starving Writer: So afraid that I have yet to see one single member of the Bush Administration mention the movie. At all.
Luigi Novi: It’s possible that they feel it’s best not to dignify it.
More likely they just don't want to give it any more free advertising. Really, it just feeds the loop. Obviously they're not gonna be for it. And any thing they say against it is just going to be seen as proof that Moore must be telling the truth, no matter how many falsehoods are exposed.
Wonder how Moore would have documented the Civil War? Wonder what position many of the liberals in this forum would have taken on that war?
Hang around for another decade or two; I've a nasty feeling we may all find out.
Sequels do seem to be in vogue these days...
TWL
I'm sorry, but PAD, your argument is absurd. Since you want to define the word "is" let me do so here: "Is" Iraq better off now than before? Absolutely yes in the ways that matter most.
Go read the news reports of just today of the families (thousands of them) demanding Saddam's execution. They had family member after family member dragged off and executed. Even at its supposed worse, the current prisoner scandal is NOTHING compared to the brutal executions under Saddam and his followers. To imply otherwise can only come from ignorance or from an inability to look at reality.
Yes, innocent people are dying today. The difference -- and this is a HUGE difference -- is that under Saddam it was done intentionally as a matter of policy by the government. They did it not even to suppress opposition, but for their own personal pleasure. Our courts understand the difference between a deliberate, premeditated murder, and between reckless manslaughter. There is NO WAY Bush is conducting a deliberate policy of premeditated murder. I don't believe he is guilty of reckless manslaughter, but I would at least understand how someone could conceive of that charge against him. PAD's argument fails to understand even that fundamental difference.
What is the most essential, fundamental, and without argument, valid reason Iraq is better today? I can say it in one word: Freedom. PAD is right that I cannot promise or predict that Iraq will be better off 1 year or 20 years from now. That is the very nature of freedom. At some point, we must by definition allow them to choose whether they want to return to a dictatorship. But they have one essential thing they did not have 2 years ago: they have the initial elements of being truly free.
PAD is not the only one making this false accusation. It is found in other forms all over the place. I am absolutely sick of the comparisons being made by others that imply Bush is no better than Hitler. To even suggest this demonstrates they neither understand true evil nor what is actually happening in Iraq. If Bush was Hitler, there would not be a car bomb killing 10 people because there would not have been freedom to carry out such an attack. And when it did happen and he was like Saddam, Bush would have had hundreds randomly executed to put terror in the hearts of people to keep it from happening again. You do NOT find that happening. On the contrary, we are doing MANY things that are trying to rebuild their economy and infrastructure.
Disagree with Bush. I can respect that. But to so willfully and knowingly say that in ANY WAY a country led by Saddam could be better than one led by Bush is to demonstrate a lack of any true sense of good and evil. Bush may be wrong (obviously I would argue he is in fact correct in going to war with Iraq), but Saddam is evil. The fact that PAD, Michael Moore, and others fail to acknowledge this difference is the REAL reason we could have another holocaust happen in our generation.
Jim in Iowa
White House Communications Chief Dan Bartlett said the film was "outrageously false" after it received the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and last Friday he was on the morning TV show circuit denouncing the film as "filled with lies."
Moore responded, "Typical White House response. Say the film is full of lies but you haven't seen it. I mean, just how stupid are these people. This is embarrassing. This is a good county and the people leading our country should be the smartest -- the best and the brightest. Thank him for his review, I guess, is what I should do, and send him a Christmas card."
"My only issue with Michael Moore is the same issue I have with all celebrities....I am tired of people using their status as a way to change the vote. And of course its not really these people I blame, as much as it is the stupid uneducated masses who will turn and say: Well If Barbara Streisand/Michael Moore/Ashley Judd is for/against this, so am I."
Notice that complaints about the 'Hollywood elite' never include names like Schwartzenegger, Fred Thompson, Heston or Reagan, among others?
"There are also some blatant lies. But alot of idiots who have no idea will go to that movie, say: Hey its a movie, and if this movie is telling me this is so, and Michael Moore is telling me this is so, then it must be so."
And let's not forget about the idiot masses who believe whatever the corporate media (led by Fox news) tells them. Such as the 40% who still believe that Saddam & Iraq were connected to the 9-11 attacks. Unlike Fox news & the others, at least Moore is honest enough to say that he has an agenda instead of claiming to be 'fair & balanced'. Or neutral, which is what journalists are supposed to be.
"There was a demonstration today calling for his execution"
I haven't seen this yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was another staged event for the cameras like the toppling of Saddam's statue was
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=informationclearinghouse.info&q=saddam+statue&sitesearch=informationclearinghouse.info&client=pub-5174720432180771&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en
Y'know, from the other side of the Atlantic, it does look like this film has simply made each side more entrenched in their positions rather than started a meaningful debate or changed vast number of people's positions.
Shame, really.
Posted by: Michael Brunner "There was a demonstration today calling for his execution" I haven't seen this yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was another staged event for the cameras like the toppling of Saddam's statue was.
------
Here is the link: http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/302724|top|07-15-2004::08:09|reuters.html
As you can read for yourself (if you take the time to), this same group also said negative things about the US. But I am sure that was part of the same conspiracy when this was staged so that stupid people like me would actually believe that the Iraqi's understood the difference between what they had then and what they have now -- freedom.
Jim in Iowa
PAD:
I think we are beyond the point to think reasonably about issues because of the hatred that is inside.
You make the statement....."Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here's an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to:
"Iraq is better off now than it was." "
I would assume from a previous post on Moore's film where you said..."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."....that you have been to Iraq and have personally witnessed the current situation of its people.
I just want to be sure we are not drowning in Hypocrisy.
dambrose51
Ok, in my haste I posted too soon. Here is what I meant to say:
But I am sure that was part of the same conspiracy when this was staged so that stupid people like me would actually believe that the Iraqi's DON'T understood the difference between what they had then and what they have now -- freedom.
Jim in Iowa
I am currently half way throught the David Kopel article mentioned above. (For more info please see: www.davekopel.com). I have what I think is a reasonable request:
I refuse to give Michael Moore even one red cent to be able to see his film. But I am willing to consider a well researched defense of what his film says. David Kopel tears Moore's film -- and its premise -- to shreds. But if you think there is something available for free on the internet that does a better job of presenting the case that Bush has taken us into war primarily for his own personal gain and for those close to him, please post the link and I will read it. I would hope you could post a link that is as logical and well researched as the one by Kopel. If Moore is right, I am sure there is something out there. So please post a link for doubters like me.
Jim in Iowa
Tim says (re civil war):
"Hang around for another decade or two; I've a nasty feeling we may all find out."
Tim, you've written on this before, do you honestly think we are heading for any kind of armed conflict over mere politics? As noisy and passionate the debates may seem, it pales beside what was going on during the 60s. I know I've said this before but it bears repeating: The gloom and doom from the left is reaching the point where it may become a self defeating attribute. The partisans on both sides are set in their ways, it's the 40% or so in the middle that will decide the election. If the left looks like wild eyed crazy people muttering about revolutions and blood in the streets it will not appeal.
(Just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm not saying that you are either wild eyed, crazy, or muttering).
Which ever side loses--and for what it's worth I'm predicting a swing toward the Democrats, just not sure how big of one--they will simply go back and lick their wounds and get ready for round 427 or whatever it is.
Of course, I have the advantage of, if I'm right, being able to post a comment saying "Ha, Ha! No civil war, you were wrong, neener neener" while if it turns out that the worst comes to pass you will be very fortunate to have time to send out an e-mail to me before the Jackbooted Right Wing Thugs kick down your door.
"By the way, I don't think RAM is all that good an identifier. I mean, a ram is...well, sexually endowed, and that seems to be appealing to a lot of right-wing people."
I call them RAM because they're butt-heads.
PAD
PAD: Everyone howls about inaccuracy? Here's an inaccuracy that no one really wants to cop to:
"Iraq is better off now than it was."
StarvingWriter: I honestly can't remember a single person saying that Iraqi is better off now than it was. That's a straw man argument you're putting up there.
...You're kidding me, right? President Bush himself said that exact phrase a month ago at Fort Lewis:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001959698_webspeech18.html
And the very fact that they're attacking people like Hans Blix and Nelson Rockefeller for saying Iraq isn't better off today implies that they do think it's better off today...
JW in Iowa:
1) I didn't say it WAS staged, only wondered IF it was.
2) It's great that the Iraqi's are allowed to protest when it's something the U.S. agrees with. As for the Iraqi's knowing freedom, how do any of the following constitute freedom:
* 70-90% of people in prison are innocent
* anti-American protests get shut down
* anti-American newspapers get shut down
* the Government is appointed by the U.S., with no elections in sight
* the internem government is still answerable to the U.S. embassy
* Coalation soldiers & employees are immune from criminal persecution
* People continue to have their houses raided day & night by U.S. forces
So in short, the Iraqi people have no say in their government, can be arrested at any time for any reason, any anyone with the ruling bodies (government, U.S. forces, etc) will not be held accountable. so where is "the difference between what they had then and what they have now -- freedom."?
Michael,
I was very careful to state at one point to say this very sentence: " But they have one essential thing they did not have 2 years ago: they have the initial elements of being truly free. "
At the end of World War 2, Japan and Germany did not experience full freedom. It was a process of transition. It is no different now.
Your list is very misleading as it totally ignores the transition that has already happened in the last year. Obviously we are doing a lot to try to influence the process (as we did with Japan and Germany) to avoid the very return to an even worse enemy (as many fear will happen).
I agree you did not say it "was" staged, but you implied that it was at least possible if not likely. If Bush could truly "stage" an event, I would think he would have done more of them by now. The toppling of Saddam's statue was not a "staged" event. On the other hand, while I do not doubt some anti-American rallies are prevented, what do you expect? Give me a break! Do we want our soldiers to become even more of a target while radicals deliberately incite a riot?
* 70 to 90% of those imprisoned may not be terrorists, but many are guilty of lesser crimes.
* Coalition soldiers are immune to criminal prosecution? That is because they are MILITARY personnel, and they are subject to miliary law and court martial (as is and does happen). (Please show me a CREDIBLE source that employees are exempt from prosecution.)
* Yes, there are daily raids. You neglect to mention that there are also daily attacks, like today's car bomb that killed many. We have really two choices. Either totally get out or defend ourselves. To defend ourselves means you go after criminals and terrorists. We have daily police raids here. That does not mean we do not have substantial freedom. Obviously in a war situation there is not the same "due process." Mistakes will happen, and abuses can occur. But you imply that we are doing this to take away freedom. The opposite is the case. Raids occur to try to bring about peace so that we can leave and they can have freedom.
There is no such thing as total "freedom." But look at the big picture in Iraq. There is FAR more freedom today than there has been in at least 20 years. There is FAR more freedom in Iraq today than in many other Arab countries.
I would suggest that the reason you cannot see the difference between then and now is because to do so would mean Bush has done something right -- a premise I suspect is wrong by definition for you. Things are not perfect. They do not have the same freedom as we have here (as imperfect as things are here in the US). But to even imply there is not significantly more freedom now than under Saddam is without excuse.
Jim in Iowa
JW,
There are several purported transcripts of the film on the web. here's one to get you started:
http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&
You could also download it off of kazaa or emule. Moore himself stated that he would not mind if the film were copied and distributed so you may or may not have any moral qualms about doing so.
Bill Mulligan,
I will check the transcript. I admit, however, I am biased against Moore. To be fair, I want to find an article by another person who agrees with Moore, and who has good research on the project. I have finished reading Kopel's article (and Kopel supported Ralph Nader, so he is not exactly a right wing radical, or a member of PAD's RAM), and it basically shows light on the many ways Moore takes things out of context (the basic fact may be true, but the way Moore uses it is misleading). I will still check out what you posted.
Jim in Iowa
you know, Depite what PAD says about not being qualified to comment on Moore's F 9/11 because I haven't seen it, I'm going to do so anyway, so sue me!
F 9/11: A Summary
Crap in = Crap out
Thank you.
Bill,
Tim, you've written on this before, do you honestly think we are heading for any kind of armed conflict over mere politics?
First, I think I disagree with the "mere". Politics, when you come down to it, are the means by which a populace gets to affect the manner in which it is governed -- I consider that something that should be pretty high on people's lists of things to pay attention to. The actual mechanics of it can be (and nearly always is) petty, self-serving, and fairly dopey on all sides, but I'm quite confident saying that anyone who says "I don't care about politics" hasn't a clue about observing the world. (And no, I'm not saying that's you. I don't think anyone in this thread would qualify.)
On the main issue, though...
I think the country is at a significant crossroads, yes, and I think there is a significant chance that the current differences are irreconcilable short of something drastic.
Sure, things have been passionate before -- but never along lines that are simultaneously this clean and this messy. Clean, in that there's an awful lot of lock-step thinking going on (particularly on the right, IMO, thanks to a great deal of media influence so that those who listen to Rush or watch Bill O'Reilly or read Ann Coulter all get the same points pounded into their head down to the phrasing), and messy, in that there so rarely seems to be anyone willing to concede that the "other side" even has a ghost of a chance of having a decent point once a century. Hell, the two "sides" are more often than not getting their information from entirely separate sources now -- something that was not true in the '60s. When not just the opinions, but the entire worldviews and things that shape them differ this strongly, that's not healthy for the community at large.
And yes, I blame the gradual "churchin' up" of politics for this, at least in part. When Bush flat-out says he's doing God's work and implies he's got the tape recordings to prove it, it's an easy leap to assume that his detractors are not only incorrect, but outright evil. I see it in the discourse quite a bit -- there are any number of people out there for whom any given liberal is a traitorous baby-killing Satanist. (And yes, there are certainly analogous people on the left who refuse to admit that any conservative can ever utter an acceptable word, right down to "a" and "the." I'd like to think I'm not one of them.)
The political debates are gradually becoming moral debates rather than "mere politics" -- and once it hits that stage with enough people, it's extraordinarily difficult to bring those moths back from their respective flames.
I'd love nothing better than to be deeply, deeply wrong in this analysis. (If nothing else, your side's got a lot more of the guns!) That's not the way I'm reading the situation, however.
As noisy and passionate the debates may seem, it pales beside what was going on during the 60s.
Unless you're significantly older than I've come to believe (I believe you've said mid-to-late 40s, which would match up with a teenage daughter), I don't think you can say this from experience.
On the other hand, I can name several people who *were* around, adult, and politically aware during the '60s -- several colleagues, my parents, etc. -- who have been unanimous in saying that they haven't gone to bed this scared since that time. And these aren't naive people -- they're some of the smartest folks I know.
Whichever side loses--and for what it's worth I'm predicting a swing toward the Democrats, just not sure how big of one--they will simply go back and lick their wounds and get ready for round 427 or whatever it is.
I hope you're right. Feel free to gloat if that time comes -- hell, I'll send you a pizza or something. I *want* to be wrong on this. I just fear I'm not that lucky, that's all.
TWL
Tim,
If it's any consolation, at least SOME of my side will stand beside you, shooting away. Remember that if your side send s me to a labor camp.
I remember the 60s just fine. My home and family has always been one of activepolitical discussion, which may be why I find it hard to swallow the idea that there is any armed conflict on the horizon (I have to wonder if some folks have ANY friends/loved one on the "other side".)
By "mere politics" I mean that it is--and to my way of thinking SHOULD be--very low on the list of things that describe the quality of a person. Yes, yes, if someone espouses nazi beliefs it does tend to crowd out whatever good qualities they may have, but if one actually believes that discovering someone is a Democrat or republican is legit grounds for ending a friendship...I honestly pity them.
My test is this--the side that believes that those who oppose them politically do so in large part out of evil intent and/or stupidity is usually the side that's either flat out wrong or, at best, least confident in the truth of its positions. Of course, we then can argue which side best fits that description.
Gloat? I try not to be a gloater, since it tends to come around and bite you on the ass when one is, as one will inevitably be, proven wrong on some other issue. It can be hard (like when watches the whole Joe Wilson saga implode) but at the very least it's good form.
Bill,
If it's any consolation, at least SOME of my side will stand beside you, shooting away.
Much appreciated.
I'll admit that I was hoping for a somewhat more detailed response than this, but that's probably more the writer/speechmaker/pompous ass in me than anything else. (I do think the different sources of information are an integral piece of all this, though, and that at least is something I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on, given that you say you read an awful lot from both sides.)
Remember that if your side sends me to a labor camp.
Will do. But hey, at least it'll likely be environmentally productive labor. :-)
(I have to wonder if some folks have ANY friends/loved one on the "other side".)
Friends? Not sure -- certainly not close ones to the best of my knowledge, though everyone disagrees on one or another issue. (I had one friend in college during a presidential election, and we were campaigning for opposite sides. There was a little tension, but not much. Time and distance have taken sufficient toll that "friends" implies too much closeness to work now, but we're certainly still on great terms.)
Students who I greatly respect? Yep, absolutely, with respect on both sides. I've no doubt you can say the same.
Loved ones? Sure -- some uncles, cousins, etc. on my side of the family and a whole branch of my wife's.
My test is this--the side that believes that those who oppose them politically do so in large part out of evil intent and/or stupidity is usually the side that's either flat out wrong or, at best, least confident in the truth of its positions. Of course, we then can argue which side best fits that description.
I think that's a fairly good rule of thumb. Alas, I think there are great many people on both sides who fit said description. Not sure the argument's worth it at the moment, though -- we'd wear out keyboards arguing in circles, and no doubt we both have other things to occupy our time at present.
TWL
Let me start by saying from the beginning i never got the Hard on our Pres had for Iraq.i mean they were not the immediate threat at the time as i recall North Korea and Afghanistan were.
Republican hypocrisy is pretty bad.Dont get wrong not clearing the Democrats of it ,but the RAMS are so arrogant ,with the high moral values ,integrity stuff when it comes to Clinton's
sex life,and Kerry "flip flopping",but Cheney and his possible wrongdoings in regard to Haliburton,
and the distortion of facts that led us into this war are acceptable because it was "the right thing to do" are acceptable??
Last time I check no one died or was injured by
Mr .Clinton 's indiscretions.Hundreds have died,thousands injured and billions spent for the Republicans misinformation that was presented prior to the Iraq invasion.
I work with people who are hardcore ,Bush supporters and many of the arguments for doing so are frightening!!Hannity said this ,Rush said that
I mean we all got our own opinions but get more than one view point in there,for gosh sakes.My favorite argument "hes religious and believes in what he is doing" So do the terrorists we are fighting.
My biggest hypocrisy issue is how is it okay that Saddam and Osama were good guys when they were doing what we wanted but the world's biggest assholes when they dont do what we want anymore.Bush the first and Reagan were backing these guys in the past if i recall.
I admit i am biased having been deployed and seeing many young people injured and would be damn shame if this all about lies and a vendetta against Saddam by our President
Tim,
"Hell, the two "sides" are more often than not getting their information from entirely separate sources now -- something that was not true in the '60s."
See, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. At least, it's good that one does not have to depend just on CBSNBCABCFOX, Michael Moore, Al Couture, Limbaugh, Air America, whatever.....the beauty of it is that by looking at several sources one is more likely to get enough of the big picture to arrive at the truth.
Limbaugh, Moore, Air America...these are primarily for entertainment and comfort. You're not likely to get anything new or overlooked (there was NOTHING in F9/11 that I had not read on the internet. Nothing! But some folks say they were blown away by the "revelations". Well, my wife says I spend too much time on the web so maybe in this case knowledge is not synonymous with healthy).
I still say the divisions in this country are vastly smaller than any time prior to the seventies. Hard to argue with this being true pre 1960s when we had a virtual racial apartheid going on.
I do worry a bit about SOME of my liberal friends (and I do have many--in fact most of my closest ones are far to the left of me) who have invested so much emotion into defeating Bush...if they lose it's not going to be pretty. But I think they'll get over it if it doesn't work out, I don't see all of them moving to Canada or building bombs in their basement.
One advantage of having friends on the other side of politics is that you are less likely to be astonished when your side loses...every election you find idiots walking around numbed, wailing "But I don't know ANYONE who voted for him!" That's the problem, of course.
BTW, when you said that people you know go to bed scared...of what or who exactly? Terrorists, politicans, Chris Kattan's impersonation of Paul Begala? (which scares the bejeebers out of me to the point where I am now pretty much bejeeberless)
How's life in Iraq? Here's one woman's opinion:
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
You'll have to scroll down to the June 29 entry, as the last couple are about her summer vacation in Amman...
Bill,
"Hell, the two "sides" are more often than not getting their information from entirely separate sources now -- something that was not true in the '60s."
See, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. At least, it's good that one does not have to depend just on CBSNBCABCFOX, Michael Moore, Al Couture, Limbaugh, Air America, whatever.....the beauty of it is that by looking at several sources one is more likely to get enough of the big picture to arrive at the truth.
I think that's talking a little bit past my point. I completely agree that the availability of 8.2 gazillion information sources is a positive thing, for exactly the reasons you describe.
That's not what I'm talking about, however. I'm talking about what sources get used by what people. If everyone took the approach you suggested, that'd be fantastic -- but liberals are looking at liberal sources, conservatives are looking at conservative sources, and NOBODY is looking at the "mainstream" press any more.
There was a survey recently analyzing book-buying tendencies (using Amazon info, if I recall). Generally those who bought anti-Bush books tended to buy more anti-Bush ones, and those who bought pro-Bush ones tended to buy more pro-Bush books. There was very little crossover. I know I'm guilty of that particular tendency.
That's the concern -- the choices being made and the self-segregation, not the availability. Each side has its own version of Pravda, and rarely do the two agree on much beyond the color of the sky.
That's what I was trying to get at, anyway. Perhaps it's not happening in your neck of the woods.
BTW, when you said that people you know go to bed scared...of what or who exactly?
Generally of the Bush administration -- in particular of the messianic mindset Bush so often demonstrates in his speeches, of the "with us or against us" motif used in speeches and policies across the administration, and of what they see as huge differences in the country (e.g. the polarization I've been talking about here). I don't know that I can get much more specific than that without having to claim outright that I'm speaking in their name, and I'm not arrogant enough to do that without asking them. :-)
TWL
Tim,
"That's not what I'm talking about, however. I'm talking about what sources get used by what people. If everyone took the approach you suggested, that'd be fantastic -- but liberals are looking at liberal sources, conservatives are looking at conservative sources, and NOBODY is looking at the "mainstream" press any more."
I think though that we need to realize that you and I and probably a good chunk of the people we hang with are not really representative of the nation as a whole.
Most people ARE still getting their stuff from the mainstream press. For lots of folks--maybe the majority--a half hour with Peter Jennings and a 20 minute glance through the paper are all the news one needs in any given day.
If a partisan book sells 1 million copies it is a huge monster success...but in a country of 300 million one can't overstate it's real influence.
This may be why I seriously doubt there is anything to fear in the way of civil war; the people who are most passionate about all this are not exactly the sort of people I see taking to the streets. Blasting off harshly worded e-mails, sure.
"And yes, I blame the gradual "churchin' up" of politics for this, at least in part. "--Tim
Tim, if you honestly think that Bush is "churchin'" up politics, I don't think you have any grasp of religion and its role in American politics.
For instance, McKinley said that he believed we gained the Phillipines because god wanted us to have it, and it was America's job to *christianize* the filipinos.
Now when Bush uses his belief in god, he does so in the context as his own, personal beliefs and with complete tolerance for people of varying faiths.
Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? But, again, the idea that religion never ever had a place in the public sphere is a deeply-held belief of certain liberals, too bad it's wrong.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is one of the greatest movies ever made!!!!!!!!!!11
I think I'll go see it sometime soon.
What the Bush administration ands their minions have mastered is the art of what John Kenneth Galbraith coined as wordfact, or as he explained it some years ago, 'It means that to say something exists is a substitute for its existence.' The only difference is they now refer to them as talking points.
Or, as Jon Stewart said so eloquently on The Daily Show, 'They're true, because they're said a lot.'
Bill,
I think though that we need to realize that you and I and probably a good chunk of the people we hang with are not really representative of the nation as a whole.
Granted. We at least try to think and get differing viewpoints. I agree that most people don't -- but I don't see it as a good thing, really. Good in that it probably lessens the risk of civil war, but horribly, horribly bad in terms of having a well-informed citizenry.
The media are getting more and more corporate-owned, and diversity of information (speaking strictly of the mainstream media) is getting thinner by the year.
Let's assume Bush has pure motives. Considering how few organizations are actually in charge of determining what news does and doesn't get presented in mainstream channels, there's not much in the way of checks to keep someone who *does* have a wish to control the population from doing so. Make good friends with about ten media moguls and you're done.
I think that's a bad idea regardless of which party is in power. I forget who said it, but I saw a great quote recently:
"Of course the government lies, and of course the press lies. The key to a functioning democracy is that they're not the SAME lies."
TWL
Captain Nate,
Tim, if you honestly think that Bush is "churchin'" up politics, I don't think you have any grasp of religion and its role in American politics.
For instance, McKinley said that he believed we gained the Phillipines because god wanted us to have it, and it was America's job to *christianize* the filipinos.
Yes, and fifty years before that it was commonplace to have duels fought on the floor of the Senate. Doesn't mean someone doing so now wouldn't be introducing one hell of a change into politics as usual.
I'm well aware of the history of religion in American politics, thanks all the same. I'm discussing modern politics.
In the current era, I can assure you that a president who thinks "the jury is still out on evolution", who says explicitly that America has a divine calling "to spread freedom across the world", and who holds prayer meetings every day in the Oval Office (and, if you'll pardon the phrase, heaven help someone who misses 'em or arrives late) is in fact changing the tone in very significant ways (and, IMO, not remotely positive ones, as I've outlined previously).
Now when Bush uses his belief in god, he does so in the context as his own, personal beliefs and with complete tolerance for people of varying faiths.
[boggle]
You're serious. Bush is merely using his own personal beliefs as a context?
He's drafting entire policies around those beliefs. He's got generals who claim explicitly that he was appointed by the Almighty and that Muslims worship idols. Many of his "faith-based" initiatives are ones which would deny prisoners any sort of rehabilitation rights unless they come to Jesus in the process. He's got an Attorney General who anoints himself with oil.
Clinton didn't do that. Bush Sr. didn't. Reagan ... well, had a few leanings in that direction, but with the exception of James Watt kept them well under control. Carter, no. Ford, no. Nixon, no. LBJ, no. JFK -- went out of his way to keep his faith separate from his job.
Bring up William McKinley all you want. Politics have changed in 105 years, and if your argument is that Bush is simply reviving that old tradition, I think you're opening a can of worms that campaign would probably rather you didn't.
TWL
White House Communications Chief Dan Bartlett said the film was
"outrageously false" after it received the Palme d'Or at the Cannes
Film Festival, and last Friday he was on the morning TV show circuit
denouncing the film as "filled with lies."
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
Of course, if I were a member of the Bush Admin, I would be ignoring the movie as well, for pretty much the same reasons that's been listed above. Free publicity, giving credibility to Moore's arguments, etc. Best to ignore it and let other people work on disproving it.
...You're kidding me, right? President Bush himself said that exact phrase a month ago at Fort Lewis:
I'm assuming you meant this section:
Iraq is better off today, America is more secure today, because Saddam Hussein sits in a prison cell.
Bush's right. Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell *is* a good thing. That's one aspect of Iraqi life that has improved.
Bush's not saying that Iraqi, as a whole, is better off than it was before the war. He might very well believe that, but that's not what he was saying. He was saying that getting rid of Saddam has improved Iraq.
My 2cents:
1) The war in Iraq: In my opinion, we were way, way, overdue to knock Saddam out of power. During the Bush 41 presidency, we should have helped the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam after they rose up against him. Then in 1993, after tried to assassinate Bush 41, we again should have invaded. Then in 1998, after the inspectors had to leave, once more, Clinton should have rolled in there.
After all of that, in this post 9/11 world, knocking out Saddam was an absolute necessity. Winning the war on terror requires that we get rogue nations out of the business of supporting terrorist groups with global reach. Saddam was the low hanging fruit and because we plucked him, we MAY be able to deal with Iran, Syria, and North Korea WITHOUT having to use force. Furthermore, a democratic Iraq has the potential to help transform the region and take the starch out of radical Islam. I don't care how you slice it, it was time for Saddam to go and we're better off with him out of commission.
2) Abu Ghraib: I'm sorry, but Abu Ghraib is a big sack of nothing. I think this has been the most overblown story of the century so far & despite the spin, I think it has very little to do with the Bush administration. In other words, I think the idea of holding the President responsible because a few sadistic grunts got out of hand is just silly.
"My 2cents:"
You overcharge.
"The war in Iraq: In my opinion, we were way, way, overdue to knock Saddam out of power. During the Bush 41 presidency, we should have helped the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam after they rose up against him."
You'll have to take that up with Bush Senior. Personally, I don't think we could have justified risking our troops in that. And I'm sure that we would have little to no international support.
"Then in 1993, after tried to assassinate Bush 41, we again should have invaded."
If Bush had been the sitting president at the time I would agree with you. But as a former president, Bush was technically just a private citizen like the rest of us.
"Then in 1998, after the inspectors had to leave, once more, Clinton should have rolled in there."
Why? Based on what? The lack of WMDs? Dubya is that stupid, but Clinton wasn't.
"After all of that, in this post 9/11 world, knocking out Saddam was an absolute necessity."
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It seems to me that the absolute necessity was in eliminating Al Qaeda.
"Winning the war on terror requires that we get rogue nations out of the business of supporting terrorist groups with global reach."
Like Saudi Arabi?
"Saddam was the low hanging fruit and because we plucked him, we MAY be able to deal with Iran, Syria, and North Korea WITHOUT having to use force."
Yeah, because they sure are backing down from us right now in Iraq aren't they?
"Abu Ghraib: I'm sorry, but Abu Ghraib is a big sack of nothing. I think this has been the most overblown story of the century so far & despite the spin, I think it has very little to do with the Bush administration."
Always look to the top. Love him or hate him, you gotta respect the way Ronald Reagan went on national television and told the nation that even though he was unaware of the whole 'arms for hostages' thing, he was still responsible for it.
Bush isn't worthy of shining Reagans shoes.
"In other words, I think the idea of holding the President responsible because a few sadistic grunts got out of hand is just silly."
Perhaps, but Im still far from convinced that this dfoesn't go much further up the ladder than a 'few sadistic grunts'.
JW - I'm sorry, but PAD, your argument is absurd. Since you want to define the word "is" let me do so here: "Is" Iraq better off now than before? Absolutely yes in the ways that matter most.
Uh, let's see ... instead of being not free and being killed by their dictator, they're now free to be killed by their own terrorists. Somehow I suspect the distinction will not mean a hell of a lot to the average Iraqi.
James - in this post 9/11 world, knocking out Saddam was an absolute necessity. Winning the war on terror requires that we get rogue nations out of the business of supporting terrorist groups with global reach.
Iran is developing nuclear capability. North Korea claims to have already done so. Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries foster terrorists and anti-American groups in their borders, some openly.
So, let's go after Iraq which wasn't doing any of that.
Right. Doesn't make me feel a whole lot safer.
Tim Lynch wrote:
"Yes, and fifty years before that it was commonplace to have duels fought on the floor of the Senate. Doesn't mean someone doing so now wouldn't be introducing one hell of a change into politics as usual."
Quite frankly, I think the return of Congressional duels could be just the thing we need today to let out some of the tension between the two parties these days. Besides, C Span would be a hell of a lot more watchable.
James Tichy wrote:
"Then in 1998, after the inspectors had to leave, once more, Clinton should have rolled in there."
For the record, Clinton ordered the inspectors to leave, because he wanted to bomb Baghdad for a while. Saddam just wouldn't let them back in after the bombings were over. Regardless, i do agree that someone certainly should have taken Saddam out long before now. Hell, it could have even given Carter's presidency something positive to be remembered for, had we taken him out back in the 70s.
Charles: I wish there were more people that represented the middle ground like myself rather than the extreme left or extreme right. Both tend to overpostulate and misuse information.
Luigi Novi: Well said, Charles. And here I thought I was the only one who felt this way.
You know, Moore's work does seem to have its inaccuracies and it's fair for anyone to point to ones they feel exist in his film, just as it's fair for Moore to point out what appear to be black-holes in the Republican Adminstration's actions.
What is always rather telling in these kind of situations is when an accusation is 'answered' by pointing out how biased the opponent is... instead of answering the BLEEDIN' QUESTION! A good offense is the Minister of Defence etc etc etc.
I'd love to see an hour-long interview with Bush where an interviewer truly grilled him on the unanswered questions that are beeing shoo-shooed away. The kind thatBlair has over here. And don't give me any crap about how that wouldn't be fair because to Bush because he's not an eloquent man. I expect the most powerful leader in the world to be able to take that kinda scrutiny or he's in the wrong job.
Equally, give Moore the same amount of time and discuss his controversial filming and editing techniques and see how well he holds up to the same grilling he gives Bush.
I'm pretty sure Moore would come out ahead of Bush, but neither might benefit from the full on spotlight.
Which is why it'll never happen... and which is equally telling about the current state of debate. Too many people who can produce sound-bites, but are less likely to willingly to take it.
John
"Then in 1993, after tried to assassinate Bush 41, we again should have invaded."
If Bush had been the sitting president at the time I would agree with you. But as a former president, Bush was technically just a private citizen like the rest of us.
I disagree with the invasion, however, to say Bush was "just a private citizen" is pretty shallow, IMHO. Bush-41 was visiting Kuwait as a representative of the United States. If Syria were to try and assassinate President Carter on a diplomatic mission, then I'd want to make sure that Assad got a few missles delivered into his back yard.
You don't mess with our Presidents, current or former.
Gorginfoogle,
Quite frankly, I think the return of Congressional duels could be just the thing we need today to let out some of the tension between the two parties these days. Besides, C Span would be a hell of a lot more watchable.
Heh. I heard some comedian ... geez, probably over a decade ago, suggesting something similar in a different venue. He wanted golf to have as many fights break out as hockey. :-)
TWL
"Quite frankly, I think the return of Congressional duels could be just the thing we need today to let out some of the tension between the two parties these days. Besides, C Span would be a hell of a lot more watchable."
I've been thinking for quite some time that all our worldly debates and desires for war should be settled by the leaders of nations duking it out in the octagon. Or perhaps each nation would have a representative warrior or something. That way, only one person gets pummeled, instead of hundreds or thousands dying in a conflict. Plus, if the president had to be a good fighter in addition to all his other duties, I think there would be fewer attempts at resolving issues with violence as it would be the one making the decisions whose ass would be on the line.
But that's just me.
Monkeys.
I have to say, I think the way the defense of this movie has evolved is pretty darned funny. Before it came out, we were informed that it would be so truthful our ears would bleed, so factual that Moore had lawyers poised to sue anyone who questioned it.
Then it came out, and...not so much. So we were informed that it wasn't really a documentary, but more of an op-ed piece. Well, maybe op-ed piece is too strong, it's more of a political cartoon.
Now here we are, the movie has been released in America for a few weeks now, and this is the best defense that can be mustered.
OK, maybe it's not really very accurate, and sure there is so much spin in the movie that I understand the next ad campaign will involve warning people with heart conditions not to enter the theater. But you conservative scum have been spewing "lies the way Old Faithful blasts water." So that makes it ok.
Afar cry from fact-checkers and lawyers, don't you think?
Equally, give Moore the same amount of time and discuss his controversial filming and editing techniques and see how well he holds up to the same grilling he gives Bush.
I'm pretty sure Moore would come out ahead of Bush, but neither might benefit from the full on spotlight.
Considering that Moore's reply to just about every single piece of criticism tossed against him has been to scream "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!!!!!!" I kinda doubt that.
But hey, I'd love to see it!
You're not likely to get anything new or overlooked (there was NOTHING in F9/11 that I had not read on the internet. Nothing! But some folks say they were blown away by the "revelations".
I look at it that people view F9/11 like a puzzle. They had some of the pieces, and when putting it together, it wasn't complete.
But F9/11 is the entire puzzle. And only by seeing the entire puzzle can you understand how all the pieces fit together.
That's one aspect of Iraqi life that has improved.
One aspect compared to the many aspects that haven't improved for the Iraqi's.
If you want to justify the entire war in Iraq on "Saddam's in a jail cell", you're only going to convince a bunch of conservatives and gung-ho's.
Yes, and fifty years before that it was commonplace to have duels fought on the floor of the Senate. Doesn't mean someone doing so now wouldn't be introducing one hell of a change into politics as usual.
The point I was trying to make was that you're off-basing in claiming some kind of conflict is on the horizen because there is some level of religiosity in the public square.
I'm well aware of the history of religion in American politics, thanks all the same. I'm discussing modern politics.
Funny, I thought you were talking about the PAST in all your discussions about Vietnam. What is it about liberals that make them desire Vietnam to still be a modern issue?
In the current era, I can assure you that a president who thinks "the jury is still out on evolution",
I haven't heard the President say this--and if he did, I bet you're taking it out of context.
who says explicitly that America has a divine calling "to spread freedom across the world",
Well, we don't have a responsibility, as the richest, most powerful free country on Earth to help other people share our way of life? I think we do -- it's not as absurd as you make it out to be. And frankly, not all that out of the political norm.
and who holds prayer meetings every day in the Oval Office
What religion Bush believes in is his own personal business. Believe it or not, most Americans share his faith and if he wants to pray, god bless the man, he should pray.
Every President has prayed in Office -- even the Liberal's modern-day Presidential Saint, Jimmy Carter.
Heck, our first President who shaped this nation was what we would call today a Christian Fundamentalist.
is in fact changing the tone in very significant ways (and, IMO, not remotely positive ones, as I've outlined previously).
It's not all that much of a change in tone -- maybe compared to the Clinton years, but there is no harm or threat from the President holding religious beliefs -- they've done so before. Bush's are mild compared to those of past Presidents.
You're serious. Bush is merely using his own personal beliefs as a context?
Yes.
He's drafting entire policies around those beliefs. He's got generals who claim explicitly that he was appointed by the Almighty and that Muslims worship idols. Many of his "faith-based"
Guess what? I'm betting that General didn't show up one day and get his position from Bush because of his religious beliefs. That's a kooky idea. My bet is he has been in the service for years, even under -- gasp -- Bill Clinton. He, too, is entitled to personal beliefs and it's rather anti-freedom (but quite liberal-like) for you to try to deny people such rights.
Hmmm....one thing I've run across that bothers me....according to the White House Office of Management and Budget, there was supposed to be $20 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction, from that $87 billion. But according to the White House office, only $366 million has been spent.
What's going on?
Toby says:
"I've been thinking for quite some time that all our worldly debates and desires for war should be settled by the leaders of nations duking it out in the octagon. Or perhaps each nation would have a representative warrior or something. That way, only one person gets pummeled, instead of hundreds or thousands dying in a conflict. Plus, if the president had to be a good fighter in addition to all his other duties, I think there would be fewer attempts at resolving issues with violence as it would be the one making the decisions whose ass would be on the line."
Arnold for president!
Anyone else old enough to remember an ad that used to run on Tv illustrating this very idea? Two actors, one dressed as Uncle Sam the other looking like Nikita Kruschev slugging it out. Can't remember who sponsored the ad.
Sure thing, Cap'n. Whatever you say. I don't plan on a point-by-point discussion here, so just a couple of quick things.
One quick citation showing the Bush/evolution stance can be found at
http://www.issues2000.orgGeorge_W__Bush_Education.htm . It was a nonpartisan site trying to examine each candidate's views on the issues in 2000, so hopefully you'll find it an acceptable source. (The evolution mention is roughly halfway down the page.)
For a more recent cite, try
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1866476.stm ; it's probably referencing the same statement.
One more obvious example of Bush's religion dictating policy, that I'm kicking myself for not bringing up last time -- stem cell research. You can claim it's Bush pandering to his fundamentalist base rather than his own faith if you like, but either way it's letting religious faith trump science.
Apart from that, though, I think I'm done on this particular issue. You quite clearly feel that Bush's faith is (a) nothing remotely out of the ordinary for presidents, and thus (b) not relevant to any political discussion. You also obviously haven't read what I wrote carefully (i.e. you completely skipped over a lot of my logic), and apparently mix me up with other people as well (i.e. I rarely if ever invoke Vietnam, though you seem to think otherwise). You give patently false generalizations about what all "liberals" think, and you confuse having faith with faith-based policies.
Given all that, I doubt I have much chance of changing your mind, and frankly don't feel like raising my blood pressure trying.
Ta. Everyone have a good weekend.
TWL
Tim,
I think the Stem Cell decision was a good compromise, and I also think it's an example of Bush not using just his religion as a basis for decisions. Bush didn't stop all US research (which was a possibility at the time), nor did he stop private research, or even government research on existing lines. Bush is morally opposed to it, but made the decision to allow research to go on. By all accounts he struggled greatly on the decision, and I think it showed he's not the rabid evangelical he's sometimes portrayed as.
Mark,
Thanks, but you just changed the terms of the debate slightly. I never said Bush uses only his religion as a basis for decisions, just that it's one of the primary things he uses.
Given that the number of viable stem-cell lines he quoted was ... well, let's just leave it at "mistaken" ... and most certainly not enough to let research go forward in a significant way (evidence: statements from just about any individual involved in said research), I don't see it was a particularly modulated decision. It's one that would play as moderate until you look at the details, but not when you get down to looking at the substance.
There's a reason Ron Jr. is speaking at the Democratic convention on this issue, after all.
TWL
There's a reason Ron Jr. is speaking at the Democratic convention on this issue, after all.
Yep, and more power to him. It's a discussion worth having, at the very least. I've read the same reports about the lack of lines, and the debate about whether the embryo lines are really better, and whether or not stem cells are even remotely worth the optimism expressed.
I'll admit to not being qualified to being much more than an observer on the topic - biology was always my worst subject :)
I'll admit to not being qualified to being much more than an observer on the topic - biology was always my worst subject :)
Fair enough. Given that my wife's a biologist (though not cell bio), I probably hear a bit more about this than most. :-) (She's more in the ecology/evolution vein, which should explain why the creationism issue is such a hot button for me...)
TWL
Gee, all this talk of Fahrenheit 9/11, and no one mentions the fact that Michael Moore has listed references for all of the facts he presents in the film?
In any event, PAD is entirely correct -- the Bush apologists can't refute the evidence that Moore is bringing to the table, so all they can do is try to nitpick the film to death and hope everyone ignores the big picture among all the noise.
A prime example of this is the oft-touted Dave Kopel's "59 deceits" list -- most of his points are:
A. Hair-splitting over minutae ("The television projections of a Gore win for Florida were done before the polls closed," which ignores the fact that the clip clearly shows a projected win),
B. Points outside of those presented in the film itself ("Michael Moore grew up in a middle-class suburb of Flint, MI" -- what does that have to do with anything?), or
C. straw-men argument of Kopel's own creation ("Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle ... Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children" Unfortunately, this is a claim Moore never makes in the film).
I think it is rather telling that the anti-Moore apologists keep waving Kopel's list around as if it were some sort of talisman, given how easy it is to point out the flaws in it. But again, as Peter says, this is all sound and fury from the RAM, signifying nothing.
Harry Truman once said, "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell." It would not surprise me one bit to learn that Moore has that quote hanging on a wall poster somewhere.
Has anyone seen this issue?
____________________________________________
From: http://www.saveovertimepay.org/
Under new rules issued by the Bush administration, many workers might not be paid extra for the overtime hours they work. Congress can pass legislation to change the rules before they take effect in August, but President Bush has threatened to veto legislation that would protect overtime pay. Please show your support for overtime pay by signing this petition.
____________________________________________
The thing I'll never figure out is how the Republicans keep getting votes.
"There's a reason Ron Jr. is speaking at the Democratic convention on this issue, after all."
Yes. It's because his name is Ronald Reagan Jr.
There are better speakers. There are experts in the field. But none of them are named Ronald Reagan Jr.
For a harsher assessment--read Richard Cohen (no conservative he)at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50501-2004Jul14.html
And here we thought it was the REPUBLICANS that were gonna exploit Reagan's death...
You know, I occasionally stumble across something so dopey that it shakes up even MY jaded eye. At http://www.democraticaction.org/fights/Haiku.htm
the page for the DCCC (the official national Democratic campaign committee charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives.) wants you to send President Bush a birthday haiku expressing the hope that this will be his last one in office.
Now while this is small potatoes compared to the usual Hitler/Stalin/simian/jackbooted McCarthy Thug stuff, what amazes me is the sheer...I don't know, DUH quality of the whole thing. I mean, what's the point? I was no Clinton fan but it frankly never occurred to me to ever send him a snarky birthday letter. I never even got an email from the secret Vast right Wing Conspiracy headquarters (somewhere in an abandoned warehouse in Gotham City) suggesting such a thing. It seems so...duh.
I give the Democrats a good chance this election because I see them as more fired up...but if it's being wasted on this sort of goofy stuff I don't know).
Robert Jung: Gee, all this talk of Fahrenheit 9/11, and no one mentions the fact that Michael Moore has listed references for all of the facts he presents in the film?
Luigi Novi: Most of which are not contested by his critics. Dave Kopel, who provides perhaps the most comprehensive criticism of the movie, doesn’t dispute that Bush’s cousin was in charge of the decision desk at Fox News on Election Night. He doesn’t dispute that people threw eggs at Bush’s inauguration limo. He doesn’t challenge that Bush slept in French linens on the night of Sept. 10th. Or that Bush’s management of Arbusto was a failure. Or that the Carlyle Group makes weapons. None of what Moore provides on those pages refutes the specific arguments Dave Kopel makes at http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm, like the assertion that the Carlye Group is a bipartisan group with ties to Democrats as well as Republicans, that Craig Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud, from where the assertion that the Saudis invested $860 billion originated, does not provide a corroborating source for that assertion, that when Bush was seen on vacation golfing in the movie, that Tony Blair was there, as well as the media, an indication that it was more than a simple pleasure vacation, that the assertion made by the Secret Service agent assigned to the Saudi embassy that they don’t usually guard embassies is untrue (according to the Service’s own website, which Moore could’ve double-checked), the utterly preposterous notion that Saddam never threatened Americans (which I knew simply when watching the film the first time was bunk), etc.
Mind you, Kopel’s page isn’t perfect. There are numerous spelling errors, and the number of deceits is unclear, with the title that appears at the top of the page (and at the top of my browser) indicating 59, the url 56, and several, like the one about the Oregon Troopers, not even numbered at all. In addition, I don’t agree with Kopel’s conclusions on all of them. Regarding the matter of the Special Protection for the Saudi Embassy (Deceit 25), while Moore should’ve double-checked that, it wasn’t a “deceit,” since he simply took the Secret Service agent’s word. His conclusion about the matter of the Oregon Troopers (between Deceits 39 & 40) is not a deceit, but rather his personal opinion over responsibility for the troopers. I disagree with the “idyllic utopia” Straw Man regarding the images of pre-war Iraq (Deceit 45), Invasion of Iraq (Deceits 46-47). However, these are the exception, and if the bulk of the material on the site is accurate, it is a pretty damning indictment of both the film in particular and Moore in general, none of which is refuted by the material on Moore’s site.
Robert Jung: Points outside of those presented in the film itself ("Michael Moore grew up in a middle-class suburb of Flint, MI" -- what does that have to do with anything?)
Luigi Novi: Davison, where Moore grew up, is a white, middle-class suburb. Moore instead claims to be from minority-populated and poverty-stricken Flint, which may be an attempt to associate himself with the poor and downtrodden.
Robert Jung: straw-men argument of Kopel's own creation ("Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle ... Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children" Unfortunately, this is a claim Moore never makes in the film)
Luigi Novi: Bullshit. The intended meaning that the viewer is supposed to glean from this is that these congressmen, like Castle, are stonewalling Moore. But Michael Castle, the congressmen who was talking on a cell phone and waved Moore off, doesn’t have children. What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that one like Moore can implicitly create a false impression without explicitly stating it. The viewer is supposed to gather that Castle is one of the congressmen who will vote for the war without wanting to send his own kids. If it weren’t, then why did Moore include footage of Castle? Why didn’t he only include his attempts to interview ones with children?
Robert Jung: I think it is rather telling that the anti-Moore apologists keep waving Kopel's list around as if it were some sort of talisman, given how easy it is to point out the flaws in it.
Luigi Novi: First, I’m not an anti-Moore apologist (I’m not even sure how one can be both “anti-Moore” and an “apologist”). I’m actually a fan of Moore, and I shook his hand when I met him a couple of years ago. I simply no longer accept his material as gospel, but approach it skeptically, in part because people have pointed out flaws in his movies, which he has failed to sufficiently refute. I bring up Kopel’s site because the material there appears to be well-argued, and backed by reference. I don’t buy all of it, but much of it, perhaps most of it, appears solid, and I simply would like discussion of its points, especially since Moore refuses to answer his critics.
It’s easy to point out the flaws in it? How so? You just attempted to do so with three of its points, and failed to do so, as I just pointed out. Why bring up that list of facts on Moore’s site? None of it addresses Kopel’s charges, and in some areas disputed by Kopel, the disputes are not directly rebutted.
PAD, bit late in this list of comments and it's a bit late at night for me to go through it all. Just wanted to say you summed it up beautifully there. 'Inaccuracies'....pfff we see news shows and right wing pundits yell pro-Bush propaganda at us all the live long day. Now someone pointed out the OTHER side of the issues. Imagine that....
On Iraq, excellent points there as well. The ludicrously childish notion of 'we brought democracy to Iraq' is one of my biggest pet peeves in the long list of ever-changing rationales and nonsense the administration spits out at us. If they really have fair elections, the muslim fundamentalists could very well win. Which could turn the country into another human rights-violating dictatorial theocracy like Iran, our 'allies' Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. (And didn't we recently 'free' those people from that??)
Which won't really be an improvement on Saddam of course. More like 'would you like to be poor and oppressed under the Czar or the Soviets?' Of course we could prevent that from happening and put up a nice little government that WE like(oops, we already have!) but then, hey, we didn't free anyone. We just took over their country.
None of what Moore provides on those pages refutes the specific arguments Dave Kopel makes ... like the assertion that the Carlye Group is a bipartisan group with ties to Democrats as well as Republicans,
No one ever said they weren't. Straw man from Kopel.
...that Craig Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud, from where the assertion that the Saudis invested $860 billion originated, does not provide a corroborating source for that assertion,
That could be because other experts disagree with Unger and think the Saudi investment may be even bigger.
“Others have said the investment is even more, as much as a trillion dollars on deposit in U.S. banks – an agreement worked out in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration, in yet another effort to get the Saudis to off-set the US budget deficit. The Saudis hold another trillion dollars or so in the US stock market.”
--Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil, p. 60
...that when Bush was seen on vacation golfing in the movie, that Tony Blair was there, as well as the media, an indication that it was more than a simple pleasure vacation,
No one ever said it wasn't. Another straw man from Kopel. The key point is simply that Bush was on vacation a lot (certainly more than any other President at a comparable point in their careers). How much or little weight should be placed on Bush's vacation days is left to the individual viewer.
...that the assertion made by the Secret Service agent assigned to the Saudi embassy that they don’t usually guard embassies is untrue
Since you yourself admit Kopel was wrong to count this as a "deceit," why bring it up here? Also note that this ignores the bigger issue, that Prince Bandar is the best-protected ambassador in the world. The reasons why he rates a dedicated, full-time security detail is left for the viewer to speculate.
...the utterly preposterous notion that Saddam never threatened Americans (which I knew simply when watching the film the first time was bunk),
"Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991."
--Stephen Zunes, "An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003
"Iraq never threatened the US, let alone Australia. The basic consideration was and remains the perception of America's wider strategic interest in the Middle East."
--Richard Woolcott, Australia Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, "Thread bare Basis To The Homespun Yarn That Led Us Into Iraq," Sydney Morning Herald, November 26, 2003
I disagree with the “idyllic utopia” Straw Man regarding the images of pre-war Iraq
As Moore explained in Entertainment Weekly, "Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did 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 were 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 cafe. Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot."
I never got the impression from the scene that Moore was claiming Saddam was a nice guy, but merely that ordinary Iraqi citizens were going about their own lives, doing their own things, before we started dropping bombs on them. If you want to interpret that to say Moore claims Iraq pre-war was Eden, that's fine, but it's your interpretation, not his assertion.
if the bulk of the material on the site is accurate, it is a pretty damning indictment of both the film in particular and Moore in general
Unfortunately, I still haven't seen anything to indicate Kopel actually had a point in his pile of straw and innuendo. For a guy who's accusing Moore of spinning the truth, he sure engages in a lot of spinning of his own.
Davison, where Moore grew up, is a white, middle-class suburb. Moore instead claims to be from minority-populated and poverty-stricken Flint, which may be an attempt to associate himself with the poor and downtrodden.
Are you seriously trying to assert that a middle-class person can't be an advocate for the poor and downtrodden? That's as loopy as saying only sick doctors can tend to patients.
Bullshit. The intended meaning that the viewer is supposed to glean from this is that these congressmen, like Castle, are stonewalling Moore. But Michael Castle, the congressmen who was talking on a cell phone and waved Moore off, doesn’t have children.
To steal from PAD, Michael Moore didn't imply it -- Kopel inferred it.
If it weren’t, then why did Moore include footage of Castle? Why didn’t he only include his attempts to interview ones with children?
Because it was funny to see? Because Moore hasn't memorized the structure of every Congresscritters' family? Heck, if Castle was wholly innocent, he could have stopped, talked to Moore, then said, "Oh, I don't have any kids" and gotten off the hook. Yet somehow, a funny six-second scene of someone running away from Michael Moore gets construed by Dave Kopel into an Evil Scheme of Erroneous Implications(tm).
I’m actually a fan of Moore, and I shook his hand when I met him a couple of years ago. I simply no longer accept his material as gospel, but approach it skeptically, in part because people have pointed out flaws in his movies, which he has failed to sufficiently refute.
Hey, I know where you're coming from -- I specifically avoided his last two books because I didn't want to support his "massaging" of the facts either. But on the other hand, if Moore does nail the truth, then it's unfair to call him a liar for doing so.
I've been combing the Internet for the last few weeks now, looking for credible evidence that Fahrenheit 9/11 is factually incorrect. And every single argument against the film ends up railing against Moore's opinion (which is his own, and should be treated as such), distorting the movie to make a false point, or setting up straw-men arguments against the author's own inferences.
Dave Kopel's list, while extensive, is ultimately an empty suit, and I'm somewhat surprised to see you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
I bring up Kopel’s site because the material there appears to be well-argued, and backed by reference.
Kopel's list is so rickety, it wouldn't stand ten minutes in a formal review. The fact that he has to draw extensively on material outside the film to puff up his list to 59 entries (Moore's hometown, alleged support by Hezbollah, etc.) is a sure sign that he knows his material is weak, but hopes to paper over his arguments' inadequacies in a storm of unrelated diversions.
I don’t buy all of it, but much of it, perhaps most of it, appears solid
I challenge you to read his list with half the skepticim you're showing to Fahrenheit 9/11. Dave Kopel's list is, quite simply, a joke.
Why bring up that list of facts on Moore’s site? None of it addresses Kopel’s charges, and in some areas disputed by Kopel, the disputes are not directly rebutted.
That's because while the rest of us are talking about (alleged) errors inside the movie itself, Kopel -- being unable to find any factual errors inside the movie -- prefers to talk about the movie's creator... a point that is, ultimately, irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Or, in other words: Kopel is playing polo while everyone else is playing baseball. Just because both involve a white ball doesn't mean he belongs on the diamond.
Luigi Novi: None of what Moore provides on those pages refutes the specific arguments Dave Kopel makes ... like the assertion that the Carlye Group is a bipartisan group with ties to Democrats as well as Republicans
Robert Jung: No one ever said they weren't. Straw man from Kopel.
Luigi Novi: It is not a Straw Man. That is the picture that Moore paints; that the Carlyle group, through its ties to both the Bushes and the bin Ladens, is to be seen as a sinister company with nefarious motives. Pointing out that its ties are bipartisan, and that it had ties to people like Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, may make it harder for Moore to paint this picture in such absolute terms.
Luigi Novi:...that Craig Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud, from where the assertion that the Saudis invested $860 billion originated, does not provide a corroborating source for that assertion…
Robert Jung: That could be because other experts disagree with Unger and think the Saudi investment may be even bigger.
“Others have said the investment is even more, as much as a trillion dollars on deposit in U.S. banks – an agreement worked out in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration, in yet another effort to get the Saudis to off-set the US budget deficit. The Saudis hold another trillion dollars or so in the US stock market.”--Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil, p. 60
Luigi Novi: If this is true, then why is it not mentioned in the movie? Also, what of the response by Moore that Kopel mentions at the end of this passage on his site? In it, Moore points out that the capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange composite is $12 trillion and that $860 billion amounts to approximately 7 percent of that. Kopel responds that even if the Saudi's owned 7% of the stocks on the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE does not include all of America's wealth--which includes real estate, businesses which are not traded on the NYSE because they are privately owned, and so on. Kopel claims that the data show that the Saudis own between 4% (420 billion) and 7% (700 billion) of total foreign investment in the U.S., which is not the same thing as the Saudis "own[ing] seven percent of America.”
Luigi Novi: ...that when Bush was seen on vacation golfing in the movie, that Tony Blair was there, as well as the media, an indication that it was more than a simple pleasure vacation…
Robert Jung: No one ever said it wasn't. Another straw man from Kopel. The key point is simply that Bush was on vacation a lot (certainly more than any other President at a comparable point in their careers). How much or little weight should be placed on Bush's vacation days is left to the individual viewer.
Luigi Novi: It is not a Straw Man. The implicit message that Moore shows here, complete with the sound “Vacation” playing on the soundtrack, is that Bush was spending too much time on vacation, rather than attending to Presidential business. But if these were not simple pleasure vacations, but trips away from the White House that included important work, as would occur if he were meeting with the Prime Minister of England, that would cast such “vacations” in an entirely different light. Omitting mention of this is a crucial point. I would like to know how many of these vacations were work-related affairs like this, and how many were just personal excursions? It would be far easier for me to conclude that Bush took too much off-time if only Moore would only have clarified this point. If Moore wanted to argue that Bush was on vacation too much, then showing him on a trip involving Presidential business with Prime Minister is a poor example to use to illustrate this point. The individual viewer cannot place the proper weight on Bush’s vacations if Moore is unclear as to whether these vacations were the same type you or I take when we go to the beach, or ones that incorporated work. In the absence of clarity on this point, the viewer may form a misinformed conclusion, which is from where the criticism of Moore is derived.
Luigi Novi: that the assertion made by the Secret Service agent assigned to the Saudi embassy that they don’t usually guard embassies is untrue…
Robert Jung:...Since you yourself admit Kopel was wrong to count this as a "deceit," why bring it up here?
Luigi Novi: Because it’s an example of information that Moore arguably could’ve double-checked. Didn’t you read that above? I made that statement in parenthesis right after the statement of mine that you just quoted. Didn’t you read it? I think Kopel was wrong to count it as a “deceit,” since Moore probably took the agent at his word, but I allow for the argument from the other side that perhaps Moore could’ve corroborated it.
Robert Jung:...Also note that this ignores the bigger issue, that Prince Bandar is the best-protected ambassador in the world. The reasons why he rates a dedicated, full-time security detail is left for the viewer to speculate.
Luigi Novi: You’re saying the other embassies don’t have this? Or that their details are not full-time?
On the Secret Service’s website, it states:
Major Duties:
The Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the United States President, Vice-President, President-elect, Vice-President-elect, their immediate families, former Presidents, their spouses and minor children until the age of 16, visiting foreign heads of states/governments, their accompanying spouses, major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, their spouses, and others designated by law. In addition, Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area.
I’m just asking. Are you saying other embassies don’t rate Secret Service detail, or that the Saudi one is simply the only one to have one full-time? If it’s the latter, was this in the film? Because I don’t recall anyone in the film saying that (though my memory could be wrong).
Luigi Novi:......the utterly preposterous notion that Saddam never threatened Americans (which I knew simply when watching the film the first time was bunk)…
Robert Jung: "Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991."--Stephen Zunes, "An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003
"Iraq never threatened the US, let alone Australia. The basic consideration was and remains the perception of America's wider strategic interest in the Middle East."--Richard Woolcott, Australia Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, "Thread bare Basis To The Homespun Yarn That Led Us Into Iraq," Sydney Morning Herald, November 26, 2003
Luigi Novi: I don’t know where Zunes is coming from, but who the hell said anything about Australia? Given all the evidence to the contrary, you’ll pardon me if I don’t regard Woolcott as knowledgeable on this point, since even a political layman like myself knows that this isn’t true.
First, Kopel points out that Saddam provided refuge to Abu Abbas, the man in charage of the hijacking of the ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly American wheelchair-bound passenger Leon Klinghoffer, and to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the 1993 World Trade Center bombmaker, and that the ringleader of that bombing, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. By law, Saddam therefore was an accessory to the murders. He points out that Saddam made a failed attempt to murder former American President George H.W. Bush when he visited Kuwait City in 1993, that in 1991, he had his agents make an unsuccessful attempt to murder the American Ambassador to the Philippines and, separately, the employees of the U.S. Information Service in Manila. Kopel also points out that Hussein, who boasted of funding Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, is guilty of their murders as well, including the American ones.
In addition, Christopher Hitchens pointed out at http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ that in 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time, and killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits before the invasion was repelled. Hitchens also points out that Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country.
Luigi Novi: I disagree with the “idyllic utopia” Straw Man regarding the images of pre-war Iraq
Robert Jung: As Moore explained in Entertainment Weekly, "Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did 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 were 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 cafe. Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot."
I never got the impression from the scene that Moore was claiming Saddam was a nice guy, but merely that ordinary Iraqi citizens were going about their own lives, doing their own things, before we started dropping bombs on them. If you want to interpret that to say Moore claims Iraq pre-war was Eden, that's fine, but it's your interpretation, not his assertion.
Luigi Novi: Um, Robert? You took this quote of mine from the paragraph in which I list some of the parts of Kopel’s arguments that I disagree with. The “idyllic utopia” argument, which is commonly lobbed at the movie by its critics, was Kopel’s. Not Moore’s. I made it clear in that paragraph that I disagreed with it. Did you actually read that paragraph? (You indicated earlier that you read the part where I opined that the assertion about Secret Service embassy detail was not a “deceit,” which is in the same paragraph as the point about the utopia Straw Man.)
I also argued this on the previous Fahrenheit 9/11 board to Starving Writer, who apparently subscribes to this idea that Moore portrayed pre-invasion Iraq as “idyllic.” You might’ve read it. It was in the same July 14, 2004 06:17 PM post in which I responded to one of your statements as well, in which you mentioned Moore’s notes page. (And yet you claim on this board that “no one mentioned” Moore’s notes page—even though you yourself had already done so, and I responded to it.)
As for that Entertainment Weekly interview, I not only read it, I posted an excerpt including that very quote (and much more) on July 9th on another message board website I frequent, www.nitcentral, in which I was explaining precisely this point, which you can see at http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/8/24212.html?#POST264562. Further down in another post do I explain in depth, in response to a fellow visitor, why I disagree with some of Kopel’s arguments. I also scanned the EW interview, as well the one in last month’s Playboy, and the Moore article in the Timemagazine from a week or two ago, and offered to send them to whoever wants them.
Luigi Novi: if the bulk of the material on the site is accurate, it is a pretty damning indictment of both the film in particular and Moore in general…
Robert Jung: Unfortunately, I still haven't seen anything to indicate Kopel actually had a point in his pile of straw and innuendo. For a guy who's accusing Moore of spinning the truth, he sure engages in a lot of spinning of his own.
Luigi Novi: If there is a website somewhere that refutes the material therein, I’d like to read it. My opinion of Kopel’s arguments is provisional, and in light of counterarguments that refute it, I’m more than willing to revise it.
Luigi Novi: Davison, where Moore grew up, is a white, middle-class suburb. Moore instead claims to be from minority-populated and poverty-stricken Flint, which may be an attempt to associate himself with the poor and downtrodden.
Robert Jung: Are you seriously trying to assert that a middle-class person can't be an advocate for the poor and downtrodden?
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about advocacy. We’re talking about embellishing your background so as to falsely associate yourself with them. If what I’ve read from various sources is true, and Moore is really from a white, middle-class suburb, then his claims that he is from the more impoverished and minority-populated Flint may be an attempt by him to paint his own background as something other than what it was. Why you think an attempt to associate oneself with a certain group by embellishing elements of your background is the same thing as “advocating” for that group, I don’t know.
What I do believe is a false argument regarding Moore’s relationship to the poor is when his critics constantly harp about how he’s a rich man with a million-dollar home in Michigan and a million-dollar apartment in New York City, which is utterly irrelevant. Moore, to my knowledge, is not poor, and never said he was. I imagine that he was before he became a famous movie and TV producer, but then isn’t it the whole point of the American dream to make it big? It is when his critics trot out his wealth that I would respond as you did, Robert, that a rich person has every right to advocate for the poor, and that pointing out his wealth the way his critics do is a fallacy.
Luigi Novi: The intended meaning that the viewer is supposed to glean from this is that these congressmen, like Castle, are stonewalling Moore. But Michael Castle, the congressmen who was talking on a cell phone and waved Moore off, doesn’t have children.
Robert Jung: To steal from PAD, Michael Moore didn't imply it -- Kopel inferred it.
Luigi Novi: So you don’t think that by showing these scenes, that it was Moore’s intention for the viewer to understand that these congressmen were dismissive and hypocritical elitists in refusing to send their own children to war? You don’t think that a significant amount of the audience understood just that? This is precisely what Moore intended the audience to infer.
Luigi Novi: If it weren’t, then why did Moore include footage of Castle? Why didn’t he only include his attempts to interview ones with children?
Robert Jung: Because it was funny to see?
Luigi Novi: It was funny? How is seeing someone on a cell phone ignore someone else who’s trying to get their attention funny? Funny in what way? How? Why?
Robert Jung: Because Moore hasn't memorized the structure of every Congresscritters' family?
Luigi Novi: Who says he has to? Just because he didn’t know all their family statuses at the time of the confrontations means that he couldn’t research those of the people he tried to stop after the fact, and decide not to use the footage of the confrontations with people like Castle in the final edit, since his lack of children make the scene irrelevant to Moore’s point?
Robert Jung: Heck, if Castle was wholly innocent, he could have stopped, talked to Moore, then said, "Oh, I don't have any kids" and gotten off the hook.
Luigi Novi: Innocent? Innocent of what? Not stopping on the street when someone tries to stop you makes you guilty of something? What is he guilty of? What is he accused of? I have to get the attention of passersby and convince them to stop for a living, Robert, and I never regard those who don’t grant it to me (who are the majority of them) as being “guilty” of something. Whether someone chooses to stop for a stranger on the street is entirely their business. It is not up to me to decide that they are obligated to put their (possibly important) phone call on hold for some guy on the street, and certainly not you.
Robert Jung: Yet somehow, a funny six-second scene of someone running away from Michael Moore gets construed by Dave Kopel into an Evil Scheme of Erroneous Implications(tm).
Luigi Novi: He was not “running away.” He was walking on his way to the building, was talking on his phone, and did not feel like stopping for Moore.
Luigi Novi: I’m actually a fan of Moore, and I shook his hand when I met him a couple of years ago. I simply no longer accept his material as gospel, but approach it skeptically, in part because people have pointed out flaws in his movies, which he has failed to sufficiently refute.
Robert Jung: Hey, I know where you're coming from -- I specifically avoided his last two books because I didn't want to support his "massaging" of the facts either. But on the other hand, if Moore does nail the truth, then it's unfair to call him a liar for doing so.
Luigi Novi: ???????? Who has ever called him a liar for nailing the truth? If anyone does call him a liar, it’s because the accuser feels he has not nailed the truth. Although I have never called him a liar, the charge deserves examination, given some of his material, such as his manipulative editing of material involving Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, as well as the allegations of the same in this movie.
And I believe I have acknowledged that there is merit in some of his material, and that the truth lies somewhere in between him and his critics. I also stated in my July 15, 2004 2:24 PM post that I dislike people on both sides of the political spectrum who are not truthful with their arguments, not just Moore.
Robert Jung: I've been combing the Internet for the last few weeks now, looking for credible evidence that Fahrenheit 9/11 is factually incorrect. And every single argument against the film ends up railing against Moore's opinion (which is his own, and should be treated as such), distorting the movie to make a false point, or setting up straw-men arguments against the author's own inferences.
Luigi Novi: You seem to be under the impression that a lie can only be made explicitly, and not implicitly through the impression that the author wishes to instill in the audience. Obviously, a filmmaker who selectively edits his film can do this, as Moore did with Bowling for Columbine, and as he allegedly did with Fahrenheit, and all without an explicit statement to that effect. A filmmaker sets up a rapport with his audience. The audience trusts that when the filmmaker shows something onscreen, it somehow illustrates his position, argument or point. Thus, when Moore points out that Bush took a lot of vacation time, without clarifying whether these were work-related or not, and uses a particular example to illustrate it, the viewer understands that the filmmaker is showing one of these “vacations,” and that there were the same type of “vacations” average citizens take, which may be markedly different from Presidential ones. When Moore shows congressmen ignoring him as he tries to get them to sign their kids up for the military, the viewer understands that each of the congressmen he is shown trying to stop is one of them, and has kids, because they trust that Moore would not include footage of him stopping one to ask him this if he didn’t have kids. Your attempts to argue that “Oh, because Moore didn’t actually say this or that” are obtuse fallacies, and appear to be mere rationalizations, as is your preposterous idea that people like Castle are somehow obligated to stop for Moore lest they be seen as not “innocent.”
I also gave examples in which Saddam Hussein did threaten Americans on numerous occasions, and showed how you yourself distorted my statement about Moore’s true hometown, in a blatant Straw Man yourself.
But I’d be curious as to how you view other examples that Kopel provides:
Deceit 5
Moore points out how someone pelted Bush’s inauguration limousine with an egg, saying, "No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day." Kopel points out that according to CNN, Richard Nixon faced comparable protests in 1969 and 1973.
Deceits 8-10
Moore says that Bush “perhaps…should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.” But Moore provides no evidence that Bush did not read it, and the actual content of that brief, I have read, and which you can read at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf, says no such thing about hijacking airplanes. In fact, it states the FBI was investigating a call to the American embassy in the United Arab Emirates that bin Laden supporters were planning on attacking U.S. with “explosives.” (I should point out here that Kopel uses one of his Straw Men, when he counts, as a separate deceit in this passage, Moore’s remark—which Kopel admits was made as a “smirk”—that Bush didn’t read the briefing because the title was “vague,” which Moore intended as a sarcastic reference to the fact that the title of the briefing was the obvious “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Unlike your rationalization of showing Congressman Castle dismissing Moore, this remark, in my opinion, clearly was a joke, but Kopel is treating it as a literal, straight assertion by Moore, despite having admitted that it was a “smirk,” and that it was phrased as a speculation rather than an assertion.)
Deceits 16-17
Moore makes a big point about the fact that James R. Bath’s name is blacked out from Bush National Guard records which were released by the White House. The viewer is intended to see this as sinister, but the reason it was blacked out, according to Kopel, is that federal law requires the Alabama National Guard to black out the names any Guardsmen whose medical information was on the same pages as the President’s.
Deceit 18
Moore points out the close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family, even going so far as to mention his nickname, “Bandar Bush.” But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. If he did, Bandar’s relationship to Bush might appear less sinister.
Deceit 26
In the movie, Moore names Bush, the Saudis, Halliburton, etc., as conspirators in his allegations about 9/11 and the Iraq War. But for some odd reason, he omits one of his targets that he had previously named to an audience in Liverpool, England when he said, “It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.” He also called Israel part of the axis of evil. In Dude, Where’s My Country, he called for the US to give Palestinians the same $4 billion we give Israel so that “they can just blow each other up and leave the rest of us alone.” Why does he not mention Israel in the movie? Is it because of his stated intention of using the movie to defeat George Bush in November, and knowing that most American Jews are Democrats, he was afraid that if they found out what Moore believes about Israel they might be considerably more skeptical about Moore's claims regarding other alleged global conspirators?
Deceits 27-31
Moore alleges that Unocal’s desire to build an Afghan pipeline to carry oil and gas through Afghanistan was the reason for the Afghan war. But Unocal abandoned that idea in 1998 during Clinton’s administration. In December 2003, the new Afghanistan signed a new deal with Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline, but this new one has nothing to do with Unocal, nor does it even resemble Unocal's failed proposal, as it would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan. The images of pipeline construction in the movie have nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, whose construction has not begun, nor with the Unocal pipeline, which never existed except on paper. (It is important to point out that here Kopel again uses a Straw Man when he claims that when Moore mentions the visit by a Taliban delegation to Texas in December 1997 when Bush was governor, that Moore somehow implied that they also met with Bush, and argues that Clinton was President. In my opinion, Moore implies no such thing; He flat-out says (IIRC) that they met with oil executives, and since Moore explicitly stated the date, and that Bush was governor, there is no implication that Bush was with them, or that this did not occur during the Clinton administration.)
Deceit 32
Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11, and shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration “welcomed” the official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.” But the administration rejected Hashemi’s claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban. “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.
Deceit 33
Kopel demonstrates from Moore’s quotes that he was initially opposed to the Afghan war three days after 9/11, but in the movie, criticizes Bush for not invading Afghanistan sooner, pointing out that Bush gave the Taliban a two-month head start. In my opinion, this need not necessarily be a deceit; At worst, it is a gross inconsistency, and at best, it is possible that Moore changed his opinion. But I would like clarification by Moore on this. Although Kopel lists Moore’s rebuttal to each of the criticisms he lists, Kopel says Moore has offered none on this point.
Deceits 36
Moore mocks John Ashcroft by pointing out that he lost a Missouri Senate race to a man who had died three weeks earlier. Moore omits the fact that when voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for Carnahan’s very much alive widow, Jean, whom the governor had vowed to appoint to the job if Mel won.
Deceits 37-38
Moore criticizes John Ashcroft for ignoring pre-9/11 warnings about the attacks, arguing that the FBI knew from a memo that summer that there were Al Qaeda members in US flight schools around the country. But according to Kopel, this was because the memo was not widely circulated in the FBI, was sent to only one field office, and therefore never reached Ashcroft’s desk. (or any managers at FBI HQ) until after the attacks. Moore also accuses Bush of cutting military pay, but Kopel explains that Bush did no such thing.
Deceits 50-52
Moore criticizes Bush for supporting the closing of veterans hospitals, but doesn’t mention that this is because the hospitals in question had declining populations and were being underutilized, and that their patients could be served by other ones.
Robert Jung: Dave Kopel's list, while extensive, is ultimately an empty suit, and I'm somewhat surprised to see you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Luigi Novi: If falling for it “hook, line and sinker” means that I hail it as absolute gospel in the same way that some of Moore’s fans do his work, then I would point out that I have already established that I do not.
Luigi Novi: I bring up Kopel’s site because the material there appears to be well-argued, and backed by reference.
Robert Jung: Kopel's list is so rickety, it wouldn't stand ten minutes in a formal review. The fact that he has to draw extensively on material outside the film to puff up his list to 59 entries (Moore's hometown, alleged support by Hezbollah, etc.) is a sure sign that he knows his material is weak, but hopes to paper over his arguments' inadequacies in a storm of unrelated diversions.
Luigi Novi: Given that the vast majority of the material does pertain to the movie, in what way does adding a few bonus items from outside the scope of it at the very end of the webpage indicate weakness in the rest of it? Even if this were true, how would a few extra items really validate the preceding fifty-six if those fifty-six had no validity to begin with?
And speaking of which, do you refute the accusation of the Hezbollah connection? I’d like to hear your side of it.
Luigi Novi: I don’t buy all of it, but much of it, perhaps most of it, appears solid…
Robert Jung: I challenge you to read his list with half the skepticim you're showing to Fahrenheit 9/11.
Luigi Novi: I read it with the same amount of skepticism. Doesn’t the fact that I don’t buy all of it and am willing to criticize Kopel for his own less-than-perfect material pretty much indicate that I approached it with same modicum of objectivity with which I approach Moore’s?
Luigi Novi: Why bring up that list of facts on Moore’s site? None of it addresses Kopel’s charges, and in some areas disputed by Kopel, the disputes are not directly rebutted.
Robert Jung: That's because while the rest of us are talking about (alleged) errors inside the movie itself, Kopel -- being unable to find any factual errors inside the movie -- prefers to talk about the movie's creator... a point that is, ultimately, irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about?
He doesn’t talk about the factual errors he found in the movie?
He talks more about Michael Moore himself?
Obviously, this is untrue, as the vast bulk of the material on that page on Kopel’s site is clearly about the movie, not Moore, and for you argue the opposite is a clear indicator that you have not read it yourself (this despite your earlier question to me on the Fahrenheit 9/11 board about whether I had done so myself). While I feel Kopel’s arguments are flawed in several places, much of it appears solidly argued and backed by reference. You have failed to refute any of the ones I’ve mentioned, as most of your responses to them involve fallacies about the inability to deceive without an explicit statement, a distorted Straw Man of one of my statements, the mistaken understanding that an argument of Kopel’s that I disagree with is one that I somehow agree with, rationalizations that Moore’s targets are not “innocent” if they don’t stop and interrupt phone conversations for him, even if they don’t meet the needs of his arguments, and so forth.
Oh, and by the way, Moore is using the image of a burning American flag on European posters being used to market the film overseas.
On a somewhat related note, since an awful lot of this discussion on all sides has been all about perception --
Here's a link to an interview Bush did with Irish television a few days before the handover of kinda-sorta-sovereignty in Iraq. No editing (to my knowledge), just a Q&A. Thoughts are welcome -- particularly thoughts about whether this is the person we'd like to see represent the U.S. for another four years.
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/rte-carol-coleman-bush.mp3
TWL
Posted by: Robert Jung "In any event, PAD is entirely correct -- the Bush apologists can't refute the evidence that Moore is bringing to the table, so all they can do is try to nitpick the film to death and hope everyone ignores the big picture among all the noise."
I find your response interesting. If the foundational FACTS Moore claims are untrue, how it that nitpicking it to death? As others have said, Moore makes a number of clearly deliberate implications with the facts (such as with the congressman on the cell phone or showing a clip of Gore thanking Florida BEFORE the election was actually called by the media). It is not nitpicking to say he was wrong in his implications. If the house is built of cards, it will fall.
Bottom line, the facts have to valid for the point to be true. You are arguing the opposite: You believe Moore's conclusion, so nitpicking a few facts is pointless.
I AM dealing with the FACTS of the movie, not with Moore's personality (except for where necessary when his personality/views has put a certain "spin" on those facts -- such as the nature of Bush's vacations). Upon examination, the facts are really just suggestions, implications, and allegations. That does not automatically make them untrue, but it is no where close to the airtight, rock solid evidence some seem to believe it is.
Jim in Iowa
Tim Lynch: Here's a link to an interview Bush did with Irish television a few days before the handover of kinda-sorta-sovereignty in Iraq. No editing (to my knowledge), just a Q&A. Thoughts are welcome -- particularly thoughts about whether this is the person we'd like to see represent the U.S. for another four years. http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/rte-carol-coleman-bush.mp3
Luigi Novi: Luigi Novi: From your post, Tim, I was expecting to hear Bush being flustered and stumbling over his words and metaphors, as he is often portrayed, but I was quite surprised to hear him holding his own quite well against interviewer Carol Coleman, who came off as rude, and unprofessional.
Bush answered her questions directly and reasonably. She, on the other hand, interrupted him several times throughout the interview while he was in the middle of answering her questions, in used specious reasoning when asking him about whether the world is safer after the Iraq War, and in so doing, made little effort at appearing objective when asking him both about this and the U.S.’s even-handedness. Much as I dislike Bush and his administration, I have to concede that she was the one who came off looking bad.
The one statement he made that I take issue with, however, was that there is a democracy in Pakistan. Last I had heard, Pakistan was ruled by a military dictatorship headed by General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup. Either Musharraf has instituted elections that I have not heard about, or else Bush has a very unique definition of “democracy.”
Luigi,
From your post, Tim, I was expecting to hear Bush being flustered and stumbling over his words and metaphors, as he is often portrayed, but I was quite surprised to hear him holding his own quite well against interviewer Carol Coleman, who came off as rude, and unprofessional.
Um ... wow. We apparently heard two completely different interviews.
Though many Americans appear to have forgotten in the age of the celebrity ass-kissers, the media is *supposed* to be adversarial. It's supposed to question authoritarian dogma, to challenge assumptions, and to make people back up outlandish claims. I seem to recall there being times when press conferences (or even -- gasp! -- presidential debates) didn't involve every question being submitted in advance.
Compared, for example, to the questions Tony Blair has to deal with on a routine basis -- not just from the media, but in Parliament -- Coleman's interview was reasonably benign.
Bush wasn't stammering, no -- but he clearly had a message he wanted to make sure he gave and was royally pissed when put off-track by a "rude" insistence on Ms. Coleman's part of actually daring to follow up a question. The number of times he said "let me finish" was just beyond belief. (She typically did not cut him off mid-sentence, but rather jumped in when he'd finished a sentence.)
I didn't hear him answering her questions "directly and reasonably" in the slightest. I heard a man who did not like being questioned.
Different strokes, I guess.
BTW -- the White House was so annoyed by this interview that Laura Bush's interview with Ms. Coleman for later that same day was cancelled. There are obviously as many ways to interpret that as there are opinions on Bush, but I figured it was a data point.
TWL
Tim Lynch: Though many Americans appear to have forgotten in the age of the celebrity ass-kissers, the media is *supposed* to be adversarial. It's supposed to question authoritarian dogma, to challenge assumptions, and to make people back up outlandish claims. I seem to recall there being times when press conferences (or even -- gasp! -- presidential debates) didn't involve every question being submitted in advance.
Luigi Novi: Tim, I didn’t say anything about whether interviews should be adversarial, whether they should question dogma, challenge assumptions, have subjects back up claims, or submitting questions in advance. They should obviously do all of these things, though instead of saying “adversarial,” I would phrase it by saying that reporters should impeach a subject’s claims when necessary. But none of these things involves
She asked him if he was bothered by what the Irish people think, and he answered her. She said they’re angry over Iraq, and he answered that he understood this, opined that the existence of a brutal dictator there made the war necessary (note that I’m not agreeing with this, just trying to review what he said), and asserted that the Abu Greb incident is not representative of the U.S. or its people. Coleman opined that the world is a more dangerous place now, arguing that there are daily bombings in Iraq, which was not the case two years ago. Bush responded that the did what he did in response to 9/11, and that there were most certainly subsequent bombings in Bali, in Pakistan, and in Madrid, though not in response to what Bush did.
(Again, I don’t share his conclusion about the relationship between 9/11 and Iraq, and his point that the bombings in Madrid were not in response to what he did seems puzzling, since I thought it was clear that they were done in response to Spain’s participation in the Iraq War. I would’ve instead responded to Coleman by questioning whether Iraq, still not entirely safe, can be accurately concluded as being “less or more” safe than under Saddam—what, did they do an estimate of how many people died daily under his rule vs. by bombings today—and by pointing out that the attacks on our African embassies and the U.S.S. Cole certainly qualify as “bombings,” even if they weren’t “daily,” and not in Iraq. I thought Coleman should’ve instead asked about why Bush had not exit strategy at first, did not try to prevent the initial post-Saddam chaos, and challenged him on the connection between Iraq and 9/11, and why he de-prioritized bin Laden. She did ask this last question, but because it was a multiple-part question, in which she also asked him if the world was safer, Bush answered the “safer” part, asserting that he does believe the world is becoming safer, and she never got back to him about the Al Quaeda matter.
To be fair, I also think Bush interrupted her once when Coleman asked him about seeing four of his soldiers dead on TV, though I’m not sure if he merely thought she had finished asking her question.
She then asked him about if he believes God is guiding him. Bush said that his belief in God was personal, and that he turns to God for personal guidance, sustenance, and forgiveness, but that he does not think he’s “a better person than you are” (I just guessing that he’s talking in general about those who don’t share his religious beliefs), quoting Matthew 7:1-5 to clarify his position. She asked if he could look Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, with whom he’d be meeting the next day, and say that it was worth it, and that it would work out. Bush said “absolutely.” She asked why others don’t understand him, and he responded that he doesn’t know, and that he’d leave history to judge him, rather than chase popular approval. She asked if he was satisfied that the U.S. was getting enough help from Europe, and he indicated that it is. She asked how optimistic he felt about how the handover of power in Iraq would go, in light of recent deaths there. He responded that as horrible as the violence by the insurgents is, he would not allow them to deter Iraqi democracy. She asked if our problems in the Middle East should begin with the solving of the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. He responded—despite a fourth interruption by Coleman—that different things can be done at the same time in the Middle East, and not that one had to be “at the top” as Coleman suggested, and that one of these things is Palestinian democracy, which he believes in. He added that these things would require good security measures, and Coleman interrupted a fifth time to add, “And a bit more even-handedness from America?”, thereby revealing her own personal opinions about the U.S., without even bothering to have first established them as either a matter of fact or even public opinion.
Tim Lynch: Bush wasn't stammering, no -- but he clearly had a message he wanted to make sure he gave…
Luigi Novi: Everything he said appeared to pertain to the questions she asked.
Tim Lynch: …and was royally pissed when put off-track by a "rude" insistence on Ms. Coleman's part of actually daring to follow up a question.
Luigi Novi: No, she was not merely asking follow-up questions, she was interrupting him when he was in the middle of answering one of her previous ones. Follow-up questions are fine. You ask them when the subject is done with the primary one.
Tim Lynch: The number of times he said "let me finish" was just beyond belief. (She typically did not cut him off mid-sentence, but rather jumped in when he'd finished a sentence.)
Luigi Novi: He said “let me finish” because that’s exactly what she wasn’t letting him do. And she did not jump in when he’d “finished” a sentence. She interrupted him FIVE TIMES when he was in the middle of one.
Tim Lynch: I didn't hear him answering her questions "directly and reasonably" in the slightest. I heard a man who did not like being questioned.
Luigi Novi: He appeared quite calm and composed to me, despite Coleman’s rudeness.
Ack! I really miss the preview feature. It appears that I not only neglected to finish the first paragraph, which would've ended with "...interrupting a subject constantly, or allowing your own opinions of the subject to drift into the questions." It also appears that when I said reporters should do "all of these things," I should've indicated that submitting questions in advance is not one of them. There are also some spelling and grammar errors in the rest of the post. Sorry, Tim.
Luigi,
Rather than continuing our exchange into an ever-escalating snowball of replies and counterreplies, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Obviously, you're so in favor of Kopel's points that you insist on sticking to them, even when you agree they don't make sense; it's obvious that no amount of reasoning I can put forth will dissuade you of that. I can merely reiterate that Kopel engages in the same "deceit" that he accuses Moore of doing -- that is, he infers a particular viewpoint out of whole cloth, then knocks it down and blames Moore for putting in up... even though Moore didn't. The list is so embarassingly flimsy that it's no surprise its reach is limited to the internet; any mainstream media outlet that tried to pass Kopel's list as "proof" that Fahrenheit 9/11 is "full of lies" would be shredded by logicians and impartial analyists in short order.
But hey, it's a free country (so far), and you're welcome to believe him if you want. Just don't nurture the idea that Kopel's list is an undisputed grand-slam, because it isn't.
_________________
JW in Iowa:
"If the foundational FACTS Moore claims are untrue, how it that nitpicking it to death?"
It's "nitpicking" when the naysayers are inferring claims which weren't made in the movie, and then trying to crucify Moore on those false points.
As an example...
"As others have said, Moore makes a number of clearly deliberate implications with the facts (such as with the congressman on the cell phone or showing a clip of Gore thanking Florida BEFORE the election was actually called by the media). It is not nitpicking to say he was wrong in his implications."
Once again, I disagree that Moore makes these implications -- you may infer them, but the movie doesn't imply them. The Florida celebration, for instance, simply shows a group of supporters cavorting under the fireworks -- Gore never thanked anyone for winning Florida (as you inferred), and Moore never said in his voice-over when those events were taking place. The clip merely showed a group of Gore supporters celebrating an anticipated win; everything else is from your own imagination.
Similarly, the congressman on a cell phone struck me as simply a humorous clip, the idea that these well-dressed lawmakers were scurrying away from a scruffy-looking bearded guy with a baseball cap. The audience I saw the movie with simply laughed at the sight; how Dave Kopel inferred that Moore was (somehow) lying about the man's family is something I can't even begin to fathom.
If the critics are going to accuse Fahrenheit 9/11 of being "full of lies," then point out actual errors in the objective, non-opinionated, non-inferred portions of the film. Why did Bush insist on invading Iraq when the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Why did the Congressional report on 9/11 blot out sixteen pages pertaining to Saudi Arabia? Why hasn't the "war on terror" involved the Saudis at all, especially when the Saudi Royal Family still prevents Americans from talking to the families of the hijackers? Why did members of the Bush Administration keep talking about Iraq's WMD menace when they were saying two years earlier that Iraq posed no threat? Why are American lives still being endangered in Iraq, especially since the WMD bogeyman has turned out to be completely false?
These are the inconvenient facts brought up by Fahrenheit 9/11, and not a single critic has managed to refute them or answer them in a satisfactory manner. But instead of addressing the issues head-on, the RAM keep fluttering on the edges, hoping to make enough noise with their false accusations to distract the populace from the uncomfortable truth.
Posted by Robert Jung at July 20, 2004 01:54 AM
It's "nitpicking" when the naysayers are inferring claims which weren't made in the movie, and then trying to crucify Moore on those false points.
I have to disagree with you, Robert. If a documentary maker is any good, people won't infer things that weren't implied. Plenty of people have criticized this movie based on what you would apparently consider false points. I agree that at this point, pretty much everyone on this board has staked out where they stand on the movie, and on Moore himself(the two are not unrelated issues. Facts are only as reliable as their source.) So I am not trying to convert you with this post.
If Moore is half the filmmaker his defenders say he is, than I don't think that this many people would find this many flaws, and all of the flaws are misinterpretations.
There are pages and pages of newsprint and webspace devoted to analyzing every 30 second campaign ad. I don't think that jacking up the length of the ad 200 fold and charging 8 bucks to see it means that the ad should be looked at any less critically.
Robert Jung: Luigi, Rather than continuing our exchange into an ever-escalating snowball of replies and counterreplies, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Luigi Novi: And with this, you are effectively retreating from the substance of the debate. You could very easily refute my statements if you’d just give your side of them, particularly the ones that have not reached the “agree to disagree” threshold. I can understand if you feel the bit with Michael Castle was intended purely as humor, since it appears you will not be convinced by my reasoning, but there are several other things in my post that I most certainly did refute, and you could’ve conceded those, but chose not to.
-I made clear that I disagreed with the “idyllic utopia” Straw Man promoted by Kopel and Christopher Hitchens. You responded by accusing me of subscribing to it, as if this were somehow an argument of Moore’s that I was disagreeing with. I even provided links to other boards and websites in which I also make it clear I don’t buy this argument. How you managed this, I don’t know, but even if it were initially a mistake on your part, you could at least show some modicum of honor, and admit this here. You have chosen not to.
-I have raised the question of whether Bush’s “vacations” were work vacations, or pleasure vacations, since this is crucial to the accusation that he took too much vacation time in the first year of his presidency. Let me make clear that I don’t claim to know which they were. I am merely saying that I want to know, and would appreciate it if someone—like yourself—could shed some light on it. You have ignored this point.
-You asserted that Prince Bandar is the only ambassador to rate a full-time Secret Service detail. I quoted the Service’s own website, which states that embassy detail is most certainly within their sphere of duties, despite the assertion by the agent in the movie. I asked for clarification by you if you meant that other embassies don’t get Service protection, or if you just meant that the Saudi one is the only one to get it full-time. You have not answered this question.
-You subscribed to the assertion that Hussein never threatened Americans. I provided several examples in which he did. No answer?
-When you asked about the relevance of Moore’s allegedly lying about growing up in poor, minority-populated Flint, when he is actually (according to what I’ve read) from white, middle-class Davison, I responded that he may have been trying to associate himself with the poor and downtrodden. You responded with the Straw Man argument that rich men like him can most certainly advocate for the poor, when I never said anything aboutadvocacy, but on trying to falsely portray yourself as one of them. I clarified this point. No answer?
-Regarding Michael Castle’s lack of kids, you argued that Moore can’t know the family status of every Congressman. I responded that he could find out after the fact, and edit the film according to whether those subjects he confronted fit his thesis. You also indicated that if someone on a cell phone doesn’t stop for a complete stranger on the street, that that person may not be “wholly innocent.” I pointed out that this statement implies that he was “guilty” of something, which is false. You claimed Castle was “running away,” another attempt by you to mischaracterize him as guilty of something. I responded that he did no such thing. Your response? Nothing.
-You claimed it was unfair for people to call Moore a liar for “nailing the truth.” I pointed out the silliness of this statement, since those who call him a liar do so because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that he has not nailed the truth—ie.: that he has lied. Why would anyone call someone a liar for telling the truth?
-I listed eleven other items from Kopel’s page that I appeared to have merit. I did this because I want to hear your refutation of them, so that I may revise my own view of them—should your refutations be valid. You have responded by ignoring me.
-I asked you about the Hezbollah connection, since I want to know if there’s any truth to it. I don’t want to believe it, and if I’m biased, then I’m biased in Moore’s favor, not Kopel’s, since I don’t want to believe that Moore, of whom I am a fan, is capable of what he’s accused of here. Your reference to this accusation seemed like it might have been a dismissal of it, so I just wanted you to point me to info that would refute it. Your response? Nothing.
-You asked why no one is talking about Moore’s War Room notes page. I pointed out that much of the material on that page deals with things like Bush’s cousin being in charge of the decision desk at FOX on election night, Bush sleeping on French linens the night before 9/11, his failed management of Arbusto, the Carlyle Group’s manufacture of weapons, etc., which critics of the movie don’t challenge. You ignored this point.
Robert Jung: Obviously, you're so in favor of Kopel's points that you insist on sticking to them, even when you agree they don't make sense…
Luigi Novi: Again you deliberately distort what I said. I never “insisted on sticking to them even when agreeing that they don’t make sense.” If this is not a blatant and deliberate lie on your part, then please show me where I said that I subscribed to Kopel’s ideas even when saying that they “don’t make sense.” What I did do was draw a clear distinction between the arguments by Kopel that appear to be solid and backed by reference, and the ones that I believed were not. In this way, I was clearly not embracing everything Kopel said as gospel, much as you do with Moore. I essentially said that “well, these arguments appear to be good ones, but I’d like to hear your side of them, but these other ones over here, I don’t agree with.” You blatantly distorted this to mean that I was somehow conceding that even the ones that appeared to have merit made no sense, when it is clear to anyone who reads my posts that I was saying that some did, and some did not. Why conceding that I disagree with some of Kopel’s conclusions means that all the others make no sense, I don’t know.
Robert Jung: …it's obvious that no amount of reasoning I can put forth will dissuade you of that.
Luigi Novi: How would you know, given that you haven’t offered any? I flat-out ASKED you for your arguments with regard to many of Kopel’s claims and you’ve responded by refusing to do so. Anyone who reads the posts above can see that I provide reasoning for my arguments, and that after challenging you to refute them, you fail to do so. I’ve also made clear that my positions on many of these points are provisional, and that they are subject to change in light of more accurate information, and that I’m not 100% with either Moore or his critics. You have continually responded by accusing me of embracing Kopel’s material in an absolute manner. So who’s refusing to allow any amount of reasoning to dissuade them?
Robert Jung: But hey, it's a free country (so far), and you're welcome to believe him if you want. Just don't nurture the idea that Kopel's list is an undisputed grand-slam, because it isn't.
Luigi Novi: What part of “I don’t agree with everything Kopel says, any more than what Moore says, and think the truth is somewhere in between them” are you having trouble comprehending? Have I not made this point clear enough? Or are you just selectively illiterate?
Here are some quotes by me on this and the previous board that show that I do not subscribe to an absolute position with either Moore or Kopel:
From the Fahrenheit 9/11 board:
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/001761.html
July 14, 2004 06:17 PM
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
Notice how I use the conditional “if” when referring to the accuracy of the material. Not a definite assertion that it is. Notice also that I say that most of it “appears” to be well-reasoned and backed by reference.” In other words, it looks legit, but I could be wrong, and since Kopel, like everyone else, probably has his own political biases, his material should be subject to as much review and scrutiny as Moore’s, and perhaps you or others could provide a different version of some of his assertions.
If you can tell me where Dave Kopel’s information is incorrect, please let me know
Here I’m flat-out asking you for resources that refute his material, because I actually want to read it.
(In response to Starving Writer repeating the “pre-war Iraq was an idyllic utopia” Straw Man…)
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.
(I then subsequently posted the EXACT quote from Entertainment Weekly that you later did on this board, Robert.)
On this board:
July 17, 2004 02:23 AM
Mind you, Kopel’s page isn’t perfect. I don’t agree with Kopel’s conclusions on all of them. Regarding the matter of the Special Protection for the Saudi Embassy (Deceit 25), while Moore should’ve double-checked that, it wasn’t a “deceit,” since he simply took the Secret Service agent’s word. His conclusion about the matter of the Oregon Troopers (between Deceits 39 & 40) is not a deceit, but rather his personal opinion over responsibility for the troopers. I disagree with the “idyllic utopia” Straw Man regarding the images of pre-war Iraq (Deceit 45), Invasion of Iraq (Deceits 46-47). However, these are the exception, and if the bulk of the material on the site is accurate, it is a pretty damning indictment of both the film in particular and Moore in general, none of which is refuted by the material on Moore’s site.
Again, I phrased this in the tentative, using the word “if.”
First, I’m not an anti-Moore apologist. I’m actually a fan of Moore, and I shook his hand when I met him a couple of years ago. I simply no longer accept his material as gospel, but approach it skeptically, in part because people have pointed out flaws in his movies, which he has failed to sufficiently refute. I bring up Kopel’s site because the material there appears to be well-argued, and backed by reference. I don’t buy all of it, but much of it, perhaps most of it, appears solid, and I simply would like discussion of its points, especially since Moore refuses to answer his critics.
Again… “appears” to be well-argued. This appearance may be genuine, or it may not be. I can only conclude it is not if someone provides contradictory material of a more credible nature.
July 18, 2004 04:01 AM
If there is a website somewhere that refutes the material therein, I’d like to read it. My opinion of Kopel’s arguments is provisional, and in light of counterarguments that refute it, I’m more than willing to revise it.
Luigi Novi: Self-explanatory.
What I do believe is a false argument regarding Moore’s relationship to the poor is when his critics constantly harp about how he’s a rich man with a million-dollar home in Michigan and a million-dollar apartment in New York City, which is utterly irrelevant. Moore, to my knowledge, is not poor, and never said he was. I imagine that he was before he became a famous movie and TV producer, but then isn’t it the whole point of the American dream to make it big? It is when his critics trot out his wealth that I would respond as you did, Robert, that a rich person has every right to advocate for the poor, and that pointing out his wealth the way his critics do is a fallacy.
Also self-explanatory. This is a common criticism lobbed at Moore, and I think it’s bunk. Why would I defend Moore on this point if I were, as you put it, an “anti-Moore apologist,” fell for all of Kopel’s material “hook, line, and sinker,” or thought it was a “undisputed grand slam,” a term that carries the connotation of perfection?
And I believe I have acknowledged that there is merit in some of his material, and that the truth lies somewhere in between him and his critics. I also stated in my July 15, 2004 2:24 PM post that I dislike people on both sides of the political spectrum who are not truthful with their arguments, not just Moore.
Luigi Novi: Self-explanatory.
(After you admonished me to approach Kopel’s material with “half the skepticism as I did Moore’s…)
I read it with the same amount of skepticism. Doesn’t the fact that I don’t buy all of it and am willing to criticize Kopel for his own less-than-perfect material pretty much indicate that I approached it with same modicum of objectivity with which I approach Moore’s?
Your response? Nothing.
So spare me your obviously biased attacks upon me about skepticism, “grand slams” and “hooks, lines, and sinkers.” The only way you can accuse me of being biased in Kopel’s favor is by deliberately ignoring the substance my posts (which you also do to avoid responding to them directly), and what you accuse me of with Kopel is what you yourself are obviously guilty of with respect to Moore.
Robert Jung: It's "nitpicking" when the naysayers are inferring claims which weren't made in the movie, and then trying to crucify Moore on those false points.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s not what nitpicking means. Nitpicking refers to finding fault with trivial details. What you are describing now are Straw Man arguments, which have nothing to do with nitpicking.
Robert Jung: Similarly, the congressman on a cell phone struck me as simply a humorous clip, the idea that these well-dressed lawmakers were scurrying away from a scruffy-looking bearded guy with a baseball cap. The audience I saw the movie with simply laughed at the sight; how Dave Kopel inferred that Moore was (somehow) lying about the man's family is something I can't even begin to fathom.
Luigi Novi: Then you either must not have a very good imagination, or else you have again deliberately ignored my explanation from above of how this could happen. I’ll say it again: Moore wanted to confront Congressmen to get them to sign their kids up for the war. The audience knows that this isn’t live; Moore can and will edit the film to fit his thesis. Naturally, when they see some of them ignoring him, it is not unreasonable for the audience to understand that these Congressmen were evading him, perhaps because they didn’t want to come off as hypocritical for not signing their own kids up. If one of his subjects didn’t have kids, there’d be no relevance in including footage of the confrontation with him. Now let’s talk about distributing material that may contain untrue information: The legal standard for libel (and no, I’m not accusing Moore of it), if I understand it correctly (correct me if I’m wrong) is that the material in question must be of such a nature that it is reasonable to conclude that a viewer would conclude a false impression from it—in this case, the notion that Castle has kids and doesn’t want to sign them up. Now you say you saw this scene as funny, and believe it was intended purely as such, and that you didn’t assume Castle was a hypocritical father evading Moore, right? But are you saying that you cannot conceive of other viewers—perhaps a significant percentage of them—understanding from this scene that he was? Are you saying this scene, as shot and edited into the film, does not possess the ability to convey that idea at all? I asked you this above, and you did not answer.
Robert Jung: If the critics are going to accuse Fahrenheit 9/11 of being "full of lies," then point out actual errors in the objective, non-opinionated, non-inferred portions of the film.
Luigi Novi: And if one does, then what? Will you actually respond to them? Or will you simply dismiss them, as you have done here? There’s a dozen or so items from Kopel’s site that I summed up in brief paragraphs above. Could you please explain to us why they don’t hold water?
Robert Jung: Why did Bush insist on invading Iraq when the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Why did the Congressional report on 9/11 blot out sixteen pages pertaining to Saudi Arabia? Why hasn't the "war on terror" involved the Saudis at all, especially when the Saudi Royal Family still prevents Americans from talking to the families of the hijackers? Why did members of the Bush Administration keep talking about Iraq's WMD menace when they were saying two years earlier that Iraq posed no threat? Why are American lives still being endangered in Iraq, especially since the WMD bogeyman has turned out to be completely false?
Luigi Novi: I agree that these are the more solid aspects of the film, and I’m in full agreement with you on them.
Luigi Novi: And with this, you are effectively retreating from the substance of the debate.
No, it's called "not having sixteen hours of free time in a day to write 8,000 word replies." Some of us apparently are less busy than others.
As I said, I have no interest in escalating this exchange, especially when I can barely get time to write a meaningful response at all. I'll just point out that the simple fact that you and I (or Dave Kopel and I) have different interpretations of various scenes in Fahrenheit 9/11 is proof that those are matters of opinion and inference, and not facts -- and for Kopel to try to brand these as "deceits" shows how flimsy his list is.
You continue to be evasive. In the first place, the fact that SOME of the issues in the film are matters of interpretation and opinion does not mean that ALL of them are. Many are matters of empirical fact, not opinion. In the second, I flat-out ASKED you for your interpretation of some of the items on Kopel’s page that seemed fairly solid. By merely responding that “oh, these things are a matter of interpretation,” you are arguing a point that no one here is disputing, and are retreating from the simple act of answering my questions about these interpretations of yours. Telling me why even just a small sample of those items I listed do not lead to Kopel’s conclusions about them would not require “16 hours” or “8,000” words. But more fundamentally, you reveal much about your ability and your character as a debater when you deliberately and knowingly distort my position as a fair seeker of information from both sides into a blind apologist for Kopel. I have established my credentials on this and other boards for acknowledging the tentative nature of knowledge and opinions, for listening to both sides of an issue, and for soliciting arguments contrary to my own. By repeatedly accusing me of embracing Kopel’s position in an absolute, uncritical manner, while doing this yourself with Moore, and by refusing to acknowledge this when I point out the proof of it to you, you reveal yourself as a willful liar, an intellectually bankrupt hypocrite, and an abject coward.
All of which goes to show...Don't Argue With Luigi Unless You Seriously Have Your Shit Together.
Nice job, bro.