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
• 
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 hëll 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 hëll 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 hëll 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 hëll 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. Hëll, 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 hëll 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
It’s the hypocricy, stupid
Here’s another good analysis of Farhenheit 9/11 and what it all means, this time from Peter David, well-known writer of stuff: For almost the entirety of the 1990s, the RAM (Republican Attack Machine) spewed lies the way Old Faithful blasts
“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 hëll 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 ášš 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 hëll 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 ášš 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 hëll. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hëll.” 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
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
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
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.
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/803/.
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.
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 ášš-kìššërš, 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 pìššëd 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 ášš-kìššërš, 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
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
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
All of which goes to show…Don’t Argue With Luigi Unless You Seriously Have Your Shìŧ Together.
Nice job, bro.
No, Luigi, I haven’t forgotten you (though getting time to log in here and post is still a hassle — TypeKey bites the big one). Here’s a link for your reading pleasure:
http://www.opednews.com/wade_071004_deception.htm