I finally caught up with Michael Moore’s…you know, I’m not sure that “documentary” is the right word since Moore’s bias is so clear. Maybe “fucumentary” might be more appropriate.
It’s a staggering piece of work. Even with the understanding that Moore is out to get Bush, nevertheless the most dámņìņg moments come from simple facts: The refusal of a single Senator to join with the Black caucus in protesting the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida; the entanglement of Bush family business interests with bin Laden and Saudi Arabia business interests; the contradictory statements of Bush’s own people (their assurances in early 2000 that Saddam is not a threat as opposed to their later proclamations that he is); the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush’s face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten; the children in Iraq post bombing, with arms blown off, legs blown off…a little boy screaming as medics desperately try to sew pieces of his face together. An elderly Iraqi woman screaming that God has foresaken them, that her house and all her neighbor’s houses were destroyed, that she’s been to five funerals in the previous week.
Everyone of voting age should see this film.
PAD
• 
Tim says:
“Thus, to say that “MoveOn hosted ads comparing Bush to Hitler” is entirely wrong. Those ads appeared briefly on their site in order to let the membership judge them as part of the contest rules. MoveOn did not sponsor them, pay for them, or support them.”
No, they did not sponsor them. Or pay for them. Or support them.
They did, however, host them.
Which is what StarvingWriter said, and which you, oddly, claim to be an unfounded accusation.
Perhaps there is some confusion here. When you have a video on your website that people can view, isn’t that called “hosting” it? That’s the proper use of the word as I understand it and if I’m wrong, let me know so I don’t go repeating the error.
I think to use the term “host” implies that one supports the video’s claims, not only its right to be viewed and judged.
I don’t know of a one-word term for “aired but didn’t sponsor”, since the MoveOn contest is the only situation I can think of where it would be relevant.
I also think that for someone who is generally scathing about Clinton’s definition of “is”, you are taking a gigantically lawyerly approach here. StarvingWriter’s meaning was clear, and I rebutted the statement on that basis. Could we not wade into the muck of parsing individual words this go-round, please?
TWL
Hehe..
And life during the Saddam regime REALLY was idllyic! Children played with kites! Mothers beamed with pride! Happy, happy, joy, joy.
At least until those American bombs dropped and blew up the place, yeah. Was ousting Saddam worth it?
Then you’re gassed, put into a meat grinder, or just simply killed.
Sorry, bub, the “Saddam threw people into grinders” story appears to be so much fabrication. No one has been able to find the Christian minister who allegedly first reported that atrocity. Saddam was a bastich, but he wasn’t that weird.
At least we’re giving the Iraqi citizens *freedom.* Something that they never had under Saddam.
That would be laudable, if that was the reason we were given for the war to begin with. Yet, for some reason, when Colin Powell did his little dog-and-bûllšhìŧ show at the UN, he kept talking about WMDs and mobile weapons labs and secret missile bases — none of which, we now know, actually existed beyond Chalibi’s imagination.
Repressed Iraqis? A good excuse when those WMDs didn’t show up, but certainly not the first reason given by the Bush White House.
But Saddam’s gone, so everything’s hunky-dory, right? Tell that to the Iraqis:
…here in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, nothing is normal for any family in any neighborhood. For the well off and well educated, the past year has been a shocking plunge into the abyss. The rules of civil society have broken down just as badly as the country’s power grid. Assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, suicide bombing, carjacking and street battles are now commonplace. Baghdadis live in permanent fear, locked for safety behind high walls and guarded gates in dreary isolation. Young girls don’t go out, and even wives accompanied by their husbands rarely venture more than a few blocks. Inside the barricaded residences, life is a mix of boredom and burden as families cope with the aggravations caused by sporadic electricity, backed-up sewage and water that might come on only at 1 a.m. … “We have freedom and democracy, and we’re worse off.”
–“Living With the Fear,” Time magazine, 7/19/2004
Posted by: Robert Jung at July 14, 2004 02:22 AM
And life during the Saddam regime REALLY was idllyic! Children played with kites! Mothers beamed with pride! Happy, happy, joy, joy.
At least until those American bombs dropped and blew up the place, yeah. Was ousting Saddam worth it?
Yes I believe it was, if the best defense you can muster about the man follows.
Then you’re gassed, put into a meat grinder, or just simply killed.
Sorry, bub, the “Saddam threw people into grinders” story appears to be so much fabrication. No one has been able to find the Christian minister who allegedly first reported that atrocity. Saddam was a bastich, but he wasn’t that weird.
I’m guessing he won’t look for you on his Dream Team. I can just picture your opening remarks. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client gassed people, he shot people, he buried them in mass graves. But he did not grind them up and eat them. At least he’s not Idi Amin, right?”
At least we’re giving the Iraqi citizens *freedom.* Something that they never had under Saddam.
That would be laudable, if that was the reason we were given for the war to begin with. Yet, for some reason, when Colin Powell did his little dog-and-bûllšhìŧ show at the UN, he kept talking about WMDs and mobile weapons labs and secret missile bases — none of which, we now know, actually existed beyond Chalibi’s imagination.
Repressed Iraqis? A good excuse when those WMDs didn’t show up, but certainly not the first reason given by the Bush White House.
I can’t argue about the lack of WMDs thus far. But even if you want to take it as a given that Bush took us to war for the wrong reasons, That doesn’t invalidate the right reasons. There were legitimate concerns about WMDs, there were repressed Iraqis, it could help stability in the region if we can turn Iraq into a democracy, and you can make a good argument about the potential for cheaper oil. Disagreeing with one or more of those reasons doesn’t mean you can’t agree with the rest.
But Saddam’s gone, so everything’s hunky-dory, right? Tell that to the Iraqis:
…here in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, nothing is normal for any family in any neighborhood. For the well off and well educated, the past year has been a shocking plunge into the abyss. The rules of civil society have broken down just as badly as the country’s power grid. Assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, suicide bombing, carjacking and street battles are now commonplace. Baghdadis live in permanent fear, locked for safety behind high walls and guarded gates in dreary isolation. Young girls don’t go out, and even wives accompanied by their husbands rarely venture more than a few blocks. Inside the barricaded residences, life is a mix of boredom and burden as families cope with the aggravations caused by sporadic electricity, backed-up sewage and water that might come on only at 1 a.m. … “We have freedom and democracy, and we’re worse off.”
–“Living With the Fear,” Time magazine, 7/19/2004
The beginnings of freedom are rarely pretty. The countries that were freed from the Soviet bloc had it pretty rough after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I doubt they would have wanted things back the way they were.
Heck, at the birth of our own nation, if the prevailing wisdom had been, “We have freedom and democracy, and we’re worse off,” do you know what that would mean? I’ll tell you. Right now we’d all be speaking English, that’s what!
…Wait a second. That line works better when the subject is WWII, doesn’t it? Well, you know what I mean.
You’re not the only one “dámņ surprised”. I can’t figure it out, myself, unless we have way overestimated these folks (or way underestimated how effective the counter terrorism has been).
The problem here, and a problem with Bush in general, is timing.
A year ago, bin Laden wasn’t that important. Now he is, and I don’t think it’s coincidence since we’re coming up on the election.
I mean, I think it’s sickening that, almost 3 years after 9/11, only NOW are they considering putting a plan in place should we have a Worst Case Scenario for the election.
What the hëll have these guys been doing for the last 3 years?
Oh yeah, blowing up Iraq and Afghanistan. Nice.
And this while the only thing important to the GOP in Congress is to make sure we get gay marriage banned.
Their priorities are just as screwed up as Bush’s.
“I mean, I think it’s sickening that, almost 3 years after 9/11, only NOW are they considering putting a plan in place should we have a Worst Case Scenario for the election.”
I agree…but look at the results of the consideration–widespread condemnation and easy fodder for late night comedians. There will be no plan and while one can blame the administration with some validity it seems to be the public that doesn’t want to even consider the possibilities. I hope this will not prove to be a mistake.
(and if the worst happens prepare for some Michael Moore type revisionism…something like “When terrorism experts warned that our precious elections might be disrupted, the Bush team refused to consider any delay in the elections.” (Cut to satellite feed of Ðìçk Cheney picking his nose)
Tim,
I certainly don’t want to put myself in the position of being compared to Bill Clinton but I still have to think that based on what I’m used to reading, “host” was the proper term. In Internet speak it does not mean inviting over for coffee and croissants.
But ok, so “MoveOn AIRED ads comparing Bush to Hitler”. Is the Bûllšhìŧ Meter remaining quiet? Or does one have to give them every benefit of the doubt to pass muster: “MoveOn aired but did not sponsor, pay for, approve, or even really know about ads comparing Bush to Hitler, which would be unfair although it is certainly understandable given the divisive nature of the current administration where any criticism is considered unpatriotic even though THEY are the ones who sent us into an illegal war over oil to take attention away from the disenfranchisement of black voters in the Florida recount.”
(Rassenfrassen browser went down while I was writing this, so this version of my response may be a bit more fragmented.)
Bill,
I certainly don’t want to put myself in the position of being compared to Bill Clinton but I still have to think that based on what I’m used to reading, “host” was the proper term. In Internet speak it does not mean inviting over for coffee and croissants.
As I said before, the problem is that there really is no one-word phrase that works out of context here. Yes, if you provide the full context of the event the term “host” works just fine. If you simply use the one-sentence “it hosted blahblabblah”, as StarvingWriter did, it gives a misleading impression. (And no, “aired” isn’t any better — if anything, it implies they bought TV time for it and thus is worse.)
I’m sure this isn’t going to be an acceptable answer, but how about “a MoveOn member created an ad which compared…”? That would be correct, would only take an extra couple of words, and would (properly) make it clear that it was one person’s idea rather than the organization’s as a whole.
(Not that this has stopped Bush-Cheney ’04 from using the HItler footage in an ad interspersed with clips from Gore and, I believe, Kerry.)
TWL
“I will assume you were misinformed rather than consciously choosing to perpetuate this unfounded accusation. “
I wouldn’t make that assumption were I you, Tim. See, FYI, “Starving Writer” is the crap-filled slimeball who took such a personal dislike to me that he wrote a lie-filled letter to the National Organization for the Deaf, lying and distorting the contents of several issues of “Young Justice” (the ones featuring a young girl who was an Olympic archer but was 90% deaf). He said I wrote it to make deaf people look foolish and inferior to the clearly Aryan character of Arrowette (thus implying I had Nazi sympathies.) He boasted about having done so on line, openly admitting it was lies, and proud of it. He did it explicitly to try and get me bad publicity and hopefully fired off the book.
I had a feeling he’d slither his way over to this website sooner or later. Hopefully he’ll slime his way back out. Either way, I’d waste no more time with him were I you. I certainly have no intention of doing so.
PAD
Bill (and others),
The “fodder for late-night comedians” effect of this election consideration has at least as much to do with the manner in which this was done as with the idea itself.
As has already been pointed out on this thread but apparently ignored, if they’d gone to the Congressional leadership (of BOTH parties) and said, “you know, we should have a plan in place for election day in the event of a worst-case scenario” and then publicly announced that a bipartisan panel was looking into this … well, okay, the comedians might still have had fun with it, but not nearly as much and not in a way which resonated with the public as much.
Instead, we had the news get out (a) via a late-night leak to Newsweek, (b) involving only administration officials (and thus not at all bipartisan), and (c) done so hamhandedly that even Condi Rice had to say “I don’t know where this is coming from” in a nationally televised interview.
Christ, is it the slightest wonder people are reacting badly to this?
I think the public will be perfectly willing to consider the possibilities — if they’re examined in what’s perceived to be a fair way. This is failing the smell test on so many levels that I’m frankly surprised anyone’s trying to defend its execution. (The principle, yes, and I think we’ve hashed that out already.)
TWL
Thanks for the heads-up, PAD. Noted for future reference.
TWL
Tim,
Well, I used the word “aired” because you were the one who suggested it.
“how about “a MoveOn member created an ad which compared…”?”
That’s fairly worthless since the critique was aimed at Moveon for hosting the video. What a “member” does, good or bad is irrelevant. If a member of the Republican party invents a cure for canker sores it will have little relevance to the organization, good or bad. If the RNC hosts a flash animation video showing John Kerry having sex with a pig and/or Whoopie Goldberg, it would be deserving of considerable criticism and would no doubt get it.
But if what PAD says is accurate, we’ve given this “gentleman” too much attention already. Pah! We will speak no more of him.
It would be nice if we could agree on standards of honesty for judging statements, so that we could apply the same standards to people we agree with and people we disagree with.
Bill, it sounds as if you are saying you are comfortable with a statement (would consider it essentially honest) providing it is literally true, even if it gives a misleading impression.
While it may be literally true that MoveOn temporarily hosted an ad that was submitted as a contest entry (and removed the ad after receiving complaints that brought the submission to their attention), the statement that they hosted ads, plural, gives the (false) impression they did this knowingly, intentionally, and as a matter of policy.
Personally, I would consider that a misleading and deceptive way of putting it, and think Tim’s revisions are more in line with what I’d want to say if I were trying to honestly describe the situation. But let’s set that aside. If that is the standard you would prefer for honesty, than can you give me any examples from Moore’s F 9/11 that do not meet this low standard?
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but from the discussions of it I’ve listened to it sounds as if the examples of “dishonesty” on Moore’s part are of the same ilk as MoveOn hosted ads comparing Bush to Hitler.
Similarly, the Bush administration still maintains there were “connections” between Hussein and Al Quaida. Many people got the impression from hearing these assertions from 2001 to 2003 (leading up to the war) that the administration was saying Hussein and Bin Laden had been working together on terror projects against the US (which turns out not to be true). The administration this year has been defending these assertions, saying they worded their statements very carefully and never actually said Hussein and Bin Laden were in cahoots, and that if people got that misimpression its not the administration’s fault.
I consider that deceptive. If you disagree with that assessment, are you willing to hold Moore to the same low standard? My understanding is that Moore asserts in the movie there were connections between Bush and Bin Laden. Just as it is true there were connections between Hussein and Bin Laden (although not necessarily significant ones indicating any sinister collaboration) so it is undeniably true there were connections between Bush and Bin Laden (although not necessarily significant ones indicating any sinister collaboration). Why should we not be concerned about the misimpressions people might get from the one but not concerned by the misimpressions people might get from the other?
Personally, I’d prefer to hold both sides to a higher standard. We don’t need to call what Bush and Moore appear to be doing when they word things carefully but misleadingly, but we should find some label other than honest to give to such behavior and we should apply that judgment evenhandedly.
Oops. That should be “Why should we be concerned…”, not “Why should we not be concerned…”, in the next-to-last paragraph.
Is there anyone who has managed to make Preview work yet? If so, advice on how to do it would be appreciated.
I will assume you were misinformed rather than consciously choosing to perpetuate this unfounded accusation.
Funny, I thought the bûllšhìŧ alarm was colored red. Or brown. Ah well. In any case, I picked the word “hosted” for a reason. And no, it’s not misleading.
“But it was a contest,” you say. “The ads weren’t created by the webmasters of MoveOn.org. Only the people who visit MoveOn.org. Besides, they pulled those ads down immediately after the initial uproar.”
Fair enough, and had that been it I would’ve not even made a point of it.
However …
Druge Report found out that MoveOn.org didn’t remove those ads from their website. Rather, they merely renamed it and moved it to another part of their site.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7mo.htm
(Note: When I went over there to check and see if the ad was still there, the link took me to a 404 page. Either the MoveOn.org folks renamed or moved it around again, or the link never existed in the first place and Druge Report was lying. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which is which.)
So no, I wasn’t “misinformed.” Unless, of course, you consider reading the Druge Report to be misinformation, in which case we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
But that doesn’t change my original point, which is that George Soros, the main financer behind MoveOn.org and an extremely left-leaning individual, also invests in the same investment firm that the Bush family and the bin Laden family use. According to Michael Moore’s twisted logic, that would mean that Satos is also a part of this vast “conspiracy” with Bush and bin Laden. I think we all know how outlandish that is.
While it may be literally true that MoveOn temporarily hosted an ad that was submitted as a contest entry (and removed the ad after receiving complaints that brought the submission to their attention), the statement that they hosted ads, plural, gives the (false) impression they did this knowingly, intentionally, and as a matter of policy.
There were at least two ads that compared Bush to Hitler that were a part of this contest that I’m aware of.
But to be fair, I’m only aware of one ad that MoveOn.org has continued to host on their site (at least until July 12, 2004). I don’t know if MoveOn.org also continue to host the other ad on their site somewhere.
In any case, hosting the ad, with “renamed.again.renamed.mov” as a part of the name, for up to six months after it was claimed to be taken down, certainly seems like the MoveOn.org webmasters did this “knowingly, intentionally, and as a matter of policy.”
Nova Land,
Good comments.
If moveon.org did as you say than they deserve less criticism. I’m surprised that they were unaware of the video’s contents and one must wonder why they would open themselves up to so much potential trouble–what if someone posted hardcore child pørņ? (lest you think this unlikely–I’ve twice had the thrill of renting a normal video and discovering some dope has splices xxx scenes into the middle. That’s the last time I rent The Black Hole, lemme tell you).
I thought that the ad was considered a legitimate entry and removed only when it didn
Luigi Novi: For anyone who believes the material in Fahrenheit 9/11 was accurate (or hëll, for those who think it inaccurate), this is a must-read: “>http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Robert Jung: Have you actually read that list? It’s an embarassing collection of straw men and misguided conclusions for the most partt, and calling it the best attempt to discredit Moore is a laughable embarassment.
Luigi Novi: Yes, I have the list, and while I disagree with at least four of the items in which Kopel resorts to reasoning that I find dishonest (the matter of the Special Protection for Saudi Embassy [Deceit 25], the matter of the Oregon Troopers [not numbered; between Deceits 39 & 40], the aforementioned images of pre-war Iraq pDeceit 45], and Invasion of Iraq [Deceits 46-47]), the rest of it appears to be well-reasoned and backed by reference. If the bulk of it is accurate, then it paints a pretty dámņìņg picture of Moore, much as the analyses of the falsehoods in Bowling for Columbine, as detailed
If you can tell me where Dave Kopel
Irrelevant. The point of showing the horrors of war is not to imply that life under Saddam is idyllic, which a ridiculous Straw Man
I’d agree. But it’s a straw man that Moore himself sets up by portraying life in Iraq pre-war as being idllyic, with children playing kites and smiling, giddy, happy Baghdadis.
It’s a straw man that Moore sets up, and pretty easy to knock down.
The point is that the American people have the right to make informed conclusions and decisions about where and when they want their government to intervene overseas, which they can
Luigi Novi: Irrelevant. The point of showing the horrors of war is not to imply that life under Saddam is idyllic, which a ridiculous Straw Man
Thus, he did not set up an Straw Man. Even if you feel that he was attempting to argue that pre-war Iraq was deliberate, there are two points against this: 1. That which you interpret as Moore
Personally, I would consider that a misleading and deceptive way of putting it, and think Tim’s revisions are more in line with what I’d want to say if I were trying to honestly describe the situation. But let’s set that aside. If that is the standard you would prefer for honesty, than can you give me any examples from Moore’s F 9/11 that do not meet this low standard?
I’ve noticed some silence on this subject. So out of curosity, does the fact that Drudge Report found out that MoveOn.org was hiding at least one “Bush-is-Hilter!” ad on their website for six months after they claimed to have taken it down change your opinion on my original statement?
Just curious.
StarvingWriter posted:
“What about the disenfranchisement of those voters in the Central Time Zone in Florida. That’s an area that’s heavily Republican. And the announcement that Gore had “won” — before the polls had closed — very likely stopped those citizens from casting their votes for Bush.”
You make a wild assumption which isn’t even based on reasonable supposition. Florida law allows for polls in the state to be open from 7am to 8pm ET (which would equate to 6am to 7pm CT); during the 2002 election, due to some polling places (in the Eastern time zone) failing to be open by 7am, Gov Bush was urged to extend polling times by 2 hours (which meant polling places in the Central Time zone closed at 9pm, local time). The first announcements that Florida was declared for Gore didn’t come until 7:49pm ET, a mere 11 minutes before polling places closed. To the best of my knowledge, people who hadn’t intended to vote by that time were hardly likely to vote, nor were they likely to have enough time to get to a polling place (most state laws allow for anyone who is in line when poll hours end are still permitted to vote, but whoever is designated as the senior official in charge of the polling facility has the authority to close the polling place to someone who’s running towards the building but hasn’t actually entered the facility).
At any rate, Bush carried every one of Florida’s 10 counties in the Central time zone–the closest vote was in Calhoun County where Bush prevailed by just over 700 votes while the Panhandle’s largest counties were lopsided victories for Bush: Escambia County (where Pensacola is) Bush received 73171 to Gore’s 40990; Okaloosa County (home of Eglin AFB) went 52186 for Bush compared to 16989 for Gore; in Bay County (Panama City area), Bush 38682, Gore 18873; and in Santa Rosa County (next to Escambia) was 36339 for Bush, but only 12818 for Gore. Overall, the Panhandle went for Bush 238136 to 111712, so it’s incredibly unlikely that any Bush supporters were so disheartened by the call that “Florida goes to Gore” would have made any difference. It really would stand to reason that if those CTZ voters still had until 8pm CT (a full hour AFTER the initial call “for Gore”), then the only “disenfranchisement” would have been of their own making (i.e., they didn’t bother to make time to get their guy in).
That’s an unavoidable part of war.
I’m sure the relatives of the dead civilians are pleased by that.
Although, in this case, war was avoidable.
It really would stand to reason that if those CTZ voters still had until 8pm CT (a full hour AFTER the initial call “for Gore”), then the only “disenfranchisement” would have been of their own making (i.e., they didn’t bother to make time to get their guy in).
There’s been reports of people driving to the polling place, finding out that Gore had “won,” then turning back and heading home figuring that it was all over anyway.
Are you telling me that in a race as tight as Florida was, 11 minutes didn’t mean anything? If so, then a few people being turned back at roadblocks didn’t mean anything either.
As for the disenfranchisement being of their own doing, then using your own logic, those people who were unjustly removed from the voting rolls were also disenfranchisemented by their own doing, since they had plently of time to appeal the decision and get reinstated on the rolls but didn’t.
Either you ignore all the screw-ups, whether it affects Democrats or Republicans, and say “that sucks, but that’s how it is,” then in which case Bush won. Or you have to take in all the screw-ups into account, realize that they affected Democrats *and* Republicans, and admit that had everything went well, it could’ve went either way and there’s no way of knowing. You can’t just say “Democrats lost votes, therefore Gore should’ve won Florida!” while ignoring that Republicans lost votes as well.
Although, in this case, war was avoidable.
Oh, absolutely. All Saddam had to do was surrender, and there would’ve been no war.
Starving Writer: Fair enough. Moore might’ve intended to simply put “a human face” on Baghdad. But when you’re talking about the same person who compared the terrorists “insurgents” in Iraqi to Minutemen, called them revolutionaries, and then proclaimed that they will win. Then later on in the same speech, he very nearly goes to the point of praying that more American soldiers will die just to teach Americans a lesson
Luigi Novi: [Michael Moore] flat-out said that he didn
Oh, absolutely. All Saddam had to do was surrender, and there would’ve been no war.
Last I checked, we were under no requirement to invade Iraq.
Unless you think that Bush really is some sort of Prophet or Pope.
Starving Writer: Well. Is it really so impossible to feel that perhaps Moore really does think that Iraq, pre-war, was a peaceful, idllyic place?
Luigi Novi: He flat-out said that he didn
Sorry to say but the evidence seems to keep adding up aginst Moore ability to tell the truth.
See link
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MOORE_NEWSPAPER?SITE=ILBLO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT